Comments on: Javascript Element Creator

By: lorg

lorg — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 11:19:07 +0000

Ilan:
1. Yes, I make it invisble with css. I don’t really like templates in the JS code. On the contrary, I prefer it in the html, with other similar code (in purpose and in form).

2. I didn’t say that innerHTML is slower than cloneNode. They are mostly equivalent although cloneNode
is somewhat faster in a test I ran right now (on firefox). Still, they are both much faster than createElement, which was my actual point.

3. Various reasons, including historical ones. Among other things, the trip’s presentation is more complicated than plain html, and has a lot of events and behaviors attached to it. I guess I could do it that way, but I see no clear advantage at the moment.

Details & urls: what do you want to see?

And indeed, see you Monday! :)

By: Ilan

Ilan — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:22:20 +0000

Peace, I & B! ;o)

I’m curious:

1. I don’t like it that the template is in the DOM, and presumably you make it invisible with CSS? What about progressive enhancement (or unobtrusive JS ;-)? Ugh. If it’s not a fragment of the document you’re “adding more of”, well, then put the template in a the JS, as a string constant (literal), and interpolate somehow (jQuery?), hmm?

2. innerHTML slower than cloneNode?! Hmm, Googling (lots; want my bookmarks?) would suggest that’s debatable. How deep the fragment you’re cloning? Can we see the code?

3. Your back-end returns the “new trip” in JSON? Why not HTML so you won’t have to render nothing client-side?

I’d love to see more details/URLs, if you can afford any?

(Anyway, see you Monday! ;o)