Hi Marius,
Ahh yes I see. That's very different from what I originally
understood. Your implementation makes sense.
Thanks,
Xavi
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 8:43 PM, marius d. <marius.dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I kinda used the term js file a bit too loosely. It is true that each
> page would likely have different functions there and even the same
> page on subsequent load would have different content so the file can
> not really be cached.
>
> I'm thinking that instead of:
>
> <button onclick="liftAjax.lift_ajaxHandler
> ('F1029758482780OTA=true',null, null, null); return false;">Press me</
> button>
>
> We could have:
>
> <button onclick="liftAjax('F1029758482780OTA')">Press me</button>
>
> ...
>
> .. and at the end of the page:
>
> <script type="text/javascript">
>
> function liftAjax(id) {
> liftAjax.lift_ajaxHandler(id + '=true',null, null, null); return
> false;
> }
> ...
>
> </script>
>
> Likely there will be more synthetic functions that would need to be
> generated depending on specific cases. This approach would result in a
> slightly larger markup but I'm not sure if the impact is negligible or
> not. In essence we are replacing a function call with another one more
> concise which helps just in having a more concise function calls in
> the markup.
>
> BUT most likely for functions like liftAjax above we should put them
> in liftAjax.js that lift generates and those would just be helper
> function. This means that the script block above will not be needed
> anymore. Thoughts?
>
> Thanks Xavi for the good points.
>
> Br's,
> Marius
>
> On Sep 13, 7:03 pm, Xavi Ramirez <xavi....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If I understand everything correctly, the proposal is to dynamically
>> create a js file for each page request to add event handlers?
>>
>> If this is true, then I'm against the proposal for the following two reasons:
>>
>> 1. Every page will load slower
>>
>> Since the js file is dynamically create on each request, the js file
>> will be un-cacheable. This means the browser be will forced to make
>> an addition HTTP request to the server to render each page. This adds
>> roughly 150ms to the page load time (50ms to 200ms for network lag,
>> 50ms for download, 10ms for js execution).
>>
>> 2. Each page will be more fragile
>>
>> Requiring the synthetic js file will add another point of failure.
>> Even now-a-days with the ubiquity of broadband, connects still get
>> lost and files still get corrupted.
>>
>> It's true that most modern web pages already depend a number of
>> external JS and CSS files, but typically these files are static and
>> easily cached.
>>
>> Just adding my 2 cents.
>>
>> -Xavi
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 5:41 PM, marius d. <marius.dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I think so too. Does anyone have an opinion against this? I'll
>> > probably have some time this week or next weekend to work on it.
>>
>> > Br's,
>> > Marius
>>
>> > On Sep 13, 2:59 pm, Timothy Perrett <timo...@getintheloop.eu> wrote:
>> >> A synthetic file sounds good to me and would probably be preferable.
>>
>> >> Cheers, Tim
>>
>> >> On 13 Sep 2009, at 20:31, marius d. wrote:
>>
>> >> > That looks a little cleaner but we'll have to look more into it if
>> >> > we'd want to go on this path. Perhaps accumulate those function into
>> >> > synthetic js file .. we'll see
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Lift" group.
To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
