Javascript execution order - javascript

I want to give a static javascript block of code to a html template designer, which can be:
either inline or external or both
used once or more in the html template
and each block can determine its position in the template relative to the other javascript code blocks.
An example could be image banners served using javascript. I give code to template designer who places it in two places, once for a horizontal banner in the header and once for a vertical banner. The same code runs in both blocks but knowing their positions can determine if to serve a horizontal or a vertical image banner.
Make sense?
Another example: Say you have the same 2 javascript tags in a web page calling an external script on a server. Can the server and/or scripts determine which javascript tag it belongs to?
NOTE: Can we say this is a challenge? I know that I can avoid this puzzle very easily but I come across this on a regular basis.

JavaScript code can locate all <script> elements on the page and it can probably examine the attributes and the content to check from which element it came from. But that's probably not what you want.
What you want is a piece of JavaScript which replaces tags on the page with ad banners. The usual solution is to add a special element, say a IMG, for this and give that IMG an id or a class or maybe even a custom attribute (like adtype="vertical") and then use JavaScript to locate these elements and replace the content by changing the src attribute.
For example, using jQuery, you can should your images like so:
<img src="empty.gif" width="..." height="..." class="ad" adtype="..." />
Then you can locate each image with
$('img.ad')
[EDIT] Well, the server obviously knows which script belongs into which script tag because it inserts the script. So this is a no-brainer.
If the script wants to find out where it is in the DOM, add something which it can use to identify itself, say:
<script>var id= '329573485745';
Then you can walk all script tags and check which one contains the value of the variable id.
If you call an external script, then you can do the same but you must add the ID to the script tag as you emit the HTML:
<script id="329573485745" src="..." />
Then the external script can examine the DOM and lookup the element with this id. You will want to use an UUID for this, btw.
This way, a piece of JS can locate the script tag which added itself to the page.

Best thing would probably be to make an insert once function, and then have him insert only the function call where needed.
Like this:
timescalled=0
function buildad(){
var toinsert="" //Code to generate the desired piece of HTML
document.write(toinsert)
timescalled+=1 //So you can tell how many times the function have been called
}
Now a script block calling the function can simply be inserted wherever a banner is needed
<script type="text/javascript">buildad()</script>

Thanks for the tips everyone but I'll be answering my own question.
I figured out several ways of accomplishing the task and I give you the one which works nicely and is easy to understand.
The following chunk of code relies on outputting dummy divs and jQuery.
<script>
// Unique identifier for all dummy divs
var rnd1="_0xDEFEC8ED_";
// Unique identifier for this dummy div
var rnd2=Math.floor(Math.random()*999999);
// The dummy div
var d="<div class='"+rnd1+" "+rnd2+"'></div>";
// Script which :
// Calculates index of THIS dummy div
// Total dummy divs
// Outputs to dummy div for debugging
var f1="<script>$(document).ready(function(){";
var f2="var i=$('."+rnd1+"').index($('."+rnd2+"'))+1;";
var f3="var t=$('."+rnd1+"').length;";
var f4="$('."+rnd2+"').html(i+' / '+t);";
var f5="});<\/script>";
document.write(d+f1+f2+f3+f4+f5);
</script>

Why not not just place the function call on the page instead of the entire code block? This way you can pass in a parameter to tell it what type of advertisement is needed?
BuildAd('Tower');
BuildAd('Banner');
Javascript itself has no clue of it's position in a page. You have to target a control on the page to get it's location.

I don't think it is possible for JavaScript code to know where it was loaded from. It certainly doesn't run at the point it is found, since execution isn't directly tied to the loading process (code usually runs after the whole DOM is loaded). In fact, in the case of externals, it doesn't even make sense, since only one copy of the code will be loaded no matter how many times it is encountered.

It shouldn't be the same code for each banner - there will be a parameter passed to whatever is serving the image banner which will specify the intended size.
Can you give a specific example of what you need this for?
To edit for your recent example: The simple answer is no. I could help you approach the problem from a different direction if you post details of your problem

The term "static block of code" leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
Inline scripts (e.g., ones that rely on document.write and so must be parsed and executed during the HTML parsing phase) cannot tell where they are in the DOM at runtime. You have to tell them (as in one of the first answers you got).
I think you'll probably find that you need to change your approach.
A common way to keep code and markup separate (which is useful when providing tools to HTML designers who aren't coders) is to have them use a script tag like so:
<script defer async type='text/javascript' src='pagestuff.js'></script>
...which then triggers itself when the page is loaded (using window.onload if necessary, but there are several techniques for being triggered earlier than that, which you want because window.onload doesn't trigger until the images have all loaded).
That script then looks for markers in the markup and manipulates the page accordingly. For instance (this example uses Prototype, but you can do the same with raw JavaScript, jQuery, Closure, etc.):
document.observe("dom:loaded", initPage);
function initPage() {
var verticals = $$('div.vertical');
/* ...do something with the array of "vertical" divs in `verticals`,
such as: */
var index;
for (index = 0; index < verticals.length; ++index) {
vertical.update("I'm vertical #" + index);
}
}
The designers can then have blocks on the page that are filled in by code which they flag up in a way that's normal for them (classes or attributes, etc.). The code figures out what it should do based on the classes/attributes of the blocks it finds when it runs.

Related

Why doesn't it format the javascript code? [duplicate]

In tutorials I've learnt to use document.write. Now I understand that by many this is frowned upon. I've tried print(), but then it literally sends it to the printer.
So what are alternatives I should use, and why shouldn't I use document.write? Both w3schools and MDN use document.write.
The reason that your HTML is replaced is because of an evil JavaScript function: document.write().
It is most definitely "bad form." It only works with webpages if you use it on the page load; and if you use it during runtime, it will replace your entire document with the input. And if you're applying it as strict XHTML structure it's not even valid code.
the problem:
document.write writes to the document stream. Calling document.write on a closed (or loaded) document automatically calls document.open which will clear the document.
-- quote from the MDN
document.write() has two henchmen, document.open(), and document.close(). When the HTML document is loading, the document is "open". When the document has finished loading, the document has "closed". Using document.write() at this point will erase your entire (closed) HTML document and replace it with a new (open) document. This means your webpage has erased itself and started writing a new page - from scratch.
I believe document.write() causes the browser to have a performance decrease as well (correct me if I am wrong).
an example:
This example writes output to the HTML document after the page has loaded. Watch document.write()'s evil powers clear the entire document when you press the "exterminate" button:
I am an ordinary HTML page. I am innocent, and purely for informational purposes. Please do not <input type="button" onclick="document.write('This HTML page has been succesfully exterminated.')" value="exterminate"/>
me!
the alternatives:
.innerHTML This is a wonderful alternative, but this attribute has to be attached to the element where you want to put the text.
Example: document.getElementById('output1').innerHTML = 'Some text!';
.createTextNode() is the alternative recommended by the W3C.
Example: var para = document.createElement('p');
para.appendChild(document.createTextNode('Hello, '));
NOTE: This is known to have some performance decreases (slower than .innerHTML). I recommend using .innerHTML instead.
the example with the .innerHTML alternative:
I am an ordinary HTML page.
I am innocent, and purely for informational purposes.
Please do not
<input type="button" onclick="document.getElementById('output1').innerHTML = 'There was an error exterminating this page. Please replace <code>.innerHTML</code> with <code>document.write()</code> to complete extermination.';" value="exterminate"/>
me!
<p id="output1"></p>
Here is code that should replace document.write in-place:
document.write=function(s){
var scripts = document.getElementsByTagName('script');
var lastScript = scripts[scripts.length-1];
lastScript.insertAdjacentHTML("beforebegin", s);
}
You can combine insertAdjacentHTML method and document.currentScript property.
The insertAdjacentHTML() method of the Element interface parses the specified text as HTML or XML and inserts the resulting nodes into the DOM tree at a specified position:
'beforebegin': Before the element itself.
'afterbegin': Just inside the element, before its first child.
'beforeend': Just inside the element, after its last child.
'afterend': After the element itself.
The document.currentScript property returns the <script> element whose script is currently being processed. Best position will be beforebegin — new HTML will be inserted before <script> itself. To match document.write's native behavior, one would position the text afterend, but then the nodes from consecutive calls to the function aren't placed in the same order as you called them (like document.write does), but in reverse. The order in which your HTML appears is probably more important than where they're place relative to the <script> tag, hence the use of beforebegin.
document.currentScript.insertAdjacentHTML(
'beforebegin',
'This is a document.write alternative'
)
As a recommended alternative to document.write you could use DOM manipulation to directly query and add node elements to the DOM.
Just dropping a note here to say that, although using document.write is highly frowned upon due to performance concerns (synchronous DOM injection and evaluation), there is also no actual 1:1 alternative if you are using document.write to inject script tags on demand.
There are a lot of great ways to avoid having to do this (e.g. script loaders like RequireJS that manage your dependency chains) but they are more invasive and so are best used throughout the site/application.
I fail to see the problem with document.write. If you are using it before the onload event fires, as you presumably are, to build elements from structured data for instance, it is the appropriate tool to use. There is no performance advantage to using insertAdjacentHTML or explicitly adding nodes to the DOM after it has been built. I just tested it three different ways with an old script I once used to schedule incoming modem calls for a 24/7 service on a bank of 4 modems.
By the time it is finished this script creates over 3000 DOM nodes, mostly table cells. On a 7 year old PC running Firefox on Vista, this little exercise takes less than 2 seconds using document.write from a local 12kb source file and three 1px GIFs which are re-used about 2000 times. The page just pops into existence fully formed, ready to handle events.
Using insertAdjacentHTML is not a direct substitute as the browser closes tags which the script requires remain open, and takes twice as long to ultimately create a mangled page. Writing all the pieces to a string and then passing it to insertAdjacentHTML takes even longer, but at least you get the page as designed. Other options (like manually re-building the DOM one node at a time) are so ridiculous that I'm not even going there.
Sometimes document.write is the thing to use. The fact that it is one of the oldest methods in JavaScript is not a point against it, but a point in its favor - it is highly optimized code which does exactly what it was intended to do and has been doing since its inception.
It's nice to know that there are alternative post-load methods available, but it must be understood that these are intended for a different purpose entirely; namely modifying the DOM after it has been created and memory allocated to it. It is inherently more resource-intensive to use these methods if your script is intended to write the HTML from which the browser creates the DOM in the first place.
Just write it and let the browser and interpreter do the work. That's what they are there for.
PS: I just tested using an onload param in the body tag and even at this point the document is still open and document.write() functions as intended. Also, there is no perceivable performance difference between the various methods in the latest version of Firefox. Of course there is a ton of caching probably going on somewhere in the hardware/software stack, but that's the point really - let the machine do the work. It may make a difference on a cheap smartphone though. Cheers!
The question depends on what you are actually trying to do.
Usually, instead of doing document.write you can use someElement.innerHTML or better, document.createElement with an someElement.appendChild.
You can also consider using a library like jQuery and using the modification functions in there: http://api.jquery.com/category/manipulation/
This is probably the most correct, direct replacement: insertAdjacentHTML.
Try to use getElementById() or getElementsByName() to access a specific element and then to use innerHTML property:
<html>
<body>
<div id="myDiv1"></div>
<div id="myDiv2"></div>
</body>
<script type="text/javascript">
var myDiv1 = document.getElementById("myDiv1");
var myDiv2 = document.getElementById("myDiv2");
myDiv1.innerHTML = "<b>Content of 1st DIV</b>";
myDiv2.innerHTML = "<i>Content of second DIV element</i>";
</script>
</html>
Use
var documentwrite =(value, method="", display="")=>{
switch(display) {
case "block":
var x = document.createElement("p");
break;
case "inline":
var x = document.createElement("span");
break;
default:
var x = document.createElement("p");
}
var t = document.createTextNode(value);
x.appendChild(t);
if(method==""){
document.body.appendChild(x);
}
else{
document.querySelector(method).appendChild(x);
}
}
and call the function based on your requirement as below
documentwrite("My sample text"); //print value inside body
documentwrite("My sample text inside id", "#demoid", "block"); // print value inside id and display block
documentwrite("My sample text inside class", ".democlass","inline"); // print value inside class and and display inline
I'm not sure if this will work exactly, but I thought of
var docwrite = function(doc) {
document.write(doc);
};
This solved the problem with the error messages for me.

What's wrong with document.write? What's a viable alternative? [duplicate]

In tutorials I've learnt to use document.write. Now I understand that by many this is frowned upon. I've tried print(), but then it literally sends it to the printer.
So what are alternatives I should use, and why shouldn't I use document.write? Both w3schools and MDN use document.write.
The reason that your HTML is replaced is because of an evil JavaScript function: document.write().
It is most definitely "bad form." It only works with webpages if you use it on the page load; and if you use it during runtime, it will replace your entire document with the input. And if you're applying it as strict XHTML structure it's not even valid code.
the problem:
document.write writes to the document stream. Calling document.write on a closed (or loaded) document automatically calls document.open which will clear the document.
-- quote from the MDN
document.write() has two henchmen, document.open(), and document.close(). When the HTML document is loading, the document is "open". When the document has finished loading, the document has "closed". Using document.write() at this point will erase your entire (closed) HTML document and replace it with a new (open) document. This means your webpage has erased itself and started writing a new page - from scratch.
I believe document.write() causes the browser to have a performance decrease as well (correct me if I am wrong).
an example:
This example writes output to the HTML document after the page has loaded. Watch document.write()'s evil powers clear the entire document when you press the "exterminate" button:
I am an ordinary HTML page. I am innocent, and purely for informational purposes. Please do not <input type="button" onclick="document.write('This HTML page has been succesfully exterminated.')" value="exterminate"/>
me!
the alternatives:
.innerHTML This is a wonderful alternative, but this attribute has to be attached to the element where you want to put the text.
Example: document.getElementById('output1').innerHTML = 'Some text!';
.createTextNode() is the alternative recommended by the W3C.
Example: var para = document.createElement('p');
para.appendChild(document.createTextNode('Hello, '));
NOTE: This is known to have some performance decreases (slower than .innerHTML). I recommend using .innerHTML instead.
the example with the .innerHTML alternative:
I am an ordinary HTML page.
I am innocent, and purely for informational purposes.
Please do not
<input type="button" onclick="document.getElementById('output1').innerHTML = 'There was an error exterminating this page. Please replace <code>.innerHTML</code> with <code>document.write()</code> to complete extermination.';" value="exterminate"/>
me!
<p id="output1"></p>
Here is code that should replace document.write in-place:
document.write=function(s){
var scripts = document.getElementsByTagName('script');
var lastScript = scripts[scripts.length-1];
lastScript.insertAdjacentHTML("beforebegin", s);
}
You can combine insertAdjacentHTML method and document.currentScript property.
The insertAdjacentHTML() method of the Element interface parses the specified text as HTML or XML and inserts the resulting nodes into the DOM tree at a specified position:
'beforebegin': Before the element itself.
'afterbegin': Just inside the element, before its first child.
'beforeend': Just inside the element, after its last child.
'afterend': After the element itself.
The document.currentScript property returns the <script> element whose script is currently being processed. Best position will be beforebegin — new HTML will be inserted before <script> itself. To match document.write's native behavior, one would position the text afterend, but then the nodes from consecutive calls to the function aren't placed in the same order as you called them (like document.write does), but in reverse. The order in which your HTML appears is probably more important than where they're place relative to the <script> tag, hence the use of beforebegin.
document.currentScript.insertAdjacentHTML(
'beforebegin',
'This is a document.write alternative'
)
As a recommended alternative to document.write you could use DOM manipulation to directly query and add node elements to the DOM.
Just dropping a note here to say that, although using document.write is highly frowned upon due to performance concerns (synchronous DOM injection and evaluation), there is also no actual 1:1 alternative if you are using document.write to inject script tags on demand.
There are a lot of great ways to avoid having to do this (e.g. script loaders like RequireJS that manage your dependency chains) but they are more invasive and so are best used throughout the site/application.
I fail to see the problem with document.write. If you are using it before the onload event fires, as you presumably are, to build elements from structured data for instance, it is the appropriate tool to use. There is no performance advantage to using insertAdjacentHTML or explicitly adding nodes to the DOM after it has been built. I just tested it three different ways with an old script I once used to schedule incoming modem calls for a 24/7 service on a bank of 4 modems.
By the time it is finished this script creates over 3000 DOM nodes, mostly table cells. On a 7 year old PC running Firefox on Vista, this little exercise takes less than 2 seconds using document.write from a local 12kb source file and three 1px GIFs which are re-used about 2000 times. The page just pops into existence fully formed, ready to handle events.
Using insertAdjacentHTML is not a direct substitute as the browser closes tags which the script requires remain open, and takes twice as long to ultimately create a mangled page. Writing all the pieces to a string and then passing it to insertAdjacentHTML takes even longer, but at least you get the page as designed. Other options (like manually re-building the DOM one node at a time) are so ridiculous that I'm not even going there.
Sometimes document.write is the thing to use. The fact that it is one of the oldest methods in JavaScript is not a point against it, but a point in its favor - it is highly optimized code which does exactly what it was intended to do and has been doing since its inception.
It's nice to know that there are alternative post-load methods available, but it must be understood that these are intended for a different purpose entirely; namely modifying the DOM after it has been created and memory allocated to it. It is inherently more resource-intensive to use these methods if your script is intended to write the HTML from which the browser creates the DOM in the first place.
Just write it and let the browser and interpreter do the work. That's what they are there for.
PS: I just tested using an onload param in the body tag and even at this point the document is still open and document.write() functions as intended. Also, there is no perceivable performance difference between the various methods in the latest version of Firefox. Of course there is a ton of caching probably going on somewhere in the hardware/software stack, but that's the point really - let the machine do the work. It may make a difference on a cheap smartphone though. Cheers!
The question depends on what you are actually trying to do.
Usually, instead of doing document.write you can use someElement.innerHTML or better, document.createElement with an someElement.appendChild.
You can also consider using a library like jQuery and using the modification functions in there: http://api.jquery.com/category/manipulation/
This is probably the most correct, direct replacement: insertAdjacentHTML.
Try to use getElementById() or getElementsByName() to access a specific element and then to use innerHTML property:
<html>
<body>
<div id="myDiv1"></div>
<div id="myDiv2"></div>
</body>
<script type="text/javascript">
var myDiv1 = document.getElementById("myDiv1");
var myDiv2 = document.getElementById("myDiv2");
myDiv1.innerHTML = "<b>Content of 1st DIV</b>";
myDiv2.innerHTML = "<i>Content of second DIV element</i>";
</script>
</html>
Use
var documentwrite =(value, method="", display="")=>{
switch(display) {
case "block":
var x = document.createElement("p");
break;
case "inline":
var x = document.createElement("span");
break;
default:
var x = document.createElement("p");
}
var t = document.createTextNode(value);
x.appendChild(t);
if(method==""){
document.body.appendChild(x);
}
else{
document.querySelector(method).appendChild(x);
}
}
and call the function based on your requirement as below
documentwrite("My sample text"); //print value inside body
documentwrite("My sample text inside id", "#demoid", "block"); // print value inside id and display block
documentwrite("My sample text inside class", ".democlass","inline"); // print value inside class and and display inline
I'm not sure if this will work exactly, but I thought of
var docwrite = function(doc) {
document.write(doc);
};
This solved the problem with the error messages for me.

how to avoid fetching a part of html page which is being called inside another page?

I am calling a .html page(say A.html, which is dynamically created by another software each time a request is made) inside another webpage (say B.html). I am doing this by using the .load() function. Everything works fine but the problem is I donot want the so many "br" tags (empty tags) present at the end of A.html into B.html. Is there any way to avoid fetching those "br" tags into B.html? Any suggestion would be of great help. Thank you in advance.
You can't avoid loading part of a file when you are just accessing it.
The best option would be to simply remove the extra <br> tags from the document to begin with. There is probably a better way to accomplish whatever they are attempting to accomplish.
With some server-side scripting, it could be possible to strip them automatically when you load it, but would probably be pretty bothersome to do.
Instead, if you can't remove the <br> elements for some reason, what might be easier, if you are just dealing with a handful of <br> tags would be to simply strip them out.
Since you mention using the load() function, I'm guessing you are using jQuery.
If that's the case, something like this would cleanly strip out any extra <br> tags from the end of the document.
Here is a JSfiddle which will do it: http://jsfiddle.net/dMJ2F/
var html = "<p>A</p><br><p>B</p><br><p>C</p><br><br /><br/>";
var $html = $('<div>').append(html);
var $br;
while (($br = $html.find('br:last-child')).length > 0) {
$br.remove();
}
$('p').text($html.html());
Basically, throw the loaded stuff in to a div (in memory), then loop through and remove each <br> at the end until there aren't any. You could use regex to do this as well, but it runs a few risks that this jQuery method doesn't.
You shout delete the br-tags in your A.html.
Substitute them by changing the class .sequence with marging-top:30px
And have an other value in your B.html-file.
You also can run this:
$('br', '.sequence').remove();​
in the load-function. It will strip all br-tags.
You can't avoid fetching a part of your page, but you CAN fetch only a part of it.
According to the jQuery docs, you can call load like this:
$("#result").load("urlorpage #form-id");
That way, you only load the form html inside the result element.

Is it possible to reliably insert a HTML element at script's location?

I'm writing a Javascript file which will be a component in a webpage. I'd like it to be simple to use - just reference the script file in your page, and it is there. To that end however there is a complication - where should the HTML go that the Javascript generates? One approach would be to require a placeholder element in the page with a fixed ID or class or something. But that's an extra requirement. It would be better if the HTML was generated at the location that the script is placed (or, at the start of body, if the script is placed in head). Also, for extra customizability, if the fixed ID was found, the HTML would be placed inside that placeholder.
So I'm wondering - how do I detect my script's location in the page? And how do I place HTML there? document.write() comes to mind, but that is documented as being pretty unreliable. Also it doesn't help if the script is in the head. Not to mention what happens if my script is loaded dynamically via some AJAX call, but I suppose that can be left as an unsupported scenario.
I am doing that with this code...
// This is for Firefox only at the moment.
var thisScriptElement = document.currentScript,
// Generic `a` element for exploiting its ability to return `pathname`.
a = document.createElement('a');
if ( ! thisScriptElement) {
// Iterate backwards, to look for our script.
var scriptElements = document.body.getElementsByTagName('script'),
i = scriptElements.length;
while (i--) {
if ( ! scriptElements[i].src) {
continue;
}
a.href = scriptElements[i].src;
if (a.pathname.replace(/^.*\//, '') == 'name-of-your-js-code.js') {
thisScriptElement = scriptElements[i];
break;
}
}
}
Then, to add your element, it's simple as...
currentScript.parentNode.insertBefore(newElement, currentScript);
I simply add a script element anywhere (and multiple times if necessary) in the body element to include it...
<script type="text/javascript" src="somewhere/name-of-your-js-code.js?"></script>
Ensure the code runs as is, not in DOM ready or window's load event.
Basically, we first check for document.currentScript, which is Firefox only but still useful (if it becomes standardised and/or other browsers implement it, it should be most reliable and fastest).
Then I create a generic a element to exploit some of its functionality, such as extracting the path portion of the href.
I then iterate backwards over the script elements (because in parse order the last script element should be the currently executing script), comparing the filename to what we know ours is called. You may be able to skip this, but I am doing this to be safe.
document.write is very reliable if used as you indicate (a default SharePoint 2010 page uses it 6 times). If placed in the head, it will write content to immediately after the body element. The trick is to build a single string of HTML and write it in one go, don't write snippets of half-formed HTML.
An alternative is to use document.getElementsByTagName('script') while the document is loading and assume the the last one is the current script element. Then you can look at the parent and if it's the head, use the load or DOM ready event to add your elements after the body. Otherwise, just add it before or after the script element as appropriate.

Recommended method to locate the current script?

I am writing a script that needs to add DOM elements to the page, at the place where the script is located (widget-like approach).
What is the best way to do this?
Here are the techniques I am considering:
Include an element with an id="Locator" right above the script. Issues:
I don't like the extra markup
If I reuse the widget in the page, several elements will have the same "Locator" id. I was thinking about adding a line in the script to remove the id once used, but still...
Add an id to the script. Issues:
even though it seems to work, the id attribute is not valid for the script element
same issue as above, several elements will have the same id if I reuse the script in the page.
Use getElementsByTagName("script") and pick the last element. This has worked for me so far, it just seems a little heavy and I am not sure if it is reliable (thinking about deferred scripts)
document.write: not elegant, but seems to do the job.
[Edit] Based on the reply from idealmachine, I am thinking about one more option:
Include in the script tag an attribute, for example goal="tabify".
Use getElementsByTagName("script") to get all the scripts.
Loop through the scripts and check the goal="tabify" attribute to find my script.
Remove the goal attribute in case there's another widget in the page.
[Edit] Another idea, also inspired by the replies so far:
Use getElementsByTagName("script") to get all the scripts.
Loop through the scripts and check innerHTML to find my script.
At the end of the script, remove the script tag in case there's another widget in the page.
Out of the box : document.currentScript (not supported by IE)
I've worked for OnlyWire which provides, as their main service, a widget to put on your site.
We use the var scripts = document.getElementsByTagName("script"); var thisScript = scripts[scripts.length - 1]; trick and it seems to work pretty well. Then we use thisScript.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, thisScript); to insert whatever we want before it, in the DOM tree.
I'm not sure I understand why you consider this a "heavy" solution... it doesn't involve iteration, it's a pure cross-browser solution which integrates perfectly.
This works with multiple copies of same code on page as well as with dynamically inserted code:
<script type="text/javascript" class="to-run">
(function(self){
if (self == window) {
var script = document.querySelector('script.to-run');
script.className = '';
Function(script.innerHTML).call(script);
} else {
// Do real stuff here. self refers to current script element.
console.log(1, self);
}
})(this);
</script>
Either document.write or picking the last script element will work for synchronously loaded scripts in the majority of web pages. However, there are some options I can think of that you did not consider to allow for async loading:
Adding a div with class="Locator" before the script. HTML classes has the advantage that duplicates are not invalid. Of course, to handle the multiple widget case, you will want to change the element's class name when done adding the HTML elements so you do not add them twice. (Note that it is also possible for an element to be a member of multiple classes; it is a space-separated list.)
Checking the src of each script element can ensure that tracking code (e.g. Google Analytics legacy tracking code) and other scripts loaded at the very end of the page will not prevent your script from working properly when async loading is used. Again, to handle the multiple widget case, you may need to remove the script elements when done with them (i.e. when the desired code has been added to the page).
One final comment I will make (although you may already be aware of this) is that when coding a widget, you need to declare all your variables using var and enclose all your code within: (JSLint can help check this)
(function(){
...
})();
This has been called a "self-executing function" and will ensure that variables used in your script do not interfere with the rest of the Web page.
Whether you drop a <script> tag in or a <div class="mywidget">, you're adding something to the markup. Personally, I prefer the latter as the script itself is only added once. Too many scripts in the page body can slow down the page load time.
But if you need to add the script tag where the widget is going to be, I don't see what's wrong with using document.write() to place a div.
I just found another method that seems to answer my question:
How to access parent Iframe from javascript
Embedding the script in an iframe allows to locate it anytime, as the script always keeps a reference to its own window.
I vote this the best approach, as it'll always work no matter how many times you add the script to the page (think widget). You're welcome to comment.
What pushed me to consider iframes in the first place was an experiment I did to build a Google gadget.
In many cases this work well (hud.js is the name of the scipt):
var jsscript = document.getElementsByTagName("script");
for (var i = 0; i < jsscript.length; i++) {
var pattern = /hud.js/i;
if ( pattern.test( jsscript[i].getAttribute("src") ) )
{
var parser = document.createElement('a');
parser.href = jsscript[i].getAttribute("src");
host = parser.host;
}
}
Also you can add individual script's name inside them.
either inside some js-script
dataset['my_prefix_name'] = 'someScriptName'
or inside HTML - in the <script> tag
data-my_prefix_name='someScriptName'
and next search appropriate one by looping over document.scripts array:
... function(){
for (var i = 0, n = document.scripts.length; i < n; i++) {
var prefix = document.scripts[i].dataset['my_prefix_name']
if (prefix == 'whatYouNeed')
return prefix
}
}
I haven't had access to internet explorer since forever, but this should work pretty much everywhere:
<script src="script.js"
data-count="30"
data-headline="My headline"
onload="uniqueFunctionName(this)"
defer
></script>
and inside script.js:
window.uniqueFunctionName = function (currentScript) {
var dataset = currentScript.dataset
console.log(dataset['count'])
console.log(dataset['headline'])
}

Categories

Resources