I don't understand why you are writing code like this in a developer
group... some ongoing competition.
It is not clear if you have trade secrets or just don't want others to
see the errors in it. ;-)
Do you want to talk about them and discuss them or is this a way of
just posting a snippet, for this we have javascript.com and at list
they are well commented.
Diego
On 20 Nov, 12:50, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> @Shade, just to inform you I have removed the named function expression
> reusing a variable:
> (function(s,o,l,v,e,d){if(s[o]==null&&s[l+e]){s[o]="loading";s[l+e](d,l=function(){s[o]="complete";s[v+e](d,l,!1)},!1)}})(document,"readyState","add","remove","EventListener","DOMContentLoaded")
>
> Regards
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Shade <get...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here's my minified version... it's *slightly* larger at 209 characters
> > (vs 195), but it works, and bonus, it doesn't use a memory-leaky named-
> > function-expression:
>
> > (function(a,b,c,d){if(a[b]==null&&a[c]){a[c](d,function()
> > {a.removeEventListener(d,arguments.callee,false);a[b]
> > ="complete"},false);a[b]="loading"}})
> > (document,"readyState","addEventListener","DOMContentLoaded");
>
> > Thanks for the inspiration, though, Andrea!
>
> > --Kyle
>
> > On Nov 18, 5:55 pm, Shade <get...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ummm... ammendment: The complete snippet works:
>
> > > if(document.readyState == null && document.addEventListener){
> > > // on DOMContentLoaded event, supported since ages
> > > document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function
> > > DOMContentLoaded(){
> > > // remove the listener itself
> > > document.removeEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",
> > > DOMContentLoaded, false);
> > > // assign readyState as complete
> > > document.readyState = "complete";
> > > }, false);
> > > // set readyState = loading or interactive
> > > // it does not really matter for this purpose
> > > document.readyState = "loading";
>
> > > }
>
> > > But, the minified/re-arranged snippet (the 195 chars) Andrea provided
> > > does not work. Do you own minification and you'll be fine, just don't
> > > use what he posted.
>
> > > --Kyle
>
> > > On Nov 18, 5:44 pm, Shade <get...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I have confirmed in this test:
>
> > > >http://test.getify.com/archive/dynloadjquery/index6.html
>
> > > > ...that Andrea's proposed snippet does in fact "patch a page" to have
> > > > a proper readyState, assuming of course the snippet itself is
> > > > guaranteed to run before domready. The test includes it in a manual
> > > > script tag at the bottom of the page, and then you can click a button
> > > > to dynamically load jquery into the page, then click the other button
> > > > to see if jquery's internal ready flag is set properly or not.
>
> > > > I used a patched version of jQuery 1.3.2 (1.3.2.1 I called it) which
> > > > only has the changes to the bindReady() function as they appear in
> > > > GitHub right now (namely, the additional check for the
> > > > document.readyState which John landed as a result of that previous bug
> > > > I linked to earlier in this thread).
>
> > > > I tested this just now in both FF3 and 3.5 (both windows), and it
> > > > works fine.
>
> > > > That means, that at least for now, even though patching jquery itself
> > > > doesn't do much or help anything with the problem of being able to
> > > > lazy-load jquery core, which my biggest concern/use-case, you can
> > > > still "patch" a page to be able to lazy-load jquery. That's definitely
> > > > an improvement.
>
> > > > It also means that any code that relies on jquery's test (such as code
> > > > that uses document.ready) is now also safe to lazy load right along
> > > > with jquery core itself, as long as doing so in a "patched" page.
>
> > > > I'm satisfied that this being included in LABjs will allow users to
> > > > adequately load jquery.js on-demand without fear of the isReady checks
> > > > failing later. The only caveat then will be that LABjs has to make
> > > > sure it's there before dom-ready, but for all the use cases I care
> > > > about, it's quite unlikely that people will use some other loading
> > > > technique to lazy-load the Loader itself.
>
> > > > --Kyle
>
> > > > On Nov 18, 5:03 pm, Már Örlygsson <mar.orlygs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Am I right to think that there's a similar problem with the
> > > > > window.onload event?
> > > > > i.e. if you're too late in binding a handler to window.onload, it
> > will
> > > > > never fire?
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Már- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
>
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "jQuery Development" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to jquery-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<jquery-dev%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en.
