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.
Related
I am building a multi-page front end for a web application. There is minimal javascript for the UI, but I know there will a great deal of javascript to handle the back-end, so I am doing my best to keep it as sparse and limited as possible.
I want to conditionally execute javascript synchronously while using only one minified js file. I have some global functions, but most of the code is page specific. Each page has the id of the page in the body element. For example, about.html has the following code <html>...<body id="about">...</body></html>.
I am aware of various async methods to load javascript, such as require.js or even $.getScript, but for various reasons, I am trying to avoid that route. Because I am preprocessing the HTML, I also don't want to break the scripts up per page (though I could), because it is a small file, and I don't want to have to create a bunch of different <script> tags. My current solution is to conditionally execute the required javascript per page, and I am doing it like the example below:
$(document).ready(function(){
//global.js code
if(document.body.id==='about'){
// about.js code
}
if(document.body.id==='home'){
//home.js code
}
// etc.
});
During the build process, all js is stored in seperate files, so it's not as visually asinine as it looks here, because there is only a single include filename.js inside the body of the conditional.
The conditionals prevent unnecessary code from executing on each page. However, it dawned on me while I was doing this that there might not actually be any benefit to doing it this way. I read that $(window).load or $('body').load events might cause conflicts with $(document).ready, and they are both definitely slower - as is window.onload (I tested). That would've been my preferred way of going about this I suppose. Is what I read true? And / or, is what I'm doing in anyway useful?
For page specific events, why not just add the body ID in the element reference?
$( '#about .do-something' ).on()...
And if you're actually executing non event based code on a per page basis
if( $( '#about' ).length ) { // trigger your code here }
It's not too dissimilar to your solution except it doesn't require you to keep a manifest of sorts about what code to execute where. Either way, both solutions get cached.
I'm looking for some advice on the best way to hold my JavaScript (jQuery) functions.
I am developing in MVC/razor and therefore have a layout page. I include my jQuery library and an external JavaScript file in here so it's available in every single page.
This is working well, but I am now becoming very aware of the fact that I am adding almost 300 lines of JS to EVERY page, where maybe half of that is used in any one of these pages.
One function is not in the external file and instead sits inside the HTML because I need to use variables set in my razor code.
I have a couple of questions around this arrangement:
Is placing JS inside the HTML generally acceptable when variables set using razor are used? There does not appear to be a clean way of passing a variable into an external js file
Should I split my functions down in to individual JS files and just include what is needed for each page in the site?
If I were to split them into multiple files, how would that work with jQuery's (document).ready ? Do I need to use that if all the JavaScript I am including is to be used?
I'm sure this will more a matter of opinion than a black and white answer, but I want to consider all my options before moving on. Even though it works fine as is, I can't help but feel there is a better/cleaner way.
Remember once a user lands on your homepage and loads the javascript file it will be cached in their browser so subsequent pages will not download the Javascript again.
I would definitely keep the js separate, you could have a snippet on each page that initialise the JS that that particurlar view needs. Put something like the below in the views that need to run JS
$(document).ready(function() {
mysite.mypage();
});
Then the function mysite.mypage() can be defined in the external JS file.
300 lines isnt the end of the world, I would say its probably too early to be worryign about optimisation.
You could always look at minifying that JS file to decrease the size. A quick and easy way to do this is here:
http://www.minifyjavascript.com/
Have you ever heard of require.js? http://requirejs.org/ I find it really useful.
It's a module loader so you are able to split all of your JS code into individual files and load only the ones you need on each page.
I don't know about passing a variable to an external JS file, I don't think its possible / the 'right' way.
You can make each external JS file into a function that accepts and returns parameters. Then in the page you need to use it:
- include the file dependancy
- call the function
Thats what I do, seems like your 2nd suggestion.
for the $(document.ready) question its really up to you. You don't have to use it but its useful for some things , check out this overview:
http://docs.jquery.com/Tutorials:Introducing_$(document).ready()
Ok So I know it always depends on the situation but I have, thus far, combined my jquery files/plugins into a single compressed file.
Now I am wondering what I should do with my page specific js/jQuery code. Should I have a single file with one Document.Ready function and my entires sites js code inside of it? Or split it up into seperate js files per page with a document ready call in each?
These files will inclide things such as .Click handlers and other jquery code specific to certain pages.
Whats the best practice here to optimize load times and maintainabilty?
One way to do it would be to use require.js and then have an array with files and page types. Give each body tag an ID and use it to reference what files should be loaded in.
<body id="pageName">
Keep your global files everything you need for the core functionality to work and then lazy load in the features that aren't required for your site to run faster. I've seen huge speed improvements from this technique.
http://requirejs.org/
We can do this in multiple ways , i did in the following way.
Aggregate your files broadylyas following
1) Aggregate all the files required for all the pages
2) aggregate the pages specific to the page.
Include all the common aggregated file for all the pages , and include other aggregated files conditionally on the page
1) jquery and other plugins common to all pages so // it will go to all files
2) homepage-aggregation /// for homepage
3) gallerypage-aggregation // for gallery page.
If you include the same file for all the pages ,it may not necessary for all the files.
I did it recently , let me know if you need anything else
Because you're almost certain to want to have different things executed in the Document.Ready function depending on what page you're on I don't think that having one function that is executed on every page is helpful.
Personally I mix my $.ready calls in with my HTML. These are simple calls to functions stored in a single, minimizing javascript file so don't take up too many bytes, and prevent the need for a separate Javascript file per page. It also allows me to initiate the Javascript where I create the markup, so it's all in one place.
If you're minimizing your javascript and serving it with the correct headers you've got most of the benefits already, don't compromise readability more than you have to.
It also depends on the server side technology you are using. You may find tools to assist you on this task. If you are coding a Java server side, you may try JAWR. It allows the creation of separated JS/CSS files, merging and compressing them server-side, turning all the separate files into a single file.
About Document.Ready, I prefer to keep specific code page in separate files, avoiding incorrect code execution and behavior. It is also cleaner and easier to maintain.
I've been trying to get this sorted all day, but really cant figure it out. I've got a page with <div id="ajax"></div> that is populated off a tab based menu pulling in a snippet of HTML code stored in an external file that contains some javascript (mainly form validation).
I've seen in places that I need to eval() the code, but then on the same side of things people say its the last thing to do.
Can someone point me in the right direction, and provide an example if possible as I am very new to jQuery / JavaScript.
Many thanks :)
pulling in a snippet of HTML code stored in an external file that contains some javascript (mainly form validation).
Avoid doing this. Writing <script> to innerHTML doesn't cause the script to get executed... though moving the element afterwards can cause it to get executed, at different times in different browsers.
So it's inconsistent in practice, and it doesn't really make any sense to include script anyway:
when you load the same snippet twice, you'd be running the same script twice, which might redefine some of the functions or variables bound to the page, which can leave you in extremely strange and hard-to-debug situations
non-async/defer scripts are expecting to run at parse time, and may include techniques which can't work when inserted into an existing document (in the case of document.write this typically destroys the whole page, a common symptom when trying to load third-party ad/tracking scripts).
Yes, jQuery tries to make some of this more consistent between browsers by extracting script elements and executing them. But no, it doesn't manage to fix all cases (and in principle can't). So don't ask it to. Keep your scripts static, and run any binding script code that needs to happen in the load callback.
If you fetch html via Ajax, and that html has a <script> tag in it, and you write that html into your document via something like $('#foo').append(html), then the JS should run immediately without any hassle whatsoever.
jquery automatically processes scripts received in an ajax request when adding the content to your page. If you are having a particular problem then post some code.
See this link
dataType: "html" - Returns HTML as
plain text; included script tags are
evaluated when inserted in the DOM.
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!)