I am developing an extension for Mediawiki which is based on another extension (developed in-house) that will not work above with a Mediawiki installation with a version superior 1.16.5 . I need to include javascript in pages belonging to a specific namespace and I cannot use the ResourceLoader http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/ResourceLoader .
Does someone know if there's a simple to do this? I need to include JQuery and Datatables for a custom rendering of the pages belonging to the namespace.
There are at least three ways to go about this.
The 1st approach is to edit the magic page MediaWiki:Common.js and add something like this:
if(wgNamespaceNumber == 0) { // NS_MAIN
importScript('MediaWiki:MyScript.js');
}
You can place arbitrary javascript in the block, the importScript bit there is for executing JavaScript stored in a Wiki page but there are other ways to include JS on the fly as well (see eg. this question). See Manual:Interface/JavaScript for details of the MediaWiki side of things.
The 2nd approach would be to hack the PHP that produces the MediaWiki page to inject <script> tags depending on the current namespace, but that's a bit more involved: you'd need to build a custom extension and hook it in at some appropriate point. The ParserAfterTidy hook looks suitable, see Hooks.
The 3rd approach would be to simply edit the skin and load the JS for every page in the wiki -- is there a reason you don't want to do this for every page? They're cached anyway, so it's only a one-time hit.
Related
I'm working on a project where we'd like to load external content onto a customers site. The main requirements are that we'd like the customer to have as simple of an include as possible (like a one-line link similar to Doubleclick) and would preferably not have to be involved in any server-side language. The two proposed ways of doing this were an iframe or loading a javascript file that document.write's out the content.
We looked more at the latter since it seemed to produce more reliable legibility and simplicity for the end user - a single line of Javascript. We have been hit with the reality that this will be indexed unpredictably by Google. I have read most of the posts on this topic regarding javascript and indexing (for example http://www.seroundtable.com/google-ajax-execute-15169.html, https://twitter.com/mattcutts/status/131425949597179904). Currenlty we have (for example):
<html>
<body>
<div class='main-container'>
<script src='http://www.other.com/page.js'></script>
</div>
</body>
</html>
and
// at http://www.other.com/page.js
document.write('blue fish and green grass');
but it looks like google indexes this type of content only sometimes based upon 'Fetch As Google' used in Google's webmaster tools. Since it does sometimes work, I know it's possible for this indexing to be ok. More specifically, if we isolate our content to something like the above and remove extraneous content, it will index it each time (as opposed to the EXACT SAME Javascript in a regular customer html page). If we have our content in a customer's html file it doesn't seem to get indexed.
What would be a better option to ensure that Google has indexed the content (remote isn't any better)? Ideas I have tried / come across would be to load a remote file in for example PHP, something like:
echo file_get_contents('http://www.other.com/page');
This is obviously blocking but possibly not a deal-breaker.
Given the above requirements, would there be any other solution?
thx
This is a common problem and I've created a JS plugin that you can use to solve this.
Url: https://github.com/kubrickology/Logical-escaped_fragment
Make sure to use the: __init() function instead of standard DOM ready functions and you know for sure that Google is able to index.
I am using Kickstrap 1.3.0 and want to add an App in my PHP-View with a method like <?php $this->enableKickstrapApp('myapp'); ?>. This method would put the app name into an apps array and the layout template could generate any code anywhere in the page to active the app.
But I don't know how to load the app. The docs say that I should add a page specific less file. But I don't want to autogenerate such an extra less file (I will do this it there is no better solution). Also an API method loadApp() is mentioned in the API docs. But there seems to be no loadApp in the source code. Also it is not documented how to get the API object (maybe this should be a global method--I couldn't find it). In an maybe outdated doc at GitHub I found the tip to write a pageApps array. But scanning the source code for "pageApps" also had no results.
Is there any way to activate an app dynamically (or in the global ks variable) without an extra less file?
That works:
var ks = {
apps: ['myapp']
}
Must be defined before loading kickstrap.js of course.
I want to push my Django project with some JavaScript/jQuery. To make it right from the beginning on I'd like to know, which way of organizing the .js-files ist the optimal one.
For loading one big file includes less overhead than loading many small ones and also because it looks cleaner in the code I considered to make one global .js-file and include that with the base.html (from which every template inherites). However, the result would be, that JavaScript would try to assign all the event-binings, even if the elements which the events should be bind to aren't in the current document. With all the jQuery-selectors which then would have to do their work that can't be too efficient. From earlier web-development experience I know that one can do something like if(location.href == '/some/url/') { (JavaScript code) ... }. That seems not practicable for me in this case, for with changing URLs, I'd have to change the URLconf and the .js-file (while using reverse() and {% url %} to prevent that elsewhere). I guess there is no possibility to make use of the named URLs here?
Has anyone an idea how to organize the JavaScript without having a file for every single template on the one hand and without killing performance unnecessarily?
I don't know that this question is specific to Django - similar issues come up managing Javascript in all sorts of systems.
That said, I usually try to tier my Javascript files, so that truly global scripts and libraries are included in one file, scripts specific to a section of the site are included in a set of section-specific files, and scripts specific to a single page are included in yet another site of page-specific files (or in inline code, depending on the context).
Django has good support for this approach, because you can tier your templates as well. Include the global script in your base.html template, then create a mysection-base.html template that inherits from base.html and just adds the Javascript (and CSS) files specific to that section. Then subpages within that section can inherit from mysection-base.html instead of base.html, and they'll all have access to the section-specific scripts.
I find django-compressor invaluable as it automatically compresses and minifies your JavaScript and CSS pre-deployment. It even automatically handles SASS, LESS and CoffeeScript if they float your boat.
Apps from http://djangopackages.com/grids/g/asset-managers/ may help.
You use modular javascript.
Choose your packager of choice (mine is browserify) that packages all your modules into one package that you minify and gzip. You send this file to the client and it is cached.
This means you have all your code cached, minimize HTTP requests and stay lean and efficient.
And since you have modular code you just load your code as you would normally.
Personally I would use some form feature detection to load modules. You can choose to feature detect on almost any feature (some css selector, routes, url segments).
Feature detection would look like this :
var Features = {
"class": "name",
"class2": "name2",
"dynamic-scroll": "dynamic-scroll",
"tabstrip": "tabstrip",
...
}
for (var key in Features) {
require(Features[key]);
}
Where as routing with davis would look like
Davis(function() {
this.get("blog", function(req) {
require("blog")(req);
});
this.get("blog/:post", function(req) {
require("blog-post")(req);
});
this.get("shop", function(req) {
require("shop")(req);
});
...
});
Alternatively you can try an event driven architecture. This means each module binds to events
// some-module
mediator.on("blog-loaded", function() {
// load in some libraries
// construct some widgets
mediator.emit("blog-ui-build", widgets);
});
And you would need some bootstrapping in place to kick off the event loop. Feel free to look at an EDA demo
When building webapps with MVC web framworks like Django, Kohana, Rails and the like, I put together the application without JS-driven components initially, and then add them afterwards as "improvements" to the UI.
This approach leads to non-intrusive JS, but I don't have a good "standard" way of how to go about organizing the JS work. Most of the JS I write in apps like these are 10-30 line JQuery snippets that hook into some very specific part of the UI.
So far I often end up inlining these things together with the part of the UI they manage. This makes me feel dirty, I'd like to keep the JS code as organized as the python / php / ruby code, I'd like for it to be testable and I'd like for it to be reusable.
What is the best way to go about organizing JS code in a setup like this, where we're not building a full-blown JS client app, and the main meat is still server side?
I am also very interested in what other people have to say about this. The approach I've taken is to use object literal notation to store the bulk of the function, and store these in one file included on all pages (the library)
uiHelper = {
inputDefault:function(defaulttext){
// function to swap default text into input elements
},
loadSubSection:function(url){
// loads new page using ajax instead of refreshing page
},
makeSortable:function(){
// apply jQuery UI sortable properties to list and remove non javascript controls
}
}
Then I include a .js file on any page that needs to use the library that ties the elements on that page to the function in the library. I've tried to make each function as reuseable as possible and sometimes the event binding function on the page calls several of my library functions.
$(document).ready(function(){
$('#mybutton').live('click',uiHelper.loadSubSection);
//more complicated helper
$('#myotherbutton').live('click',function(){
uiHelper.doThisThing;
uiHelper.andThisThing;
});
});
edit: using jsDoc http://jsdoc.sourceforge.net/ notation for commenting for these functions can produce documentation for the 'library' and helps keep your code easy to read (functions split by comments).
The following question is along similar lines to your own - you should check it out...
Commonly accepted best practices around code organization in JavaScript
When dealing with JS code, you should first analyze whether it will be used right away when the page loads. If it's not used right away (meaning the user must do something to invoke it) you should package this into a JS file and include it later so the load time is perceived faster for the user. This means that anything that the user will sees should go first and JS related to the functionality should be imported near the end of the file.
Download this tool to analyze your website: http://getfirebug.com/
If the JS code is small enough, it should just be inline with the HTML.
Hope that helps a bit.
For quick little user interface things like that I put everything into a single javascript file that I include on every page. Then in the javascript file I check what exists on the page and run code accordingly. I might have this in UIMagic.js for example. I have jQuery, so excuse those jQuery-isms if they aren't familiar to you.
function setupMenuHover() {
if ($("li.menu").length) { // The page has a menu
$("li.menu").hover(function() { ... }, function() { ... });
}
}
$(setupMenuHover);
function setupFacebookWizbang() {
if (typeof FB != "undefined") { // The page has Facebook's Javascript API
...
}
}
$(setupFacebookWizbang);
I've found this to be a sane enough approach.
My preferred method is to store inline javascript in it's own file (so that I can edit it easily with syntax highlighting etc.), and then include it on the page by loading the contents directly:
'<script type="text/javascript">'+open('~/js/page-inline.js').read()+'</script>'
This may not perform well though, unless your templating library can cache this sort of thing.
With Django you might be able to just include the js file:
<script type="text/javascript">
{% include "js/page-inline.js" %}
</script>
Not sure if that caches the output.
If you are still worried about being 'dirty', then you could check out the following projects, which try to bridge the server/client side language mismatch:
http://pyjs.org/ (Python generating JavaScript)
http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ (Java generating JavaScript)
http://nodejs.org/ (JavaScript all the way!)
What is the general developer opinion on including javascript code on the file instead of including it on the script tag.
So we all agree that jquery needs to be included with a script file, like below:
<script src="http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.3/jquery.min.js"
type="text/javascript"></script>
My question is, in order to get functions on a page that is not on all pages of a site. Do we include the functions like below in the same page or in a global include file like above called mysite.js.
$(document).ready(function(){
$(".clickme").click(function(event){
alert("Thanks for visiting!");
});
});
ok. So the question is: if the code above is going to be called in every class="clickme" on a specific pages, and you have the ability to call it either from an include separate file called mysite.js or in the content of the page. Which way will you go?
Arguments are:
If you include it on the page you will only call it from those specific pages that the js functionality is needed.
Or you include it as a file, which the browser cached, but then jquery will have to spend x ms to know that that function is not trigger on a page without "clickme" class in it.
EDIT 1:
Ok. One point that I want to make sure people address is what is the effect of having the document.ready function called things that does not exist in the page, will that trigger any type of delay on the browser? Is that a significant impact?
First of all - $("#clickme") will find the id="clickme" not class="clickme". You'd want $(".clickme") if you were looking for classes.
I (try to) never put any actual JavaScript code inside my XHTML documents, unless I'm working on testing something on a page quickly. I always link to an external JS file to load the functionality I want. Browsers without JS (like web crawlers) will not load these files, and it makes your code look much cleaner to the "view source".
If I need a bit of functionality only on one page - it sometimes gets its own include file. It all depends on how much functionality / slow selectors it uses. Just because you put your JS in an external JS file doesn't mean you need to include it on every page.
The main reason I use this practice - if I need to change some JavaScript code, it will all be in the same place, and change site wide.
As far as the question about performance goes- Some selectors take a lot of time, but most of them (especially those that deal with ID) are very quick. Searching for a selector that doesn't exist is a waste of time, but when you put that up against the wasted time of a second script HTTP request (which blocks the DOM from being ready btw), searching for an empty selector will generally win as being the lesser of the two evils. jQuery 1.3 Performace Notes and SlickSpeed will hopefully help you decide on how many MS you really are losing to searching for a class.
I tend to use an external file so if a change is needed it is done in one place for all pages, rather than x changes on x pages.
Also if you leave the project and someone else has to take over, it can be a massive pain to dig around the project trying to find some inline js.
My personal preference is
completely global functions, plugins and utilities - in a separate JavaScript file and referenced in each page (much like the jQuery file)
specific page functionality - in a separate JavaScript file and only referenced in the page it is needed for
Remember that you can also minify and gzip the files too.
I'm a firm believer of Unobtrusive JavaScript and therefore try to avoid having any JavaScript code in with the markup, even if the JavaScript is in it's own script block.
I agreed to never have code in your HTML page. In ASP.net I programmatically have added a check for each page to see if it has a same name javascript file.
Eg. MyPage.aspx will look for a MyPage.aspx.js
For my MVC master page I have this code to add a javascript link:
// Add Each page's javascript file
if (Page.ViewContext.View is WebFormView)
{
WebFormView view = Page.ViewContext.View as WebFormView;
string shortUrl = view.ViewPath + ".js";
if (File.Exists(Server.MapPath(shortUrl)))
{
_clientScriptIncludes["PageJavascript"] = Page.ResolveUrl(shortUrl);
}
}
This works well because:
It is automagically included in my files
The .js file lives alongside the page itself
Sorry if this doesn't apply to your language/coding style.