Re: [jQuery] Serializing XML
> There is Object.toXML(), can be found here: > http://jquery.com/dev/svn/jquery/build/js/xml.js Not really something > special by jQuery, but should do the job. Well, it is sort of specific to jQuery, because I wrote it ;-) With that being said, I wouldn't trust that code any more than I could throw it. It works for us, using the server-side Rhino code, doesn't generate any errors - but I wouldn't recommend using it in any other case (at least not yet). If you're just doing browser-based XML generation, then the afformentioned XMLSerialize technique should fit nicely. My only recommendation is to name it .toXML() instead of just .xml(). --John ___ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
Re: [jQuery] Serializing XML
It's nice that we agree on so many levels! ! It's even good when we don't! at least we learn about other opinions! -- Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ - יעקב ʝǡǩȩ ᎫᎪᏦᎬ ▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒ ░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░ ▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒ ░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░ ▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒ ___ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
Re: [jQuery] Serializing XML
Hi, > I wasn't claiming that for was any less great than each! I was > complaining about looping a concat vs. doing a join at t the end... Erm, did I discuss that somewhere? You answered to my posting. The concat vs. join stuff was Sam. My point was to take the check for XMLSerializer out of the function by emulating it when it is not yet implemented. That is not only a little bit faster. It is a more general solution which is much more important than the rather marginal speedup. > and other micro effeciencies. I gave up tiny-tuning code when I gave > up assembler. There are situations where you need speed optimizations. Especially with languages like JavaScript, where some interpreters are really slow, it happens as soon as you work with big datasets. I like to spot eventual performance improvements to keep me trained for the cases I need to. > I tell this to all my programmers, You can't compare a little > application code time to the time it takes to do a big IO (or http or > sql...). It all depends on how often you run the loop and how much overhead the "optimization" needs. If the loop costs maybe 10 bytes of JS-code and is run some 1 times the optimization will probably pay. Of course a "optimization" in one function that slows down other stuff so much that the complete system gets slower is no real optimization. > I tend to be opinionated about certain things... I am an XSL guy, I > don't like incrementing! (a for loop works when there is little else!) As I said: "With such a simple function in each() you might also consider to use a normal for-loop." Note "simple function" and "might consider". I think we actually do agree here: for() is OK in such simple cases if performance matters. In more complicated cases each() makes the code better readable. I also think that Sams optimization is OK, if performance matters (i.e. the function is called very often with huge datasets). Christof ___ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
Re: [jQuery] Serializing XML
I wasn't claiming that for was any less great than each! I was complaining about looping a concat vs. doing a join at t the end... and other micro effeciencies. I gave up tiny-tuning code when I gave up assembler. I tell this to all my programmers, You can't compare a little application code time to the time it takes to do a big IO (or http or sql...). I tend to be opinionated about certain things... I am an XSL guy, I don't like incrementing! (a for loop works when there is little else!) On 10/3/06, Christof Donat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > > I like optimized code as much as the next guy... but brevity and > > readability is KEY. the milliseconds that you can save using one > > reasonable technique vs. another are not comparable to the seconds it > > takes for an http request. > > Is this about my suggestion to use for() instead of each()? If not, my code is > not noticably longer than Marks. I also don't think that it is less readable. > > If you are just talking about the for()-each() stuff. Both have their > advantages and their disadvantages. If it is the inner loop of a function you > expect to call often, you may whant to pay the price of less readability and > brevity for the performance of for(). > > > I never liked using XMLSerializer because [...] > > It can be quite usefull with XMLHttpRequests when your protocol is XML-based. > But that was not the question here, was it? > > Christof > > ___ > jQuery mailing list > discuss@jquery.com > http://jquery.com/discuss/ > -- Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ - יעקב ʝǡǩȩ ᎫᎪᏦᎬ ▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒ ░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░ ▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒ ░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░ ▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒ ___ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
Re: [jQuery] Serializing XML
Hi, > I like optimized code as much as the next guy... but brevity and > readability is KEY. the milliseconds that you can save using one > reasonable technique vs. another are not comparable to the seconds it > takes for an http request. Is this about my suggestion to use for() instead of each()? If not, my code is not noticably longer than Marks. I also don't think that it is less readable. If you are just talking about the for()-each() stuff. Both have their advantages and their disadvantages. If it is the inner loop of a function you expect to call often, you may whant to pay the price of less readability and brevity for the performance of for(). > I never liked using XMLSerializer because [...] It can be quite usefull with XMLHttpRequests when your protocol is XML-based. But that was not the question here, was it? Christof ___ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
Re: [jQuery] Serializing XML
I like optimized code as much as the next guy... but brevity and
readability is KEY. the milliseconds that you can save using one
reasonable technique vs. another are not comparable to the seconds it
takes for an http request.
I never liked using XMLSerializer because I can't hit the tags &
attributes as I serialize. Of course if you just want to copy the dom
into a string, it does the job for you pretty well. And the addition
of .xml seems like it will even keep IE happy. I guess we can expect
the next cool browser to implement XMLSerializer, but a final else
might be nice to handle stupid versions of js. Or at least an
alert("stupid browser does not support XMLSerializer").
Jake
On 10/2/06, Christof Donat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > $.fn.serializeXML = function () {
> > var out = '';
> > if (typeof XMLSerializer == 'function') {
> > var xs = new XMLSerializer();
> > this.each(function() {
> > out += xs.serializeToString(this);
> > });
> > } else if (this[0] && this[0].xml != 'undefined') {
> > this.each(function() {
> > out += this.xml;
> > });
> > }
> > return out;
> > };
>
> Maybe this could make the code simpler:
>
> if( typeof XMLSerializer != 'function' ) {
> XMLSerializer = function() {};
> XMLSerializer.prototype.serializeToString = function(elm) {
> return eml.xml;
> }
> }
>
> Then you just need
>
> $.fn.xml = function () {
> var out = '';
> var xs = new XMLSerializer();
> this.each(function() {
> out += xs.serializeToString(this);
> });
> return out;
> };
>
> Advantages:
> 1. Your code checks for XMLSerializer with every call. Mine only once.
> 2. You can add another check to see if there is a .xml-Property. If that is
> not available you can have your own (slower) serializer-function that simply
> traverses the DOM.
> 3. By resembling the XMLSerializer-API (not complete now) you can make third
> party code work that needs XMLSerializer.
>
> BTW.: With such a simple function in each() you might also consider to use a
> normal for-loop:
> for( var i = 0; i < this.length; i++ ) out += xs.serializeToString(this[i]);
>
> That doesn't look so fancy, but it should be faster.
>
> Christof
>
> ___
> jQuery mailing list
> discuss@jquery.com
> http://jquery.com/discuss/
>
--
Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ - יעקב ʝǡǩȩ ᎫᎪᏦᎬ
▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒
░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░
▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒
░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░
▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒
___
jQuery mailing list
discuss@jquery.com
http://jquery.com/discuss/
Re: [jQuery] Serializing XML
Hi,
> $.fn.serializeXML = function () {
> var out = '';
> if (typeof XMLSerializer == 'function') {
> var xs = new XMLSerializer();
> this.each(function() {
> out += xs.serializeToString(this);
> });
> } else if (this[0] && this[0].xml != 'undefined') {
> this.each(function() {
> out += this.xml;
> });
> }
> return out;
> };
Maybe this could make the code simpler:
if( typeof XMLSerializer != 'function' ) {
XMLSerializer = function() {};
XMLSerializer.prototype.serializeToString = function(elm) {
return eml.xml;
}
}
Then you just need
$.fn.xml = function () {
var out = '';
var xs = new XMLSerializer();
this.each(function() {
out += xs.serializeToString(this);
});
return out;
};
Advantages:
1. Your code checks for XMLSerializer with every call. Mine only once.
2. You can add another check to see if there is a .xml-Property. If that is
not available you can have your own (slower) serializer-function that simply
traverses the DOM.
3. By resembling the XMLSerializer-API (not complete now) you can make third
party code work that needs XMLSerializer.
BTW.: With such a simple function in each() you might also consider to use a
normal for-loop:
for( var i = 0; i < this.length; i++ ) out += xs.serializeToString(this[i]);
That doesn't look so fancy, but it should be faster.
Christof
___
jQuery mailing list
discuss@jquery.com
http://jquery.com/discuss/
Re: [jQuery] Serializing XML
On 02/10/06, Mark Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, after some searching around the web, I believe that
> Firefox, Opera, and Safari all implement XMLSerializer,
> whilst IE has an 'xml' property on every node.
> So here's my XML serializer plugin:
>
> $.fn.serializeXML = function () {
> var out = '';
> if (typeof XMLSerializer == 'function') {
> var xs = new XMLSerializer();
> this.each(function() {
> out += xs.serializeToString(this);
> });
> } else if (this[0] && this[0].xml != 'undefined') {
> this.each(function() {
> out += this.xml;
> });
> }
> return out;
> };
>
> It seems to work in FF 1.5.0.7 and IE 6, but needs testing
> in Opera and Safari.
>
> - Mark Gibson
Perhaps it would be better (performance wise) to use an array?
var out = new Array();
...
out.push(xs.serializeToString(this));
...
return out.join("");
___
jQuery mailing list
discuss@jquery.com
http://jquery.com/discuss/
Re: [jQuery] Serializing XML
I can test in Safari and Opera if you'll provide an example/test page. :)
--
Brandon Aaron
On 10/2/06, Mark Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, after some searching around the web, I believe that
> Firefox, Opera, and Safari all implement XMLSerializer,
> whilst IE has an 'xml' property on every node.
> So here's my XML serializer plugin:
>
> $.fn.serializeXML = function () {
> var out = '';
> if (typeof XMLSerializer == 'function') {
> var xs = new XMLSerializer();
> this.each(function() {
> out += xs.serializeToString(this);
> });
> } else if (this[0] && this[0].xml != 'undefined') {
> this.each(function() {
> out += this.xml;
> });
> }
> return out;
> };
>
> It seems to work in FF 1.5.0.7 and IE 6, but needs testing
> in Opera and Safari.
>
> - Mark Gibson
>
> ___
> jQuery mailing list
> discuss@jquery.com
> http://jquery.com/discuss/
>
___
jQuery mailing list
discuss@jquery.com
http://jquery.com/discuss/
Re: [jQuery] Serializing XML
Ok, after some searching around the web, I believe that
Firefox, Opera, and Safari all implement XMLSerializer,
whilst IE has an 'xml' property on every node.
So here's my XML serializer plugin:
$.fn.serializeXML = function () {
var out = '';
if (typeof XMLSerializer == 'function') {
var xs = new XMLSerializer();
this.each(function() {
out += xs.serializeToString(this);
});
} else if (this[0] && this[0].xml != 'undefined') {
this.each(function() {
out += this.xml;
});
}
return out;
};
It seems to work in FF 1.5.0.7 and IE 6, but needs testing
in Opera and Safari.
- Mark Gibson
___
jQuery mailing list
discuss@jquery.com
http://jquery.com/discuss/
Re: [jQuery] Serializing XML
Sam Collett wrote:
> On 02/10/06, Mark Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I've search high and low, but can't find a method of serializing XML
>> with jQuery. Have I missed something, or should I start writing a
>> new plugin? ($.fn.serializeXML)
>>
>> I know that firefox has XMLSerializer(), any ideas for IE, Safari,
>> Opera? Maybe just a hand coded JS serializing routine?
>
> I don't think there is any way of serializing XML in jQuery without
> resorting to a plugin (I don't know of any plugins that can do this).
>
> I think a multi-purpose serializer would be good:
> JS Object <--> XML <--> JSON <--> JS Object
I was specifically thinking of just serializing DOM objects to strings,
anything beyond that requires some kind of mapping.
Here's a simple implementation using the XMLSerialize object:
$.fn.serializeXML = function () {
var out = '';
if (typeof XMLSerializer == 'function') {
var xs = new XMLSerializer();
this.each(function() {
out += xs.serializeToString(this);
});
} else {
// TODO: Find another serializer, or manually serialize
}
return out;
};
This will need to be fleshed out for other browsers.
Does anyone know of native serialization methods in IE, Safari, Opera?
or do any of these support XMLSerialize()?
- Mark Gibson
___
jQuery mailing list
discuss@jquery.com
http://jquery.com/discuss/
Re: [jQuery] Serializing XML
Mark Gibson schrieb: > Hello, > I've search high and low, but can't find a method of serializing XML > with jQuery. Have I missed something, or should I start writing a > new plugin? ($.fn.serializeXML) > > I know that firefox has XMLSerializer(), any ideas for IE, Safari, > Opera? Maybe just a hand coded JS serializing routine? > There is Object.toXML(), can be found here: http://jquery.com/dev/svn/jquery/build/js/xml.js Not really something special by jQuery, but should do the job. -- Jörn ___ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
Re: [jQuery] Serializing XML
On 02/10/06, Mark Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > I've search high and low, but can't find a method of serializing XML > with jQuery. Have I missed something, or should I start writing a > new plugin? ($.fn.serializeXML) > > I know that firefox has XMLSerializer(), any ideas for IE, Safari, > Opera? Maybe just a hand coded JS serializing routine? > > - Mark Gibson I don't think there is any way of serializing XML in jQuery without resorting to a plugin (I don't know of any plugins that can do this). I think a multi-purpose serializer would be good: JS Object <--> XML <--> JSON <--> JS Object ___ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
[jQuery] Serializing XML
Hello, I've search high and low, but can't find a method of serializing XML with jQuery. Have I missed something, or should I start writing a new plugin? ($.fn.serializeXML) I know that firefox has XMLSerializer(), any ideas for IE, Safari, Opera? Maybe just a hand coded JS serializing routine? - Mark Gibson ___ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
