John,
I believe there is an error, probably you meant:
$.fn.inDOM = document.documentElement.contains ?
function() {
var el = this[0], root = el.ownerDocument.documentElement;
return root !== el && root.contains(el);
} :
function() {
var el = this[0];
return !!
(el.ownerDocument.documentElement.compareDocumentPosition(el) & 16);
};
or if you prefer in the declaration "var el = this[0].ownerDocument".
As I already said, the native methods are the fastest, no doubt, but
the standalone version is still to be considered alone or combined.
However, I believe we should test the following minor implications if
deemed important:
- all target browser implementing one of the two native methods ?
- all target browser having an "element.ownerDocument" ?
And for the function name I see "isOrphan/isOrphanNode" more adequate
since if we can do:
var node = document.createElement("div");
that node seems to me is already in the DOM, explicitly the one
attached to "document" through the "ownerDocument" DOM property, the
fact is that the node is not yet attached to the rendered tree, thus a
node without a parent ancestor, that may be a simple element a
DOMFragment or even a new Image() instance.
I further suggest to split this and implement "contains" or such in
jQuery on the track of what you wrote about this on your blog and move
the conditional there so this will simply remain:
function() {
var el = this[0], root = el.ownerDocument.documentElement;
return root !== el && root.contains(el);
}
no branches there. They will be in the generic "contains" method (very
useful...). In that method you could add the parent traversal as fall
back.
In this way you add more functionalities to jQuery use the fastest in
this OP and keep the code size down to the minimum still covering
cross-browser 100%.
--
Diego
On 2 Dic, 17:25, "John Resig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not just tweak this implementation to be relative? That way you
> still get performance but also allow it to work across frames, etc.
>
> $.fn.inDOM = document.documentElement.contains ?
> function() {
> var el = this[0], doc = el.documentElement;
> return doc !== el && doc.contains(el);
> } :
> function() {
> var el = this[0];
> return !!(el.documentElement.compareDocumentPosition(el) & 16);
> };
>
> --John
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'd just save it as a local var
>
> > var html = document.documentElement;
> > $.fn.inDOM = html.contains ?
> > function() {
> > var el = this[0];
> > return html != el && $.html.contains(el);
> > } :
> > function() {
> > var el = this[0];
> > return !!(html.compareDocumentPosition(el) & 16);
> > };
>
> > Does this work reliably on any browser ?
> > Note that his doesn't work for any document that is not THE document.
>
> > I think a simple traversal (going up) would do. I'm sorry to spoil all
> > the researching but no one said this function will be used everywhere
> > and it needs to be as fast as possible. First it most be effective,
> > then efficient.
>
> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Diogo Baeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Thanks!
>
> >> Guys, the last proposal gave me about 140ms ~ 150ms within 1000 method
> >> calls, but here's something that gave me about 80ms ~ 90ms:
>
> >> $.htmlEl = $('html').get(0);
> >> $.fn.inDOM = $.htmlEl.contains ?
> >> function() {
> >> var el = this[0];
> >> return $.htmlEl != el && $.htmlEl.contains(el);
> >> } :
> >> function() {
> >> var el = this[0];
> >> return !!($.htmlEl.compareDocumentPosition(el) & 16);
> >> };
>
> >> What do you think of it? A little bit more of coding, but considerably
> >> faster... despite someone would rarely make so much calls to this method, I
> >> think...
>
> >> Diogo
>
> >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Diego Perini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Diogo,
>
> >>> On 1 Dic, 21:56, "Diogo Baeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> > Thank you, guys... I tried the last method as implemented/adapted by
> >>> > Diego,
> >>> > and it works! :-)
>
> >>> > Unfortunately, neither "contains" nor "compareDocumentPosition" are
> >>> > being
> >>> > recognized as methods for the "document" node in IE6 or 7, as you can
> >>> > test
> >>> > yourselves:
>
> >>> > alert(document.contains);
> >>> > alert(window.contains);
> >>> > alert(document.compareDocumentPosition);
> >>> > alert(window.compareDocumentPosition);
>
> >>> > Any ideas why these didn't work for me?
>
> >>> The Microsoft "contains" method does not exists for the document
> >>> object (at least in the docs). Maybe because it is not an element
> >>> (nodeType == 1).
>
> >>> Firefox and Opera implement the "compareDocumentPosition" method, also
> >>> they made it a method of the "document" itself.
>
> >>> Opera implements both "compareDocumentPosition" and "contains", Safari
> >>> only has "contains" again not on the "document".
>
> >>> The conclusion is that the implementations of "compareDocumentPosition
> >>> ()" and "contains()" disagree on this specific fact.
>
> >>> At this point, given the messed up implementations, better being
> >>> independent from them both and go for the traversal.
>
> >>> It is also much shorter and really cross-browser...
>
> >>> --
> >>> Diego
>
> >>> > Diogo
>
> >>> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Diego Perini
> >>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> >>> > > ricardo,
>
> >>> > > On 1 Dic, 05:35, ricardobeat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> > > > I always miss the obvious stuff :)
>
> >>> > > > I ended up with this, it's a lot faster than Diogo's code but still
> >>> > > > requires you to traverse the document all the way up. John Resig's
> >>> > > > 'contains' function is at least twice faster in FF though, so it
> >>> > > > seems
> >>> > > > like the perfect solution.
>
> >>> > > > $.fn.inDOM = function(){
> >>> > > > var el = this[0];
> >>> > > > while (el.parentNode) el = el.parentNode;
> >>> > > > return el == this[0].ownerDocument;
>
> >>> > > > };
>
> >>> > > To make it less dependent:
>
> >>> > > $.fn.inDOM = function(){
> >>> > > var el = this[0];
> >>> > > while (el.parentNode) el = el.parentNode;
> >>> > > return el.nodeType == 9;
> >>> > > };
>
> >>> > > now you can also pass elements present in other DOM contexts.
>
> >>> > > Don't know if this modifies the intended usage, this will most
> >>> > > generally tell if the element is an orphan (not attached to any
> >>> > > document).
>
> >>> > > To account for both usages, it will be necessary to pass context
> >>> > > information (an extra parameter to specify the desired context).
>
> >>> > > --
> >>> > > Diego
>
> >>> > > > - ricardo
>
> >>> > > > On 30 nov, 19:43, "Ariel Flesler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>> > > > > Yeah, parentNode is not good enough.
>
> >>> > > > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 4:35 PM, ricardobeat
> >>> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> > > wrote:
>
> >>> > > > > > Hi,
>
> >>> > > > > > It seems the ownerDocument is set for the created element even
> >>> > > > > > if
> >>> > > it's
> >>> > > > > > not in the DOM, it's the document where jQuery was loaded in. A
> >>> > > simple
> >>> > > > > > check for parentNode or offsetParent would do:
>
> >>> > > > > > $.fn.inDOM = function(){
> >>> > > > > > return !!this.parentNode; //boolean
> >>> > > > > > });
>
> >>> > > > > > parentNode returns faster for elements in the DOM, while
> >>> > > > > > offsetParent
> >>> > > > > > returns faster for elements not in the DOM (in FF3 at least).
>
> >>> > > > > > Hope I'm not missing anything. It surely would need a better
> >>> > > > > > name :]
>
> >>> > > > > > cheers,
> >>> > > > > > - ricardo
> >>> > > > > > On 29 nov, 14:46, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> > > > > >> 'body' should be replaced by 'html'.
>
> >>> > > > > >> Maybe we can make it faster by consulting expandos like
> >>> > > > > >> ownerDocument ?
>
> >>> > > > > >> --
> >>> > > > > >> Ariel Fleslerhttp://flesler.blogspot.com
>
> >>> > > > > >> On Nov 27, 12:52 am, diogobaeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>> > > > > >> > Hi there,
>
> >>> > > > > >> > I'm new here (and in jQuery), but even though I'd like to
> >>> > > > > >> > propose
> >>> > > some
> >>> > > > > >> > simple but usefull method to the jQuery object (at core.js)
> >>> > > > > >> > to
> >>> > > tell
> >>> > > > > >> > the API user if an element exists in the document. I've tried
> >>> > > > > >> > to
> >>> > > build
> >>> > > > > >> > one as follows:
>
> >>> > > > > >> > [CODE]
> >>> > > > > >> > (function($) {
>
> >>> > > > > >> > $.fn.inDOM = function() {
> >>> > > > > >> > return !!this.parents('body').length;
> >>> > > > > >> > };
>
> >>> > > > > >> > })(jQuery);
>
> >>> > > > > >> > jQuery(document).ready(function(){
> >>> > > > > >> > var jEl = $('.someExistingClass');
>
> >>> > > > > >> > // Should be in DOM
> >>> > > > > >> > console.debug(jEl.inDOM());
>
> >>> > > > > >> > // Removing the element
> >>> > > > > >> > jEl.remove();
>
> >>> > > > > >> > // Should NOT be in DOM
> >>> > > > > >> > console.debug(jEl.inDOM());});
>
> >>> > > > > >> > [/CODE]
>
> >>> > > > > >> > So, if the client sets a variable as a jQuery object, and at
> >>> > > > > >> > some
> >>> > > > > >> > point of the code the DOM element within it can be removed,
> >>> > > > > >> > he/she
> >>> > > can
> >>> > > > > >> > test if it really was. OK, I know it sounds unsignificant,
> >>> > > > > >> > but I
> >>> > > think
> >>> > > > > >> > it would still be usefull.
>
> >>> > > > > >> > Thanks!
>
> >>> > > > > >> > Diogo Baeder
>
> >>> > > > > --
> >>> > > > > Ariel Fleslerhttp://flesler.blogspot.com
>
> >>> > --
> >>> > Diogo Baederhttp://www.diogobaeder.com.br
>
> >> --
> >> Diogo Baeder
> >>http://www.diogobaeder.com.br
>
> > --
> > Ariel Flesler
> >http://flesler.blogspot.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
