From riegel at clearimageonline.com  Sat Oct  3 13:36:45 2009
From: riegel at clearimageonline.com (Terry Riegel)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 14:36:45 -0400
Subject: [Javascript]  Hopefully quick question.
Message-ID: <ED3F67E4-DE18-4265-83CC-8EA6F4EE4148@clearimageonline.com>

I have this construct...

<script>
  var obj=$('mydiv');
  obj.onclick=function() {
   alert(obj.id);
  }
  obj=$('myotherdiv');
</script>

Which means when a person clicks on obj the code in that function will  
fire, which will alert the LAST value of obj.

I want to pass that function the value of obj at the time it is set up.

I understand how this code works now, what I don't understand is how I  
would make it work the other way.

Any ideas?


Terry

From david at dorward.me.uk  Sat Oct  3 14:03:58 2009
From: david at dorward.me.uk (David Dorward)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 20:03:58 +0100
Subject: [Javascript] Hopefully quick question.
In-Reply-To: <ED3F67E4-DE18-4265-83CC-8EA6F4EE4148@clearimageonline.com>
References: <ED3F67E4-DE18-4265-83CC-8EA6F4EE4148@clearimageonline.com>
Message-ID: <145CC312-FAE1-4EC7-A33A-18B046012467@dorward.me.uk>

On 3 Oct 2009, at 19:36, Terry Riegel wrote:

> I have this construct...
>
> <script>
>  var obj=$('mydiv');
>  obj.onclick=function() {
>   alert(obj.id);

> I want to pass that function the value of obj at the time it is set  
> up.


Possible, but this is easier:

  obj.onclick=function() {
   alert(this.id);

-- 
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk



From trojani2000 at hotmail.com  Sun Oct  4 12:50:07 2009
From: trojani2000 at hotmail.com (Troy III Ajnej)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 17:50:07 +0000
Subject: [Javascript] Hopefully quick question.
In-Reply-To: <145CC312-FAE1-4EC7-A33A-18B046012467@dorward.me.uk>
References: <ED3F67E4-DE18-4265-83CC-8EA6F4EE4148@clearimageonline.com>
Message-ID: <BAY135-W429877F7612F8D208A836A8D00@phx.gbl>


Yeah, this one was quick and brief too!

:')

 

I wonder though:

-Why do people use things like: 

var Obj = $('mydiv'); now?

 

I mean - instead of the "beloved": 

document.getElementById('mydiv');

 

Regards.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                      Troy III
                         progressive art enterprise
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
> From: david at dorward.me.uk
> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 20:03:58 +0100
> To: javascript at lists.evolt.org
> Subject: Re: [Javascript] Hopefully quick question.
> 
> On 3 Oct 2009, at 19:36, Terry Riegel wrote:
> 
> > I have this construct...
> >
> > <script>
> > var obj=$('mydiv');
> > obj.onclick=function() {
> > alert(obj.id);
> 
> > I want to pass that function the value of obj at the time it is set 
> > up.
> 
> 
> Possible, but this is easier:
> 
> obj.onclick=function() {
> alert(this.id);
> 
> -- 
> David Dorward
> http://dorward.me.uk
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Javascript mailing list
> Javascript at lists.evolt.org
> http://lists.evolt.org/mailman/listinfo/javascript

 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/

From hassan at webtuitive.com  Sun Oct  4 13:26:51 2009
From: hassan at webtuitive.com (Hassan Schroeder)
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 11:26:51 -0700
Subject: [Javascript] Hopefully quick question.
In-Reply-To: <BAY135-W429877F7612F8D208A836A8D00@phx.gbl>
References: <ED3F67E4-DE18-4265-83CC-8EA6F4EE4148@clearimageonline.com>
	<BAY135-W429877F7612F8D208A836A8D00@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4AC8E8EB.5020908@webtuitive.com>

Troy III Ajnej wrote:

> -Why do people use things like: 
> 
> var Obj = $('mydiv'); now?

Convenience shortcuts like that are part of libraries like JQuery,
Prototype, etc.

-- 
Hassan Schroeder ----------------------------- hassan at webtuitive.com
webtuitive design ===  (+1) 408-621-3445   === http://webtuitive.com
twitter: @hassan
                           dream.  code.


From trojani2000 at hotmail.com  Sun Oct  4 19:03:33 2009
From: trojani2000 at hotmail.com (Troy III Ajnej)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 00:03:33 +0000
Subject: [Javascript] Hopefully quick question.
In-Reply-To: <4AC8E8EB.5020908@webtuitive.com>
References: <ED3F67E4-DE18-4265-83CC-8EA6F4EE4148@clearimageonline.com>
	<BAY135-W429877F7612F8D208A836A8D00@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <BAY135-W15684BCDE683F81C3AE77FA8CF0@phx.gbl>


Yeah, that's what I meant.

Not counting but, there's been 8 years or so, that I've been listening
to all kinds of morons yelling STANDARDS; W3C; "how it shoould be"
"document.getElementById('ID') - IS BETTER" etc etc etc...

I mean, why is there, all of a sudden, this sort of need for coding 
convenience when there was a beautifully nice, clean, simple and
ultra-convenient  mydiv call and super-widely supported also; 
Just like super-convenient innerHTML is, and has been for little over
a decade or so?

Why didn't people, for their own coding convenience's sake stick to it 
as they did with innerHTML so that W3C bandits would finally get forced
to accept it as they did with the previous?

Why are people wasting time on learning how to use javascript 
skinners like these, considering other people scripting habits as their
scripting knowledge, and atop of it forcing clients to download up to 
200KB for a crap like that, instead of learning to code for real. That is:
javascripting?!!
That I don't know.
(Although I have nothing against true coders using them)

Regards
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                      Troy III
                         progressive art enterprise
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 



 
> Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 11:26:51 -0700
> From: hassan at webtuitive.com
> To: javascript at lists.evolt.org
> Subject: Re: [Javascript] Hopefully quick question.
> 
> Troy III Ajnej wrote:
> 
> > -Why do people use things like: 
> > 
> > var Obj = $('mydiv'); now?
> 
> Convenience shortcuts like that are part of libraries like JQuery,
> Prototype, etc.
> 
> -- 
> Hassan Schroeder ----------------------------- hassan at webtuitive.com
> webtuitive design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com
> twitter: @hassan
> dream. code.
> _______________________________________________
> Javascript mailing list
> Javascript at lists.evolt.org
> http://lists.evolt.org/mailman/listinfo/javascript
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/

From riegel at clearimageonline.com  Sun Oct  4 20:45:31 2009
From: riegel at clearimageonline.com (Terry Riegel)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 21:45:31 -0400
Subject: [Javascript] Hopefully quick question.
Message-ID: <0475102D-508F-495A-A335-2B18E2F47412@clearimageonline.com>

Grrrrr. I was hoping for an answer. But instead I got a question. I  
used a convience function in my question. But I think Hassan knew that.

So instead of an answer to my question I get a question.

document.getElementById might have suited Hassan better? Of course  
that assumes document exists so I can become just as pedantic.

At the end of the day I am still scratching my head with regards to my  
question while the old codgers muse about how the kids don't know  
anything about JavaScript because they are using training wheels.

Sorry but I am a little grouchy today. I am thankful for this list and  
the great things I have learned from it over the years.

Terry

http://p8ste.com

On Oct 4, 2009, at 2:26 PM, Hassan Schroeder <hassan at webtuitive.com>  
wrote:

> Troy III Ajnej wrote:
>
>> -Why do people use things like:
>>
>> var Obj = $('mydiv'); now?
>
> Convenience shortcuts like that are part of libraries like JQuery,
> Prototype, etc.
>
> -- 
> Hassan Schroeder ----------------------------- hassan at webtuitive.com
> webtuitive design ===  (+1) 408-621-3445   === http://webtuitive.com
> twitter: @hassan
>                          dream.  code.
> _______________________________________________
> Javascript mailing list
> Javascript at lists.evolt.org
> http://lists.evolt.org/mailman/listinfo/javascript



From dwayne.conyers at hp.com  Sun Oct  4 20:57:58 2009
From: dwayne.conyers at hp.com (Conyers, Dwayne)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 01:57:58 +0000
Subject: [Javascript] Hopefully quick question.
In-Reply-To: <BAY135-W429877F7612F8D208A836A8D00@phx.gbl>
References: <ED3F67E4-DE18-4265-83CC-8EA6F4EE4148@clearimageonline.com>
	<BAY135-W429877F7612F8D208A836A8D00@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <769907F0D19EFA45BD6F04FC6E896D6D2203183CD4@GVW0538EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Troy III Ajnej ink wired:

> I wonder though:
>
> -Why do people use things like: 
>
> var Obj = $('mydiv'); now?
>
> I mean - instead of the "beloved": 
>
> document.getElementById('mydiv');


I can understand enforcing standards in regards to CSS, but when it comes to writing code a programmer will rely on what works for him/her -- especially when they have a library they prefer.

Just my 2?.


-- 
The generation that took acid to escape reality is now taking antacid to deal with reality
http://blog.dwacon.com
http://www.twitter.com/dwacon








From hassan at webtuitive.com  Sun Oct  4 21:19:46 2009
From: hassan at webtuitive.com (Hassan Schroeder)
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 19:19:46 -0700
Subject: [Javascript] Hopefully quick question.
In-Reply-To: <0475102D-508F-495A-A335-2B18E2F47412@clearimageonline.com>
References: <0475102D-508F-495A-A335-2B18E2F47412@clearimageonline.com>
Message-ID: <4AC957C2.1040904@webtuitive.com>

Terry Riegel wrote:
> Grrrrr. I was hoping for an answer. But instead I got a question. I  
> used a convience function in my question. But I think Hassan knew that.

No, I was replying to Troy's question -- it had nothing to do with
your original question, since there was none of that included in
that email.

> At the end of the day I am still scratching my head with regards to my  
> question 

Your original question made no sense to me, frankly.

<script>
   var obj=$('mydiv');
   obj.onclick=function() {
    alert(obj.id);
   }
   obj=$('myotherdiv');
</script>

So you want a click event on 'myotherdiv' to alert 'mydiv'? It might
help if you explain your use case more clearly.

-- 
Hassan Schroeder ----------------------------- hassan at webtuitive.com
webtuitive design ===  (+1) 408-621-3445   === http://webtuitive.com
twitter: @hassan
                           dream.  code.


From scott at randomchaos.com  Sun Oct  4 21:19:50 2009
From: scott at randomchaos.com (Scott Reynen)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 20:19:50 -0600
Subject: [Javascript] Hopefully quick question.
In-Reply-To: <BAY135-W15684BCDE683F81C3AE77FA8CF0@phx.gbl>
References: <ED3F67E4-DE18-4265-83CC-8EA6F4EE4148@clearimageonline.com>
	<BAY135-W429877F7612F8D208A836A8D00@phx.gbl>
	<BAY135-W15684BCDE683F81C3AE77FA8CF0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <D3AA6BF9-E67E-4C22-B37F-061392DC1559@randomchaos.com>

On Oct 4, 2009, at 6:03 PM, Troy III Ajnej wrote:

> Not counting but, there's been 8 years or so, that I've been listening
> to all kinds of morons yelling STANDARDS; W3C; "how it shoould be"
> "document.getElementById('ID') - IS BETTER" etc etc etc...
>
> I mean, why is there, all of a sudden, this sort of need for coding
> convenience when there was a beautifully nice, clean, simple and
> ultra-convenient  mydiv call and super-widely supported also;
> Just like super-convenient innerHTML is, and has been for little over
> a decade or so?

Framework convenience functions are generally based on standards.  For  
example, if you look at the jQuery source, you'll see that ID-only  
selectors like the one that sparked this thread are passed directly to  
document.getElementById().  Of course, the same function that does  
that can also do selection by class name, tag name, attribute values,  
position in a tree, position in a list, and so on.  If all you're  
doing is selecting things by ID, yeah, it's not very helpful.  But  
that's a very limited use case.  I'd be curious to hear how you handle  
those other use cases without a framework.  Or do real coders not  
select on anything other than ID?

> Why didn't people, for their own coding convenience's sake stick to it
> as they did with innerHTML so that W3C bandits would finally get  
> forced
> to accept it as they did with the previous?

The W3C doesn't consistently follow de facto standards.  Frameworks  
generally abstract away browser implementation differences, so even if  
everyone drops support for innerHTML tomorrow, as long as they replace  
it with some other way to do the same thing, the same functions will  
still work in most frameworks.  In that same scenario, innerHTML  
would, of course, stop working.  And, of course, there was a time when  
it wasn't clear innerHTML wouldn't suddenly disappear, so whoever  
criticized your use of innerHTML years ago so strongly that you still  
haven't let it go, that person was probably right to do so.

> Why are people wasting time on learning how to use javascript
> skinners like these, considering other people scripting habits as  
> their
> scripting knowledge, and atop of it forcing clients to download up to
> 200KB for a crap like that, instead of learning to code for real.  
> That is:
> javascripting?!!

Ha.  I remember when real coders used assembly, and then C, and then C+ 
+, and then Java.  It's nice to know real coders can use JavaScript  
now, if not yet the frameworks used by the non-real coders who are  
doing all the cool work.  Also, I really appreciate the extra touch of  
this elitism coming from a hotmail address.  Comedy gold!  Thanks a lot.

Peace,
Scott


From blinkdog at gmail.com  Sun Oct  4 21:31:32 2009
From: blinkdog at gmail.com (Noah Sussman)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 22:31:32 -0400
Subject: [Javascript] Hopefully quick question.
In-Reply-To: <ED3F67E4-DE18-4265-83CC-8EA6F4EE4148@clearimageonline.com>
References: <ED3F67E4-DE18-4265-83CC-8EA6F4EE4148@clearimageonline.com>
Message-ID: <f2c0fe510910041931o73a7a39na4ad7f746b16ee82@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Terry Riegel
<riegel at clearimageonline.com> wrote:
> <script>
> ?var obj=$('mydiv');
> ?obj.onclick=function() {
> ? alert(obj.id);
> ?}
> ?obj=$('myotherdiv');
> </script>
>
> Which means when a person clicks on obj the code in that function will
> fire, which will alert the LAST value of obj.
>
> I want to pass that function the value of obj at the time it is set up.

Use a closure to capture the current value of the variable.

var obj = $('mydiv');
obj.onclick=(function () {
   var localObj = obj;
   return function (){
      alert(localObj.id);
   }
})();
obj = $('myotherdiv');

I have posted code that works for me, here
http://gist.github.com/201796

For an explanation of why this works, start with these 2 articles.

http://www.crockford.com/javascript/private.html
http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/closures.html

Also there is some good information around p. 131 of the Rhino book.


-- 
Noah Sussman
nerdabout.com
noah at one more bug dot com
Writing is the beating heart of online user experience -- @Zeldman
Software is fiction, it is imagination. -- Richard Gabriel


From riegel at clearimageonline.com  Mon Oct  5 04:28:11 2009
From: riegel at clearimageonline.com (Terry Riegel)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 05:28:11 -0400
Subject: [Javascript] Hopefully quick question.
In-Reply-To: <f2c0fe510910041931o73a7a39na4ad7f746b16ee82@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ED3F67E4-DE18-4265-83CC-8EA6F4EE4148@clearimageonline.com>
	<f2c0fe510910041931o73a7a39na4ad7f746b16ee82@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <876D1FFC-D768-414E-B402-F4DFAE039C1E@clearimageonline.com>

Thanks,

This closure thing is very cool. I think I understand it until I start  
using it :)

Your answer is spot on. I will read the links you posted and do some  
testing to see if I can get my head around it.

Terry

http://p8ste.com

On Oct 4, 2009, at 10:31 PM, Noah Sussman <blinkdog at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Terry Riegel
> <riegel at clearimageonline.com> wrote:
>> <script>
>>  var obj=$('mydiv');
>>  obj.onclick=function() {
>>   alert(obj.id);
>>  }
>>  obj=$('myotherdiv');
>> </script>
>>
>> Which means when a person clicks on obj the code in that function  
>> will
>> fire, which will alert the LAST value of obj.
>>
>> I want to pass that function the value of obj at the time it is set  
>> up.
>
> Use a closure to capture the current value of the variable.
>
> var obj = $('mydiv');
> obj.onclick=(function () {
>   var localObj = obj;
>   return function (){
>      alert(localObj.id);
>   }
> })();
> obj = $('myotherdiv');
>
> I have posted code that works for me, here
> http://gist.github.com/201796
>
> For an explanation of why this works, start with these 2 articles.
>
> http://www.crockford.com/javascript/private.html
> http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/closures.html
>
> Also there is some good information around p. 131 of the Rhino book.
>
>
> -- 
> Noah Sussman
> nerdabout.com
> noah at one more bug dot com
> Writing is the beating heart of online user experience -- @Zeldman
> Software is fiction, it is imagination. -- Richard Gabriel
> _______________________________________________
> Javascript mailing list
> Javascript at lists.evolt.org
> http://lists.evolt.org/mailman/listinfo/javascript


From talofo at gmail.com  Mon Oct  5 18:39:00 2009
From: talofo at gmail.com (MEM)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 00:39:00 +0100
Subject: [Javascript] Newbie - Understanding a piece of code
Message-ID: <000801ca4615$048ce300$0da6a900$@com>

Hello all,

I'm using a validation class because, despite my efforts, I couldn't create
a validation class in time, so I'm ashamed for using someone else's code
without properly understand it. I really am, so please, spare me for now...
I'm already on a bad conscience... :s


On the form element, I have:
<form id="enviarDados" action="<?php echo filter_var($_SERVER['PHP_SELF'],
FILTER_SANITIZE_STRING) ?>" method="post" enctype="multipart/form-data"
onsubmit="myOwnSubmit();">

And more at the bottom, I have:

function myOwnSubmit()
{
     //instanciate the validation class
				
     //the instance method validate will return boolean value
     var result = valid.validate();
     
     if (result == true)
     {
          document.getElementById('submit_bt').disabled = true;
     }
}

I was expecting that, once the onsubmit is called, the validation takes
place. Once the validation fields are error clean, (the result is true), it
will disable the submit button with the id of 'submit_bt'.

However, the button only gets disabled for a few seconds, and worst of all,
no form data are getting submitted.


I'd like to understand what's going wrong and, above all, what I'm not
getting, that I should, in order to properly understand, how something like
this should work.


Thanks in advance,
M?rcio



From crenpeva at gmail.com  Thu Oct  8 07:13:15 2009
From: crenpeva at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Cristian_P=C3=A9rez?=)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 08:13:15 -0400
Subject: [Javascript] Imprimir PDF
Message-ID: <255de8a90910080513p6ef3d709qc8da6fa0d81e2278@mail.gmail.com>

Hola a todos, me presento, soy Cristian y vivo en Chile.Trabajo desde hace
mucho tiempo en el area de desarrollo web, especialmente con
coldfusion+oracle,
y ahora se me present? un problema, que no he podido solucionar.
Tengo una pag. web que lista archivos con formato pdf, con un ticket marco
cuales quiero imprimir (estos archivos se encuentran en el servidor) y los
cargo con un iframe. Y aparecen todos de una vez en el IE.
Todo esto, mesclado con algunos html intercalados. Pero al Imprimir, solo me
imprime los html y si quie5ro los pdf, tengo que ir al menu tipo acrobat que
instancia el navegador.
La idea es imprimir cada uno de los documentos marcados o en su defecto, que
pueda  imprimir automaticamente, sin la caja de dialogo de las impresoras.
Espero haber explicado mi situaci?n y en el futuro, espero cooperar con la
lista.
Gracias.


From riegel at clearimageonline.com  Fri Oct 23 14:56:13 2009
From: riegel at clearimageonline.com (Terry Riegel)
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:56:13 -0400
Subject: [Javascript]  Question about prototype library,
	but more to the point about Javascript
Message-ID: <8B9AF6BF-FCFF-4DDE-B720-413E01CA72F2@clearimageonline.com>

Hello All,

I have a function I wrote that uses the prototype library so I hope  
that doesn't turn anyone away from the core of my question.


I will start with what I am attempting to accomplish. I want to  
periodically execute an XHR request to check in on the status of  
another XHR request. So I have written a function called checkin...

function checkIn(l,p){
  checkIn = new PeriodicalExecuter(
   function(pe){
    new Ajax.Request(l,{
      method: 'GET',
      parameters: 'ajaxrequest=TRUE',
      encoding: 'UTF-8',
      onComplete: function(t){
       logit('checkin()',t.responseText);
       if (returnErrorCheck(t.responseText)) {this.stop;}
       clearImage="undefined";
      }
     });
     return false;
   },
   p);
}


I am trying to figure out how to take the PeriodicalExecuter and stop  
it after it is started. Any ideas?


Terry

From js0000 at gmail.com  Fri Oct 23 15:24:27 2009
From: js0000 at gmail.com (john saylor)
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:24:27 -0400
Subject: [Javascript] Question about prototype library,
	but more to the 	point about Javascript
In-Reply-To: <8B9AF6BF-FCFF-4DDE-B720-413E01CA72F2@clearimageonline.com>
References: <8B9AF6BF-FCFF-4DDE-B720-413E01CA72F2@clearimageonline.com>
Message-ID: <eb84d37a0910231324s28d39ffapfc383329d7efa0a2@mail.gmail.com>

hola

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Terry Riegel
<riegel at clearimageonline.com> wrote:
> I am trying to figure out how to take the PeriodicalExecuter and stop
> it after it is started. Any ideas?

setInterval()
clearInterval()

[maybe setTimeout()]

use the search engine of your choice.

-- 
\js  [  - . .  .   ]


From riegel at clearimageonline.com  Mon Oct 26 07:39:47 2009
From: riegel at clearimageonline.com (Terry Riegel)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:39:47 -0400
Subject: [Javascript] Question about prototype library,
	but more to the 	point about Javascript
In-Reply-To: <eb84d37a0910231324s28d39ffapfc383329d7efa0a2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8B9AF6BF-FCFF-4DDE-B720-413E01CA72F2@clearimageonline.com>
	<eb84d37a0910231324s28d39ffapfc383329d7efa0a2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0005E347-12F2-4224-B27B-B83635D4A816@clearimageonline.com>

Hola,

Thanks for taking time to respond. I wasn't clear in my question. I  
will attempt to clarify.


I execute this function...


function checkIn(l,p){
  checkIn = new PeriodicalExecuter(
   function(pe){
    new Ajax.Request(l,{
      method: 'GET',
      parameters: 'ajaxrequest=TRUE',
      encoding: 'UTF-8',
      onComplete: function(t){
       logit('checkin()',t.responseText);
       if (returnErrorCheck(t.responseText)) {this.stop;}
       clearImage="undefined";
      }
     });
     return false;
   },
   p);
}

And it starts this thing that happens every p seconds. Fine enough.  
Now At some point in the future I want to stop that thing that is  
firing every p seconds.

How do I reference the local variable checkIn to stop it. I would like  
to do this without making checkIn a global variable as there may be  
more than one checkIn's running.

Any ideas?

Terry


On Oct 23, 2009, at 4:24 PM, john saylor wrote:

> hola
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Terry Riegel
> <riegel at clearimageonline.com> wrote:
>> I am trying to figure out how to take the PeriodicalExecuter and stop
>> it after it is started. Any ideas?
>
> setInterval()
> clearInterval()
>
> [maybe setTimeout()]
>
> use the search engine of your choice.
>
> -- 
> \js  [  - . .  .   ]
> _______________________________________________
> Javascript mailing list
> Javascript at lists.evolt.org
> http://lists.evolt.org/mailman/listinfo/javascript



From paul at juniperwebcraft.com  Mon Oct 26 17:06:10 2009
From: paul at juniperwebcraft.com (Paul Novitski)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:06:10 -0700
Subject: [Javascript] Question about prototype library,
 but more to  the point about Javascript
In-Reply-To: <4347180.1256593274723.JavaMail.root@n13>
References: <8B9AF6BF-FCFF-4DDE-B720-413E01CA72F2@clearimageonline.com>
	<eb84d37a0910231324s28d39ffapfc383329d7efa0a2@mail.gmail.com>
	<4347180.1256593274723.JavaMail.root@n13>
Message-ID: <E1N2XhX-0004SW-5F@cl29.gs01.gridserver.com>

At 10/26/2009 05:39 AM, Terry Riegel wrote:
>function checkIn(l,p){
>   checkIn = new PeriodicalExecuter(
>    function(pe){
>     new Ajax.Request(l,{
>       method: 'GET',
>       parameters: 'ajaxrequest=TRUE',
>       encoding: 'UTF-8',
>       onComplete: function(t){
>        logit('checkin()',t.responseText);
>        if (returnErrorCheck(t.responseText)) {this.stop;}
>        clearImage="undefined";
>       }
>      });
>      return false;
>    },
>    p);
>}
>
>And it starts this thing that happens every p seconds. Fine enough.
>Now At some point in the future I want to stop that thing that is
>firing every p seconds.
>
>How do I reference the local variable checkIn to stop it. I would like
>to do this without making checkIn a global variable as there may be
>more than one checkIn's running.


In the future you'll be able to use getters & setters cross-browser 
to operate on values within an object, but unfortunately they don't 
work in IE as of v8.
http://www.robertnyman.com/javascript/javascript-getters-setters.html

If the necessity of maintaining multiple instances is really your 
only reason for not using global variables, why not simply keep an 
array of checkIns and write a set of functions that maintain it? A 
function that adds a new checkIn locates the first available slot and 
returns a pointer to that array element.

Regards,

Paul
__________________________

Paul Novitski
Juniper Webcraft Ltd.
http://juniperwebcraft.com 



From talofo at gmail.com  Tue Oct 27 04:39:41 2009
From: talofo at gmail.com (MEM)
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:39:41 -0000
Subject: [Javascript] Create a menu in js. Understanding the workflow
Message-ID: <000101ca56e9$698ac030$3ca04090$@com>

Hello all,

I'm on my way for building a menu using javascript. 

If I search for js menu on google, I get "23523523 free build now menus
etc..." 
But I would like to understand and see, the process involving the creation
of a js menu that needs to be unobtrusive. 

For this database menu I need to:
Have a menu that, when the user clicks: 
a) show the child elements of that clicked parent.
b) change the URL.
I don't mind about reloading.

The server side part:
1) Construct an array from a query.
2) Build a ul/li List based on that array
3) Print it out to the page.

The client-side part:
4) I suppose I should I give to the li and ul some ids, so that we can show
child elements only when a specific parent is clicked? But we add this ul/li
ids on the server side code, or on the client-side code?

5) Each time the user clicks on a menu item, the URL must change. How to
preserve the menu estates over this url changes?


Some questions may not make too much sense for an experimented look, and are
related with my confusion, but what I really like to understand is the
procedures for creating something like this.

Could I have your help on this?


Thanks a lot,
M?rcio



From david at dorward.me.uk  Tue Oct 27 05:18:20 2009
From: david at dorward.me.uk (David Dorward)
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:18:20 +0000
Subject: [Javascript] Create a menu in js. Understanding the workflow
In-Reply-To: <000101ca56e9$698ac030$3ca04090$@com>
References: <000101ca56e9$698ac030$3ca04090$@com>
Message-ID: <8E0EB207-1CE2-48C6-A819-36E008C2BC70@dorward.me.uk>

On 27 Oct 2009, at 09:39, MEM wrote:
> I'm on my way for building a menu using javascript.

Just what the world needs.

> For this database menu I need to:
> Have a menu that, when the user clicks:
> a) show the child elements of that clicked parent.

In order to be accessible to non-pointing device and non-JS users, the  
menu opening element needs to be a link.

For non-JS users, this link will go to a suitable page (usually an  
index page for the menu section).

For keyboard users, it needs to be a link so it can get the focus (in  
a reliable, cross browser fashion).

Have the onclick handler change the className of the parent element (a  
list item containing the link and submenu). Use a descendent selector  
with that class name in the stylesheet to change the dislpay style of  
the submenu.

> b) change the URL.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/links.html#h-12.2

> The server side part:
> 1) Construct an array from a query.
> 2) Build a ul/li List based on that array
> 3) Print it out to the page.

All depend on the language you use and the data structure you keep the  
data in.

> The client-side part:
> 4) I suppose I should I give to the li and ul some ids, so that we  
> can show
> child elements only when a specific parent is clicked?

No need. You just need to identify the top of the menu. Then you can  
find ul and li elements with in it, and identify their children and  
parents.

> 5) Each time the user clicks on a menu item, the URL must change.  
> How to
> preserve the menu estates over this url changes?

Attach a JavaScript event to the "go to page" links. Have it edit  
those links to include a serialised description of the condition of  
all the menus (e.g. in the fragment identifier). Read that information  
in the onload event.

-- 
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk



From talofo at gmail.com  Tue Oct 27 05:45:00 2009
From: talofo at gmail.com (MEM)
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:45:00 -0000
Subject: [Javascript] Create a menu in js. Understanding the workflow
In-Reply-To: <8E0EB207-1CE2-48C6-A819-36E008C2BC70@dorward.me.uk>
References: <000101ca56e9$698ac030$3ca04090$@com>
	<8E0EB207-1CE2-48C6-A819-36E008C2BC70@dorward.me.uk>
Message-ID: <001401ca56f2$8974ad80$9c5e0880$@com>

Thanks David. 
I've got a killing comment on this, on the php side of things:

Quoting:

"essentially what you are saying is:

1) user is presented with the basic navigation menu
2) user clicks an item and page navigates somewhere else
3) because of the item user clicked in 2) display some extra menu items

That's not a menu, it's just a navigation bar that changes slightly
depending on where you are in the site..."


So maybe my focus should not be on the click event but on the url changes?


Putting the thinks like this, should I still think on js for this job?

What do you think?


Thanks,
M?rcio



> -----Original Message-----
> From: javascript-bounces at lists.evolt.org [mailto:javascript-
> bounces at lists.evolt.org] On Behalf Of David Dorward
> Sent: ter?a-feira, 27 de Outubro de 2009 10:18
> To: JavaScript List
> Subject: Re: [Javascript] Create a menu in js. Understanding the
> workflow
> 
> On 27 Oct 2009, at 09:39, MEM wrote:
> > I'm on my way for building a menu using javascript.
> 
> Just what the world needs.
> 
> > For this database menu I need to:
> > Have a menu that, when the user clicks:
> > a) show the child elements of that clicked parent.
> 
> In order to be accessible to non-pointing device and non-JS users, the
> menu opening element needs to be a link.
> 
> For non-JS users, this link will go to a suitable page (usually an
> index page for the menu section).
> 
> For keyboard users, it needs to be a link so it can get the focus (in
> a reliable, cross browser fashion).
> 
> Have the onclick handler change the className of the parent element (a
> list item containing the link and submenu). Use a descendent selector
> with that class name in the stylesheet to change the dislpay style of
> the submenu.
> 
> > b) change the URL.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/links.html#h-12.2
> 
> > The server side part:
> > 1) Construct an array from a query.
> > 2) Build a ul/li List based on that array
> > 3) Print it out to the page.
> 
> All depend on the language you use and the data structure you keep the
> data in.
> 
> > The client-side part:
> > 4) I suppose I should I give to the li and ul some ids, so that we
> > can show
> > child elements only when a specific parent is clicked?
> 
> No need. You just need to identify the top of the menu. Then you can
> find ul and li elements with in it, and identify their children and
> parents.
> 
> > 5) Each time the user clicks on a menu item, the URL must change.
> > How to
> > preserve the menu estates over this url changes?
> 
> Attach a JavaScript event to the "go to page" links. Have it edit
> those links to include a serialised description of the condition of
> all the menus (e.g. in the fragment identifier). Read that information
> in the onload event.
> 
> --
> David Dorward
> http://dorward.me.uk
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Javascript mailing list
> Javascript at lists.evolt.org
> http://lists.evolt.org/mailman/listinfo/javascript



From david at dorward.me.uk  Tue Oct 27 09:05:47 2009
From: david at dorward.me.uk (David Dorward)
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:05:47 +0000
Subject: [Javascript] Create a menu in js. Understanding the workflow
In-Reply-To: <001401ca56f2$8974ad80$9c5e0880$@com>
References: <000101ca56e9$698ac030$3ca04090$@com>
	<8E0EB207-1CE2-48C6-A819-36E008C2BC70@dorward.me.uk>
	<001401ca56f2$8974ad80$9c5e0880$@com>
Message-ID: <F88EA449-2585-4006-B212-80CB8EE21886@dorward.me.uk>


On 27 Oct 2009, at 10:45, MEM wrote:

> Thanks David.
> I've got a killing comment on this, on the php side of things:
>
> Quoting:
>
> "essentially what you are saying is:
>
> 1) user is presented with the basic navigation menu
> 2) user clicks an item and page navigates somewhere else

If JavaScript is not available, yes. http://icant.co.uk/articles/pragmatic-progressive-enhancement/

Generally speaking, having menus that expand and contract on a single  
page isn't a good design decision, but it is what I understood you to  
be asking for, so it is what I described.

> That's not a menu, it's just a navigation bar that changes slightly
> depending on where you are in the site..."
>
> So maybe my focus should not be on the click event but on the url  
> changes?
>
> Putting the thinks like this, should I still think on js for this job?


It depends on the context. The vast majority of sites get along  
without having menus expanding within the page, and avoiding that  
'feature' keeps things simple ? both for the author and the visitor.


-- 
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk



From talofo at gmail.com  Tue Oct 27 13:49:29 2009
From: talofo at gmail.com (MEM)
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:49:29 -0000
Subject: [Javascript] Create a menu in js. Understanding the workflow
In-Reply-To: <F88EA449-2585-4006-B212-80CB8EE21886@dorward.me.uk>
References: <000101ca56e9$698ac030$3ca04090$@com>	<8E0EB207-1CE2-48C6-A819-36E008C2BC70@dorward.me.uk>	<001401ca56f2$8974ad80$9c5e0880$@com>
	<F88EA449-2585-4006-B212-80CB8EE21886@dorward.me.uk>
Message-ID: <005301ca5736$37e18ee0$a7a4aca0$@com>

> If JavaScript is not available, yes.
> http://icant.co.uk/articles/pragmatic-progressive-enhancement/

Nice article. Very interesting. :) Thanks.

 
> Generally speaking, having menus that expand and contract on a single
> page isn't a good design decision, but it is what I understood you to
> be asking for, so it is what I described.

Of course, my question could be very long, so I decided to cut some parts,
but I realize I've cut out the wrong parts. :s

> > That's not a menu, it's just a navigation bar that changes slightly
> > depending on where you are in the site..."
> >
> > So maybe my focus should not be on the click event but on the url
> > changes?
> >
> > Putting the thinks like this, should I still think on js for this job?
> 
> 
> It depends on the context. The vast majority of sites get along
> without having menus expanding within the page, and avoiding that
> 'feature' keeps things simple ? both for the author and the visitor.

I do agree.

> David Dorward
Thanks for your feedback.



Regards,
M?rcio



From paul at juniperwebcraft.com  Tue Oct 27 14:34:43 2009
From: paul at juniperwebcraft.com (Paul Novitski)
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:34:43 -0700
Subject: [Javascript] Create a menu in js. Understanding the  workflow
In-Reply-To: <21604244.1256662538125.JavaMail.root@n13>
References: <000101ca56e9$698ac030$3ca04090$@com>
	<8E0EB207-1CE2-48C6-A819-36E008C2BC70@dorward.me.uk>
	<001401ca56f2$8974ad80$9c5e0880$@com>
	<21604244.1256662538125.JavaMail.root@n13>
Message-ID: <E1N2roU-0005iw-54@cl35.gs01.gridserver.com>

At 10/27/2009 07:05 AM, David Dorward wrote:
>If JavaScript is not available

I would say rather *when* JavaScript is not available... because of 
course it is never available in some user agents (e.g., search 
engines, some mobiles, some corporate contexts, etc. etc.).

Regards,

Paul
__________________________

Paul Novitski
Juniper Webcraft Ltd.
http://juniperwebcraft.com 



From philthathril at gmail.com  Thu Oct 29 14:01:53 2009
From: philthathril at gmail.com (Philip Thompson)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:01:53 -0500
Subject: [Javascript] Literal array declarations
Message-ID: <73F48269-343D-41B7-9495-AF59CF9E46D5@gmail.com>

Hi all.

I ran across http://www.jslint.com/ and had it evaluate my code. One  
of the things it suggested was to "Use the array literal notation []."  
So, I had:

var anArray = new Array();

and JSLint wants me to do:

var anArray = [];

Well, I'm curious... why is the literal declaration preferred?

Thanks,
~Philip


From scott at randomchaos.com  Thu Oct 29 14:25:35 2009
From: scott at randomchaos.com (Scott Reynen)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:25:35 -0600
Subject: [Javascript] Literal array declarations
In-Reply-To: <73F48269-343D-41B7-9495-AF59CF9E46D5@gmail.com>
References: <73F48269-343D-41B7-9495-AF59CF9E46D5@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B5815527-5CE9-4773-A7FE-1E437EC253AB@randomchaos.com>

On Oct 29, 2009, at 1:01 PM, Philip Thompson wrote:

> I ran across http://www.jslint.com/ and had it evaluate my code. One
> of the things it suggested was to "Use the array literal notation []."
> So, I had:
>
> var anArray = new Array();
>
> and JSLint wants me to do:
>
> var anArray = [];
>
> Well, I'm curious... why is the literal declaration preferred?

It's not preferred by everyone, but it is preferred by Douglas  
Crockford, the author of JSLint, and here's a quote from one of his  
books on why he prefers it:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/383402/is-javascript-s-new-keyword-considered-harmful/383423#383423

> If you forget to include the new prefix when calling a constructor  
> function, then this will not be bound to the new object. Sadly, this  
> will be bound to the global object, so instead of augmenting your  
> new object, you will be clobbering global variables. That is really  
> bad. There is no compile warning, and there is no runtime warning


Peace,
Scott



From philthathril at gmail.com  Thu Oct 29 15:31:33 2009
From: philthathril at gmail.com (Philip Thompson)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:31:33 -0500
Subject: [Javascript] Literal array declarations
In-Reply-To: <B5815527-5CE9-4773-A7FE-1E437EC253AB@randomchaos.com>
References: <73F48269-343D-41B7-9495-AF59CF9E46D5@gmail.com>
	<B5815527-5CE9-4773-A7FE-1E437EC253AB@randomchaos.com>
Message-ID: <D98A150E-F8ED-4E19-B78C-B06178890D34@gmail.com>

On Oct 29, 2009, at 2:25 PM, Scott Reynen wrote:

> On Oct 29, 2009, at 1:01 PM, Philip Thompson wrote:
>
>> I ran across http://www.jslint.com/ and had it evaluate my code. One
>> of the things it suggested was to "Use the array literal notation  
>> []."
>> So, I had:
>>
>> var anArray = new Array();
>>
>> and JSLint wants me to do:
>>
>> var anArray = [];
>>
>> Well, I'm curious... why is the literal declaration preferred?
>
> It's not preferred by everyone, but it is preferred by Douglas
> Crockford, the author of JSLint, and here's a quote from one of his
> books on why he prefers it:
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/383402/is-javascript-s-new-keyword-considered-harmful/383423#383423
>
>> If you forget to include the new prefix when calling a constructor
>> function, then this will not be bound to the new object. Sadly, this
>> will be bound to the global object, so instead of augmenting your
>> new object, you will be clobbering global variables. That is really
>> bad. There is no compile warning, and there is no runtime warning
>
>
> Peace,
> Scott

Thanks for your response. So basically it comes down to... he's afraid  
of being lazy or non-precise. "Hey, it won't work properly if I don't  
program it correctly." Yeah, big shock there.

Okay. Thank you.
~Philip


From paul at juniperwebcraft.com  Thu Oct 29 16:12:52 2009
From: paul at juniperwebcraft.com (Paul Novitski)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:12:52 -0700
Subject: [Javascript] Literal array declarations
In-Reply-To: <28699373.1256845816724.JavaMail.root@n13>
References: <73F48269-343D-41B7-9495-AF59CF9E46D5@gmail.com>
	<28699373.1256845816724.JavaMail.root@n13>
Message-ID: <E1N3cIX-0002Qo-4U@cl31.gs01.gridserver.com>

At 10/29/2009 12:25 PM, Scott Reynen wrote:
>It's not preferred by everyone, but it is preferred by Douglas
>Crockford, the author of JSLint, and here's a quote from one of his
>books on why he prefers it:
>
>http://stackoverflow.com/questions/383402/is-javascript-s-new-keyword-considered-harmful/383423#383423
>
> > If you forget to include the new prefix when calling a constructor
> > function, then this will not be bound to the new object. Sadly, this
> > will be bound to the global object, so instead of augmenting your
> > new object, you will be clobbering global variables. That is really
> > bad. There is no compile warning, and there is no runtime warning


If omitting the "new" in a "new Array()" construction is bad form, 
why not check for that omission specifically instead of forbidding 
use of the syntax altogether? I don't mean this as a rhetorical 
question; I'd really like to understand Douglas' perspective.

There are many language features in JavaScript that would cause 
problems of one sort or another if entered incorrectly. We don't 
avoid them, we learn to code correctly. Jslint and validators in 
general can be a wonderful help by proofreading our work in detail. 
It's when jslint objects to the use of perfectly valid syntax & style 
not because the code is incorrect or causing a problem but because 
its misuse might cause a problem in some other script someday that 
jslint's value as a helper comes into question. I'm seeing jslint not 
as a validator, a proofreading assistant in everyday scripting, but 
rather as a set of training wheels whose mission is to teach solid 
coding practices but that is too strictly idiosyncratic to stay out 
from underfoot. I would welcome an argument that would soften this perspective.

Regards,

Paul
__________________________

Paul Novitski
Juniper Webcraft Ltd.
http://juniperwebcraft.com  



From blinkdog at gmail.com  Thu Oct 29 18:36:25 2009
From: blinkdog at gmail.com (Noah Sussman)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:36:25 -0400
Subject: [Javascript] Literal array declarations
In-Reply-To: <E1N3cIX-0002Qo-4U@cl31.gs01.gridserver.com>
References: <73F48269-343D-41B7-9495-AF59CF9E46D5@gmail.com>
	<28699373.1256845816724.JavaMail.root@n13>
	<E1N3cIX-0002Qo-4U@cl31.gs01.gridserver.com>
Message-ID: <f2c0fe510910291636l6befaa29uc4d82adfc9b4e821@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Paul Novitski <paul at juniperwebcraft.com> wrote:
> If omitting the "new" in a "new Array()" construction is bad form,
> why not check for that omission specifically instead of forbidding
> use of the syntax altogether? I don't mean this as a rhetorical
> question; I'd really like to understand Douglas' perspective.

You might be interested in this thread from the JSLint dev list.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/jslint_com/message/592

> There are many language features in JavaScript that would cause
> problems of one sort or another if entered incorrectly. We don't
> avoid them, we learn to code correctly. Jslint and validators in
> general can be a wonderful help by proofreading our work in detail.
> It's when jslint objects to the use of perfectly valid syntax & style
> not because the code is incorrect or causing a problem but because
> its misuse might cause a problem in some other script someday

Just my .02 but, for better or worse, I think you have summed up the
intent of JSLint rather well in that last sentence.

And I think JSLint is largely targeted at developers in "the
enterprise," where ad hoc adoption of untested third-party JavaScript,
is all too often a common practice.




-- 
Noah Sussman
nerdabout.com
noah at one more bug dot com
Writing is the beating heart of online user experience -- @Zeldman
Software is fiction, it is imagination. -- Richard Gabriel