I am not quite sure what the best (or most common practice) is when needing HTML elements for your JQuery plugin to work. For example (although contrived), if you required a spinner (ticker) plugin where you would have text box containing a number and to the left of the box a up and down arrow. When the up arrow is clicked the value is incremented and the value is decremented when the down arrow is clicked.
I see some JQuery plugins, especially the JQuery UI widgets, that expect you to supply all the html and to give them special classes.
In the case of the spinner would you just expect the input tag and then in the JQuery plugin generate the HTML to render the up and down buttons?
Perhaps a better example is something like creating a paging data grid. Would the paging buttons (First, Last, Previous, Next, Page 1, Page 2...) be generated by the plugin or should the user of the plugin be expected to create HTML with special classes.
You should look into jqGrid. It generates a lot of HTML, but it leaves the <table> and pager elements up to you. It then obviously appends to these elements. But it also creates siblings and containers for these elements as well.
For example,
<!-- index.html -->
<table id="mygrid"></table>
<div id="pager"></div>
// main.js
$('#mygrid').jqGrid({pager: '#pager', ...});
jqGrid not only appends to #mygrid and #pager, but also creates new siblings and containers.
<div id="gbox_mygrid">
<div class="ui-jqgrid-view">
<table id="mygrid"><!-- rows --></table>
</div>
<div id="#pager"><!-- stuff --> <?div>
</div>
So you see that jqGrid does what it has to do, to work well. I think it depends on the needs of the plugin.
Generally, I would expect the developer to supply only the container element along with any essential inner elements (think images in a slider). I would expect the plugin to generate any controls like buttons, pagination, etc.
Requiring the developer to supply a container element gives them complete control over how, when, and where your plugin appears on their page, as if it was just another div. Requiring them to also supply any necessary content isn't always necessary, as this could just as easily be a config item.
The main upside I see to having the user supply HTML comes when dealing with clients that don't support/allow JavaScript (think old browsers, spiders, etc). At least they'll see something related to what your plugin was meant to display, rather than just an ugly blank space. In the slider example, if done properly, the plugin can gracefully degrade to a static image in the case of lacking JavaScript support.
All intricacies such as controls and status displays should always be generated by the plugin. Why? User-friendliness is the first thing that comes to mind. People use jQuery plugins because they want a fast, relatively pain-free solution to a problem. Additionally, many users of jQuery plugins are not web developers, but instead are often just administrators of blogs and such.
By eliminating the need for the users of your plugin to have to create elements that they really have no control over, you also eliminate a lot of headaches caused by typos, misunderstandings, and lack of RTFMing.
Hopefully my opinions and insights have been helpful.
Related
I am working on a simple Cordova app with about 4 page types and I am trying to think through which is the better way to handle the inner HTML templates.
Hidden HTML hard coded into the HTML files that is hidden and populated/revealed by my JS.
Using a JS template system and appending and removing from the DOM.
I feel that appending all that to the DOM for a page is inefficient when I could just update the sections that change. But perhaps an append is lightweight enough where I shouldn't worry about it.
There are a number of ways you can do it. In terms of load on the browser. That is hard to say. From your question it is hard to know what is in these pages, what are you displaying, is it live data, static html etc.
When you first plot out an app, if you are from the old class of building multiple page websites, it can be a little concerning as to how well your app/page will run with all those pages crammed in to one, and all that data plus code.
The answer is, amazingly well. If done properly in modern browsers, and for example Ipads the app will run to near native performance.
The options you have are
Map all the pages into one HTML document. Hide each page content using css display:none, flip them into view using css animation, fading or just display:block.
Use a javascript routing library to map urls to blocks of code that deal with each page, this makes mapping out your app much easier, and means that buttons can just link to your pages, like a real website. see http://projects.jga.me/routie/
Building all the page templates into one page can make it hard to code, as the page becomes enormous, consider breaking the inner content of each page into separate files, you can then give each page holder a url and use a small xhr request to load the page on-the fly, once loaded you can cache it into memory or even local-storage, depending on whether you remove it when it is closed or keep it hidden.
In my experience you can put an enormous number or nodes into one page and have very little speed drop, bear in mind if you use something like jquery and do a lot of $(".page > .page1 > .items li") your going to have a slow app.
Tips
Use element ID's everywhere document.getElementById(..) is 100's of times faster in a loop that $(...)
cache elements when you find them, if you need them later store them in a memory cache.
keep for loop inner code to a minimum.
use a decent click touch libary like http://hammerjs.github.io/ and delegate all the events of the body tag or at least on each page.
If you need to touch the server, load data, think dom first, device second server later. A good app is a responsive app, that responds to the user instantly.
I know this has been posted a while ago, but for the sake of the users I am going to add my answer.
I completely agree with MartinWebb but my answer will shed some light on the results of his options. I am currently working on a similar project. Please note that this answer pertains to cordova (previously called phonegap) specifically. My app has about 5 pages with +-20 different components (input's, div's, h1's, p's, etc.). This is what i tried and the result of each:
jQuery was my first option, mainly because it is easy to use and reduces the amount of code required to accomplish a said goal. Result: First time I tried this approach I though I would spice it up with animations and transformations. The result of this was a very unresponsive app. I removed the animation and transformation, however due to the nature of my application I required multiple dynamically added components and jQuery just wasn't up for the task.
Css display:none and visible:hidden was my next option. I used javascript's dom to display certain div's. Result: This works if your not planning on switching many div shortly after one another eg. a simple menu. It quickly became apparent that this wasn't going to work. Also this does not eliminate my need for the dom. Remember document.getElementById('menu').style.display = "none"; is still part of the dom. This as a solution, for me, is poor. There is a reason that var menu= document.createElement('div'); is part of the language. Which brings me to my last option.
Building a page 90% on javascript's dom was my last option. Logically I could not see how 600 lines of code cold trump one .innerHTML or .style.display = "block"; but it did. Result: It was by far the most responsive of all the solutions.
I'm not saying that all webpages should be coded with dom appending, but as I stated previously, for a cordova app of a few pages (<6), with a few components a javascript dom appending approach would be best. It takes longer to code, but you will be rewarded with control and efficiency. I would suggest coding the backbone of your app in html and populating and controlling with javascript's dom.
Best of luck.
The first option, <div>s with display:none; would be more efficient by a small margin, but you can get the best of both worlds by compiling your JavaScript and templates together into a single file using something like browserify or require.js.
This may be a naive question, but I'm learning jQuery Mobile and unsure why everything is related to a data-role attribute. It seems that even times when the role is related to the style, they are using data-role over class
I understand that for semantics, data-role makes sense in a lot of cases but it just seems to be abused here. Wouldn't that kind of lookup also be slower?
Why do they use data-role over class?
Thanks for any insight.
Why data
They could simply use role as an attribute (like other frameworks do), but this would make
the resulting HTML invalid. Therefore a data- is added to every attribute name.
Why not classes
I think the main reason for that is to separate view from logic as far as it is possible. In larger projects, CSS and JavaScript are not written by the same person.
It provides a lot of control over powerful styling techniques especially when combined with jquery ui. I use jquery mobile, I used their tool to easily make a theme roller and now when I use elements like data-role-header, footer listview. I have great looking pages with no effort. There are hundreds of data-role attributes you can bring into your code to easily create uniform, user friendly pages. I personally like the data-role - page attribute to create multiple views in a single HTML page. They are easy to use so the best way to learn about them is to play with them.
Please find the explanation of data-roles here.
data-role attribute is used to control the behaviour of the widget of element. For example in case of button you can use input type="button" (no data-role="button" attribute required in this case, as this is standard behaviour of this element) but you can use a element, and then you need to explicitly provide it:
So for me it's rather useful solution, as buttons behavior on mobile devices can be same for different elements. You just need to provide data-role attribute, and jQuery will do the rest for you.
This is the quotation from main jQuery Mobile website:
jQuery mobile framework takes the "write less, do more" mantra to the
next level: Instead of writing unique apps for each mobile device or
OS, the jQuery mobile framework allows you to design a single
highly-branded web site or application that will work on all popular
smartphone, tablet, and desktop platforms.
They want to style every control you have in the same way, so write less, do more approach is fulfilled. So jQuery Mobile adds same styling for all elements with the same role to make things look the same way, but it doesn't mean you can't change it. It just means that they care about good look of your website, and they are aware that every button should be similar to others.
Also the page I mentioned earlier says:
The jQuery Mobile framework uses HTML5 data- attributes to allow for
markup-based initialization and configuration of widgets.
So you are reading HTML and you know how elements will behave without looking to CSS file - which I think is cool if you're not front-end dev. Of course front-end dev can overwrite CSS, but he must follow the rules, e.g. if data-inline is set to true he should style it regarding that elements must naturally follow this rule (be inline).
jQueryMobile adds a load event handler to the page, which processes the DOM looking for various data-xxx attributes. When it finds those, it does more than just stylize the elements.
In many cases it creates a type of widget tied to the data-role. For example, a <div data-role="header"> is turned into a toolbar widget, the creation of which may extensively modify the DOM within that element.
For some of the simpler widgets, like buttons, folks have seen that not much happens other than some classes get added, so why not just shortcut the process and do that directly? That can work, but it isn't future-proof. At different points in history, different versions of jQM had created buttons with different DOM structures. So I personally think it's best not to shortcut jQM, and let it process the data-attributes as it sees fit.
That being said, it would still have been possible to create widgets identified by classes rather than data-attributes, which was how people used to do these things before jQM. But then there might be an expectation that there would be CSS associated with those classes as well. Use of the data- attributes makes it clear that this is a structural/role thing rather than just styling.
So, I've written a little javascript widget. All a user has to do is paste a script tag into the page, and right below it I insert a div with all of the content the user has requested.
Many sites do similar things, such as Twitter, Delicious and even StackOverflow.
What I'm curious about is how to test this widget to make sure that it will work properly on everyone's webpage. I'm not using an iframe, so I really want to make sure that this code will work when inserted most places. I know it looks the same in all browsers.
Suggestions? Or should I just build one hundred web pages and insert my script tag and see if it works? I would hope there is an easier way than that.
Once you have confirmed that your javascript works cross-browser in a controlled environment, here are some things that might cause problems when used on an actual website:
CSS
You're using a CSS class that is already being used (for a different purpose) by the target website
You're using positioning that might interfere with the site's CSS
The elements you are using are being styled by the website's CSS (you might want to use some sort of "reset" CSS that applies only to your widget)
HTML
You're creating elements with the same id attribute as an element that already exists on the website
You're specifying a name attribute that is already being used (while name can be used for multiple elements, you may not be expecting that)
Javascript
What is the expected behaviour without Javascript enabled? If your script creates everything, is it acceptable for nothing to be present without JS?
At very basic you should make sure your widget works for following test-cases. I am sure then it will work on all web-pages -
http/https: There should not be any warning for HTTPS pages for unencrypted content.
<script> / <no-script>: What if JavaScript is disabled? Is your widget still visible?
What happens when third-party cookies are disabled? Does your widget still work?
Layout-box restrictions: When parent div element's size is less than your widget. Does your widget overflow the given size and destroys owners page?
By keeping all your Javascripts under a namespace (global object) with a very unique name, you should be pretty much OK. Also, you can simply use an anonymous function if you just want to print out something.
Similar question: How to avoid name clashes in JavaScript widgets
In my drupal config I have created a video page, which I'm using to create video titles.
I also created a course page, which will be displaying all the video titles available in that course using views and node reference combination. It only displays video title list.
Now,
Take a look here
http://www.lynda.com/home/DisplayCourse.aspx?lpk2=65713
You see the video titles are arranged in a chapter - wise manner, using javascript to hide/show chapter title.
I want to implement a similar functionality in my drupal site. If it is not possible with views thats ok, but I need a way to implement the javascript and chapter title in the course page. I want to keep the layout same as much as possible.
Even if I have to manually enter/edit the code in the body, I don't care as long as I have the functionality.
If you don't want to write the jQuery and are satisfied with the "accordion" effect see http://drupal.org/project/views_accordion
A demo of views accordion can be found on http://manueg.okkernoot.net/ (See "latest thoughts" in the main content area). This is integrated with views so all you need do is to make the correct video title the accordion title.
You can probably theme the accordion too to get the desired user interface.
If you have implemented the markup, the javascript effect will be pretty easy to make.
You just need to apply a click handler on the chapters and hide/show the content. jQuery that is included in Drupal makes this quite simple and easy.
For the markup, it will probably be easier to do in a custom module, since you need a very specific ordering, and need some specific info on the chapter as well as the pages.
Update:
You should consider using node relationships, and use two content types. Especially if you want more info for each chapter like a image, teaser text etc.
I have been tasked with improving the current mess that is our JavaScript "strategy"; we're an online shopping company and my boss has given me time to do this properly. He is very keen on keepin this modular and increase the reusability of the components.
Our HTML is being rendered with JSP and we have lots of custom tags writing out, for example, information about products without the web designers needing to worry about it.
Now, we want to do similar things with JavaScript. The web designers should be given a set of custom tags, like, say,
<foo:draggable>
... some HTML here ...
</foo:draggable>
that will wrap the HTML in a <div> with a drag bar at the top and a close button.
My idea is to mark the div with a unique namespaced CSS class name, like foo_draggable, and then put all my functions in a single JS file. That JS file then sees if there are elements with the CSS class foo_draggable in the DOM and if it finds any it will attach the required event handlers.
However, I am worried about scaling problems, and wondering whether it is a good idea to have lots of selector queries running when they quite often aren't going to be used.
The first alternative would be to initiate each draggable item explicitly but that would mean putting <script> tags all over the place. The second approach would be to not put all UI function in one file but rather just download the ones I need, but that would mean lots more HTTP requests and slower page load speed.
Has anyone got experience with this?
What about having two classnames?
<div class='foo fooDragable'></div>
<div class='foo fooSortable'></div>
You add the class 'foo' to all your elements that require javascript modification.
Your javascript has to check the dom only once for foo.
var $foo = $('.foo');
Afterwards you can search within this array which should be way smaller than the complete dom.
var $dragAble = $foo.filter('.fooDragable');
Have you considered or taken a look to JSF? I know it's a major change if you aren't using JSF yet. But there are lot of ready-to-use JSF component libaries with an ajaxical sauce, for example RichFaces, IceFaces, PrimeFaces, etc. It's almost a waste of time to create components/tags for it yourself.
Alternatively you can replace all Javascripts to use the great jQuery JS framework.
Depending on how many separate components you have, the extra overhead of running the selectors might not be a big deal. You can initialize all the components just the once, when the page is loaded. Anything that's not present on the page simply won't get initialized, and will incur no further overhead. In most JavaScript frameworks, selecting by classname (or tag name) is pretty fast. It's only the complex selectors, which aren't natively supported by the browser, that are slow.
If you have a few commonly used components, and then a set of less commonly used ones, it may be worth splitting those up. Keep the commonly used components in a single JavaScript file (minified, served with compression and aggressive caching), and load that in every page, regardless of whether it's needed or not. Caching will ensure it's only downloaded once, and it'll only be one small HTTP request. For the less common components, keep them in separate files (ideally, one per component), and add a script tag on pages that use them.
I'm not entirely familiar with how JSP works, but it might be possible to do this automatically - if a tag is included in the document, add a script tag for foo_widget.js in the document header, or something like that.