my name is Angel and I am not a programmer nor do I have previous experience with any language, today I have noticed that a forum to which I belong bought a new domain, but there is a problem with cookies, since it is not possible to log in if accessed from the new domain.
Many users have had this problem and I wanted to try to make a java script to solve this problem, but the furthest I got was that any web page was redirected to the forum home page, reloading over and over again.
I'm not good at programming, but Javascript has piqued my interest, because of the ease of transforming it into a browser extension.
What I mean is redirect from:
forum.free.com/discussion/8873
to
cooldomain.com/discussion/8873
and that every url with the domain "forum.free.com" redirects to the same page, only with the new domain of "cooldomain.com"
I know that it is a simple script and that it is too much to ask, but the intention is to learn through the use of annotations the reason for each line and to help the users of said forum.
Thank you.
This is the "script" i "made":
switch(window.location.hostname){
case "forum.free.com":
window.location.replace("cooldomain.com");
break;
...
}
you can try something like this:
<script language=javascript>
function redirect(){
window.location = "http://cooldomain.com/discussion/8873";
}
</script>
I want to secure JavaScript Codes. I secure my JavaScript with https://javascriptobfuscator.com/ but it can also stolen from view source.
I want a codes which redirect to my website when JavaScript used on wrong site.
This is possible I know but I don't know how?
What you could do is check the return of location.host or location.hostname.
To redirect to another URL you would change the value of location:
location = "https://mywebsite.com";
//or alternatively
location.assign("https://mywebsite.com");
However, the redirection may will be prevented by Cross-origin resource sharing policies (see Michael's comment). So you could just display an alert dialog.
alert("Don't use my script on your website");
The person trying to use your code on their website will be warned during development by this alert.
In any case, your obfuscated code can still be changed and someone that is determined will remove these "security" measures and it can even be deobfuscated.
Are you sure all of this is needed ? Modifying a stolen code to make it work on another website can be harder/longer than just rewriting a similar code. Apart if you are doing something very special and new, I think you are just losing time by trying to protect your code.
I would like a page to force reload once for IE9 users to clear the cache. I've been experimenting with this function:
location.reload();
The question: is it possibly to target people using IE9 and only reload ONCE on load.
Thankful for any help I can get.
/Linus
It would probably be best if you could devise some strategy which allows you NOT to depend on the browser version.
Having said that, here is a link that will allow you to detect IE9.
reference : stackoverflow similar question
from the link to answer taken
Two options:
1- You can use cookies. Set a cookie when logging in and check for
that during load. Then clear it after performing your initialization
so that next load the check will fail.
2- You can use the address, either as a parameter like ?justLoggedIn,
or a value in the hash after #justLoggedIn. Then check for that and
redirect to the same url minus the justLoggedIn part. The advantage of
the # version is that it doesn't actually reload the page, unlike when
using the ? version.
UPDATE:
reference :stackoverflow similar question
I'd say use hash, like this:
window.onload = function() {
if(!window.location.hash) {
window.location = window.location + '#loaded';
window.location.reload();
}
}
UPDATE 2:
i think you should take a look at this question
i dont know about pjax until now so i dont know alot about it
stackoverflow question
look at http://pjax.heroku.com/in the answers
Hello wonderful stackoverflow users.
I have a question about url loading.
In many browsers and web viewers, there is the functionality to load a url to a website, but also a url to execute javascript.
Load a website: http://www.google.com
Load a script: javascript:alert("Hello!");
My question is, is there a way to load an http request as well as a javascript.
The answer is most likely no, but I want to confirm because I can't find any resources that describe this.
I was thinking it would be something like:
http://www.google.com&&javascript:alert("Hello!");
but the problem is, of course, this is not correct.
The reason why I am doing this is to provide a url that once it is clicked, it will also execute a certain javascript function. This will be in Android.
I appreciate any response, and understand that the answer may be no.
It all depends on whether you have control of the page being linked to. If you cannot modify the source of the linked page, then the answer is quite simply, no.
But, if it is your page, you can pass arguments in the hash, and then read the hash when the page loads and execute script accordingly.
window.onload = function () {
if (location.hash.indexOf("doSomething") > -1) {
// do something
}
};
You can execute javascript when a page loads using Browser plugins, such as GreaseMonkey for Firefox, or TamperMonkey for Chrome.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/
http://tampermonkey.net/index.php?version=3.11&ext=dhdg&updated=true
I build a website focussing on loading only data that has to be loaded.
I've build an example here and would like to know if this is a good way to build a wegpage.
There are some problems when building a site like that, e.g.
bookmarking
going back and forth in
history SEO (since the content is basically not really connected)
so here is the example:
index.html
<html>
<head>
<title>Somebodys Website</title>
<!-- JavaScript -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="jquery-1.3.2.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="pagecode.js"></script>
</head>
<body>
<div id="navigation">
<ul>
<li>Welcome</li>
<li>Page1</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="content">
</div>
</body>
</html>
pagecode.js
var http = null;
$(document).ready(function()
{
// create XMLHttpRequest
try {
http = new XMLHttpRequest();
}
catch(e){
try{
http = new ActiveXObject("MS2XML.XMLHTTP");
}
catch(e){
http = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP");
}
}
// set navigation click events
$('.nav').click(function(e)
{
loadPage(e);
});
});
function loadPage(e){
// e.g. "link_Welcome" becomes "Welcome.html"
var page = e.currentTarget.id.slice(5) + ".html";
http.open("POST", page);
http.setRequestHeader("Content-Type", "application/x-www-form-urlencoded");
http.setRequestHeader("Connection", "close");
http.onreadystatechange = function(){changeContent(e);};
http.send(null);
}
function changeContent(e){
if(http.readyState == 4){
// load page
var response = http.responseText;
$('#content')[0].innerHTML = response;
}
}
Welcome.html
<b>Welcome</b>
<br />
To this website....
So as you can see, I'm loading the content based on the IDs of the links in the navigation section. So to make the "Page1" navigation item linkable, i would have to create a "Page1.html" file with some content in it.
Is this way of loading data for your web page very wrong? and if so, what is a better way to do it?
thanks for your time
EDIT:
this was just a very short example and i'd like to say that for users with javascript disabled it is still possible to provide the whole page (additionally) in static form.
e.g.
<li>Welcome</li>
and this Welcome.html would contain all the overhead of the basic index.html file.
By doing so, the ajax using version of the page would be some kind of extra feature, wouldn't it?
No, it isn't a good way to do it.
Ajax is a tool best used with a light touch.
Reinventing frames using it simply recreates all the problems of frames except that it replaces the issue of orphan pages with complete invisibility to search engines (and other use agents that don't support JS or have it disabled).
By doing so, the ajax using version of the page would be some kind of extra feature, wouldn't it?
No. Users won't notice, and you break bookmarking, linksharing, etc.
It's wrong to use AJAX (or any javascript for that matter) only to use it (unless you're learning how to use ajax which is diffrent matter).
There are situations where the use of javascript is good (mostly when you're building a custom user interface inside your browser window) and when AJAX really shines. But loading static web pages with javascript is very wrong: first, you tie yourself with a browser that can run your JS, second you increase the load on your server and on the client side.
More technical details:
The function loadPage should be re-written using jquery : $post(). This is a random shot, not tested:
function loadPage(e){
// e.g. "link_Welcome" becomes "Welcome.html"
var page = e.currentTarget.id.slice(5) + ".html";
$.post( page, null, function(response){
$('#content')[0].innerHTML = response;
} );
}
Be warned, I did not test it, and I might get this function a little wrong. But... dud, you are using jQuery already - now abuse it! :)
When considering implementing an AJAX pattern on a website you should first ask yourself the question: why? There are several good reasons to implement AJAX but also several bad reasons depending on what you're trying to achieve.
For example, if your website is like Facebook, where you want to offer end-users with a rich user interface where you can immediately see responses from friends in chat, notifications when users post something to your wall or tag you in a photo, without having to refresh the entire page, AJAX is GREAT!
However, if you are creating a website where the main content area changes for each of the top-level menu items using AJAX, this is a bad idea for several reasons: First, and what I consider to be very important, SEO (Search Engine Optimization) is
NOT optimized. Search engine
crawlers do not follow AJAX requests
unless they are loaded via the
onclick event of an anchor tag.
Ultimately, in this example, you are
not getting the value out of the rich
experience, and you are losing a lot
of potential viewers.
Second, users will have trouble bookmarking pages unless you implement a smart way to parse URLs to map to AJAX calls.
Third, users will have problems properly navigating using the back and forward buttons if you have not implemented a custom client-side mechanism to manage history.
Lastly, each browser interprets JavaScript differently, and with the more JavaScript you write, the more potential there is for losing cross browser compatibility unless you implement a framework that such as jQuery, Dojo, EXT, or MooTools that handles most of that for you.
gabtub you are not wrong, you can get working AJAX intensive web sites SEO compatible, with bookmarking, Back/Forward buttons (history navigation in general), working with JavaScript disabled (avoiding site duplication), accessible...
There is one problem, you must get back to server-centric.
You can get some "howtos" here.
And take a look to ItsNat.
How about unobtrusivity (or how should I call it?)?
If the user has no javascript for some reason, he'll only see a list with Welcome and Page1.
Yes it's wrong. What about users without JavaScript? Why not do this sort of work server-side? Why pay the cost of multiple HTTP requests instead of including the files server-side so they can be downloaded in a single fetch? Why pay the cost of non-JavaScript enabled clients not being able to view your stuff (Google's spider being an important user who'll be alienated by this approach)? Why? Why?