Hi,

> Did you use "prototype DOM" (x=new Element('P',{...});...) or "plain
> old vanilla DOM" (x=document.createElement('P');...) ?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I _did_ post the code.

I was using the Prototype DOM wrappers, but they're not the big speed
issue.  Here's a version with all three.  Prototype's DOM wrappers are
slightly slower than going direct (as you would expect), but the
direct method is still roughly 10x slower than using innerHTML.
http://pastie.org/391676
--
T.J. Crowder
tj / crowder software / com
Independent Software Engineer, consulting services available


On Feb 17, 2:04 pm, Eric <lefauv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi T.J.
>
> On Jan 19, 12:31 pm, "T.J. Crowder" <t...@crowdersoftware.com> wrote:
>
> > > On my machine, the DOM version takes at least 10 times longer than the
> > > HTML version.
>
> Did you use "prototype DOM" (x=new Element('P',{...});...) or "plain
> old vanilla DOM" (x=document.createElement('P');...) ?
>
> I was thinking to revert to vanilla DOM for performances issues but I
> may revert to build some HTML string if it is that fast :o)
> (Isn't it what scritaculous's Builder is doing internally?)
>
> Eric
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to