Hmmm, running those tests again, it seems that there is only a slight difference (and very inconsistent). Before, I didn't consider the effects of resolving the global "document" in "document.createElement"...
A really primitive test: http://jsbin.com/irubu Anyway, I'm glad to hear that a templating solution is being considered for the future. (1.5, I guess?) Thanks John. On Jan 4, 1:24 pm, John Resig <jere...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would definitely need to see proof of cloneNode being faster than > createElement before moving forward with something like this > (especially in IE). > > Although, I'm a bit hesitant landing a change like this, wholesale - > mostly because we're looking at better templating solutions for after > 1.4 and this seems hacky, at best. > > --John > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 7:50 AM, James Padolsey > > > > <jamespadol...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > I've been looking into jQuery.fragments and have a couple of > > suggestions. > > > It'd be useful, I think, if jQuery.fragments could be used to store > > basic DOM nodes as well, for example (currently it only stores > > fragments): > > > jQuery.fragments['<div/>'] = document.createElement('div'); > > > ... > > > cachedDiv.cloneNode(false); seems to be faster than > > document.createElement('div'). (I've only tested briefly in Chrome & > > FF) > > > Anyway, currently, jQuery checks for simple HTML like "<div/>" and > > will create an element on the fly, without even checking > > jQuery.fragments for that element. Maybe these single DOM nodes could > > also be cached in jQuery.fragments, but on their own -- not within a > > fragment. > > > Also, checking against jQuery.fragments for simple HTML ("<div/>") > > would open doors for built-in "templating" (minus the interpolation > > and all that jazz). E.g. > > > jQuery.extend(jQuery.fragments, { > > '<containerDiv/>': $('<div class="container">...</div>')[0] // > > or, .parent()[0] to get at fragment... > > }); > > > ... And later on: > > > $('<containerDiv/>') ... > > > Just an idea. > > > I really like the idea of caching HTML, but I think the current > > behaviour could be extended to make it a little more useful. > > > -- > > > 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 > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en. -- 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.
