I had this kind of problem some time ago..
I had a table that was generated by javascript showing values that
were added to the database from all users. So when the administrator
needed to get the full table it took years to load.
This kind of thing is generally only text data, with no "script" tags
that needed to be evaluated (this consumes a lot if time on
Prototype.Element.update method).
Check if you can change some if your update codes to innerHTML's,
probably lots of them will don't need to be evaluated ass javascript
scripts.
In the case you are adding Object Elements try element.wrap
('span').innerHTML this still intends to be faster than update()
(again for not evaluating script tags).
EMoreth
On 19 nov, 09:33, kangax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> polydor wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > I want to make a huge table using Prototype. my script has 2900 calls
> > to Element.update. These calls lasts 4 seconds, which is a lot. This
> > is mainly taken up by the regular expressions in the function, to
> > identify scripts inside the body I want to insert in the node. By
> > just removing these script-related code out of the update-function, I
> > have a huge performance boost.
>
> > I don't want to customize my local prototype.js file, but want to
> > override the function. I tried something like this:
>
> > Element.Methods.update = function(element, content) {
> > element = $(element);
> > if (content && content.toElement) content = content.toElement();
> > if (Object.isElement(content)) return element.update().insert
> > (content);
> > content = Object.toHTML(content);
> > element.innerHTML = content;
> > // element.innerHTML = content.stripScripts();
> > // content.evalScripts.bind(content).defer();
> > return element;
> > };
>
> > This didn't change my method.
>
> > Adding a new method
> > Element.Methods.simpleUpdate = function(element, content) {
> > ...
> > or
> > Object.extend(Element, {
> > simpleUpdate: function(element, content) {
> > ...
>
> > doesn't work either.
>
> > How can I get it work, or is there an alternative in which I don't
> > have to use the update-function, besides updating it by changing the
> > innerHTML property myself.
>
> Is there a reason you wish to use `update` over just assigning to
> `innerHTML` directly? I would suggest to go with the latter one, but
> if you must:
>
> Element.addMethods({
> update: function(){ ... }
>
> });
>
> P.S. Also, don't forget that Element#update (among others) is
> redefined for IE later during initialization time.
>
> --
> kangax- Ocultar texto entre aspas -
>
> - Mostrar texto entre aspas -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prototype & script.aculo.us" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
