Can script determine if window.onload has already fired?
in [JavaScript]
|
From: David Mark on 24 Nov 2009 19:26 On Nov 24, 3:18 pm, Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> wrote: > On Nov 24, 1:41 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 23, 3:51 pm, Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> wrote: > > > Typical of this group, which is why it's become mostly irrelevant. > > Typical of you, you don't know your evidence. ISTM that you have > > floated the posting traffic in the jQuery group(s) as an indicator of > > relative relevance. > > Indeed. > > The lower signal/noise ration in here and the fewer posts is an > indicator as well. Yes, it is very noisy in the jQuery group as few seem to have a clue what they are discussing. ;) How is that a plus? > > > I will assume you still subscribe to that theory, > > at least up until you read the next couple of lines (then cognitive > > dissonance will kick in and you will find a new belief). > > Know what this is? > > 4206 4167 3792 3351 2655 2904 2895 2651 2500 > > 2251 1866 > > The tallies for the last eleven months for the primary jQuery user > > group. Last month here was 2169. > > The jQuery group is being moved away from Groups because of > unmanageable spam. The number of readers may be reflected by this. Yes, some of them may be spammers that got through rather than readers. So you adjust the totals downward to compensate. > > Or perhaps jQuery is becoming so well known and documented that not as > many people need help with it. How do you like them apples? :) You know that's not true (at least if you have ever read the code). Virtually every jQuery example in print or online uses the attr method. How do you like that apple? http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/e106af2d970d9b29# It's rotten. > > Or perhaps jQuery popularity is fading. If that's the case, so be it. Yes, IE8's arrival coincides almost exactly with the nosedive trend. Who could have seen that coming? :) > Perhaps it will be replaced by something different as the most popular > scripting library. Doesn't matter to me. Obviously it will be "replaced". Science doesn't have any pity on lazy, destructive code monkeys. And neither does business, but it takes a while for ideas to percolate to that level.
From: David Mark on 24 Nov 2009 19:28 On Nov 24, 3:15 pm, Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> wrote: > On Nov 24, 12:02 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 23, 11:12 pm, Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> wrote: > > > 1) That depends on the first script setting an onload listener. What > > > if it is loaded after window.onload? > > And, pray tell, what would have loaded it after onload? > > For example, something like GreaseMonkey. Or any tool which injects > scripts. Or perhaps a bookmarklet. Use your imagination, there are a > number of cases where a script under your control is injected into a > document and you have no control over the source document or when/how > your code gets inserted. And, as mentioned, there is no magic property to determine if the document has loaded. End of story for those examples. > > The ajax/eval method was just an example. Yeah, that's the one you came up with, so that's the one I responded to.
From: wilq on 25 Nov 2009 03:42 On Nov 24, 3:48 pm, "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivo...(a)interxnl.net> wrote: > wilq wrote on 24 nov 2009 in comp.lang.javascript: > > > From what I know there is no simple way to check that. > > check what? > > [please always quote on usenet] > > > Re: Can script determine if window.onload has already fired? > > Sure, just start the onload function with > > var onloading = true; > > ans check that in your script. > > -- > Evertjan. > The Netherlands. > (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress) I think that this problem might be more complicated than you think ;) Please consider all cases - together with lazy load :)
From: David Mark on 25 Nov 2009 04:04 On Nov 25, 3:42 am, wilq <wil...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 24, 3:48 pm, "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivo...(a)interxnl.net> wrote: > > > > > wilq wrote on 24 nov 2009 in comp.lang.javascript: > > > > From what I know there is no simple way to check that. > > > check what? > > > [please always quote on usenet] > > > > Re: Can script determine if window.onload has already fired? > > > Sure, just start the onload function with > > > var onloading = true; > > > ans check that in your script. > > > -- > > Evertjan. > > The Netherlands. > > (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress) > > I think that this problem might be more complicated than you think ;) > Please consider all cases - together with lazy load :) Realize that lazy loading of scripts is often indicative of lazy programmers trying to hide that they are using much too general (and therefore bloated) scripts. Or it may be Ajax-itis (the compelling need to cram every app into one document).
From: beegee on 26 Nov 2009 10:43
On Nov 25, 4:04 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Realize that lazy loading of scripts is often indicative of lazy > programmers trying to hide that they are using much too general (and > therefore bloated) scripts. Or it may be Ajax-itis (the compelling > need to cram every app into one document). I think this was a *lazy* reply. There is a compelling case to be made to a web user experience that resembles a stand-alone application. Users generally get nervous when they are directed off the home page. Even web 2.0 experiences like Facebook (basically 2 pages) are confusing to many. Now, Ajax in it's current state may not be the way to get to the one-page application but the trend is to get there. The YUI Loader component is an attempt (unsuccessful in my opinion) to implement the component approach of application development. In the end, the suggestion of testing a global variable is exactly what the OP is going to have to do. Every single script he downloads is going to have to know of this variable or function. That IS the current state of browser script load notification. I don't believe saying that the need for such an approach shows bad design is correct. Bob |