@Fabio - What is it exactly that you are still upset about? If it's because I asked you to please read the problem again before answering, then please accept my sincere apology. I'll try not to be so abusive towards you in the future.
On Aug 28, 1:49 pm, Fábio M. Costa <[email protected]> wrote: > If you have the references for the node you want to adopt it will be almost > the same thing as set/get html. > > @atwork8, just testing, is "Please, shut the fuck up" rude for you? > > -- > Fábio Miranda Costa > Solucione Sistemas > Front-End Engineerhttp://meiocodigo.com > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 6:07 PM, atwork8 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > If I came across as being rude it wasn't intended, apologies. I felt I > > was clear on what the problem was and even provided my current > > solution. The first answer I received seemed to ignore this and > > provide a solution that was exactly the opposite of what I had asked, > > hence I asked Fabio to read the problem again (and used the word > > "Please"). > > > In the simple scenario of wrapping an element's html, are there any > > performance gains using adopt over get/set html? > > > Cheers > > > On Aug 27, 9:33 pm, nwhite <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > One would ask the question "Why don’t you just output the wrapper div > > in > > > > your html?" > > > > Sometimes you don't have full control over the html generation. > > > > @atwork8 I thought your tone was a bit rude especially when your asking > > for > > > help. A bit of diplomacy will get you farther. > > > > I would use adopt since it will take multiple elements. > > > > new Element('div',{'id : > > > 'wrapper'}).adopt($(document.body).getChildren()).inject(document.body); > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: ksamdev [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > Sent: Friday, 28 August 2009 1:00 AM > > > > To: MooTools Users > > > > Subject: [Moo] Re: wrap element's html > > > > > @atwork8 > > > > > No benefits. The result would be the same except that work is done > > > > with DOM objects directly if you do things the way I proposed which I > > > > find very clear and always tend to work with. It is simply conceptual > > > > difference. Anyway, I guess at the end browser will rearrange DOM tree > > > > and do the job in background putting all children into new DIV. > > > > Besides, I guess, it will have to parse new HTML of document.body that > > > > would take some time. Thus, presumably, It is faster to work with DOM > > > > Tree. > > > > > On Aug 27, 7:36 am, atwork8 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > @ksamdev - what are the benefits of doing it that way over what I had > > > > > originally posted? > > > > > > var elBody = $(document.body); > > > > > elBody.set('html', '<div id="wrapper">' + elBody.get('html') + '</ > > > > > div>'); > > > > > > On Aug 27, 1:27 pm, ksamdev <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > ok. I see your point. Then do something like: > > > > > > > var _div = new Element( 'div'); > > > > > > var _body = $( document.body); > > > > > > _body.getChildren().each( function( _item) { _div.grab( _item); }); > > > > > > _body.adopt( _div); > > > > > > > On Aug 27, 7:22 am, atwork8 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > @ksamdev - Could you please read the problem. The results are > > > > > > > completely different. The solution I've provided generates this: > > > > > > > > <body><div id="wrapper">body's html</div></body> > > > > > > > > Fabio's generates: > > > > > > > > <div id="wrapper"><body>body's html</body></div>
