Using XMLHttpRequest run locally for local data reading
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: Young girls showing off their bodies on personal webcams
Next: FAQ Topic - How do I change print settings for window.print()? (2010-04-25)
From: VK on 24 Apr 2010 15:46 On Apr 24, 11:33 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: > JScript support has *nothing* to do with the > underlying DOM that provides the `XMLHttpRequest' and `ActiveXObject' > objects. Real production has *nothing* to do with theoretical masturbations. ActiveXObject = IE. IE = ActiveXObject. For the rest - write poems on c.l.j. Someone may read them. > > It is a JScript conditional compilation statement: > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/7kx09ct1(VS.80).aspx > > I *know* what it is, stupid. That's good for a starter. > > Any browser but IE will see false, [...] > > Definitely no. Definitely yes, silly boy. You just claimed you knew the matter. > Often Wrong, your code will _not_ work in MSHTML with local files to begin > with. OK, PointedEars, I am ready to have a harsh or not so harsh *discussion* but I will not respond to a pure blind trolling. The test results were received using this code, the code is posted as one zip file to download. Get it and check it. If you want to call me a liar who fabricates *results* (leaving out their interpretations for now) - then you better do not do it.
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 24 Apr 2010 15:52 VK wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> JScript support has *nothing* to do with the >> underlying DOM that provides the `XMLHttpRequest' and `ActiveXObject' >> objects. > > Real production has *nothing* to do with theoretical masturbations. > ActiveXObject = IE. IE = ActiveXObject. For the rest - write poems on > c.l.j. Someone may read them. You're such an idiot: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSHTML#Trident-based_applications> PointedEars -- Danny Goodman's books are out of date and teach practices that are positively harmful for cross-browser scripting. -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <cife6q$253$1$8300dec7(a)news.demon.co.uk> (2004)
From: VK on 24 Apr 2010 16:03 On Apr 24, 11:52 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: > VK wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> JScript support has *nothing* to do with the > >> underlying DOM that provides the `XMLHttpRequest' and `ActiveXObject' > >> objects. > > > Real production has *nothing* to do with theoretical masturbations. > > ActiveXObject = IE. IE = ActiveXObject. For the rest - write poems on > > c.l.j. Someone may read them. > > You're such an idiot: > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSHTML#Trident-based_applications> You are so silly. What connection in your mind is between a rendering engine .dll and COM / ActiveX? A hint: none, except the substrings "MS" and "HTML" one can find both in .dll name and in some ProgIDs :-) Learn, learn, learn - that's the only salvation. At the spare time try to use new ActiveXObject(whatever) in Winamp, it does use Trident as well ;-)
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 24 Apr 2010 16:24 VK wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> VK wrote: >> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> >> JScript support has *nothing* to do with the >> >> underlying DOM that provides the `XMLHttpRequest' and `ActiveXObject' >> >> objects. >> >> > Real production has *nothing* to do with theoretical masturbations. >> > ActiveXObject = IE. IE = ActiveXObject. For the rest - write poems on >> > c.l.j. Someone may read them. >> >> You're such an idiot: >> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSHTML#Trident-based_applications> > > You are so silly. What connection in your mind is between a rendering > engine .dll and COM / ActiveX? A hint: none, [rubbish recycled] The layout engine usually provides the host environment for DOM objects. It is true that MSHTML does not need to mean ActiveX is also supported. However, more important is that there is not a necessary connection between _layout_ engine and the DOM binding it provides and the supported scripting language. That is why your approach is junk. PointedEars -- Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript. -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300dec7(a)news.demon.co.uk>
From: VK on 24 Apr 2010 18:20
On Apr 25, 12:24 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: > The layout engine usually provides the host environment for DOM objects. Uhmm... It is a very simplistic way to put it, but OK. > It is true that MSHTML does not need to mean ActiveX is also supported. > However, more important is that there is not a necessary connection between > _layout_ engine and the DOM binding it provides and the supported scripting > language. For IE of any version COM interfaces, accessible over window.ActiveXObject, are not part of a rendering engine nor even part of IE itself. They are programmed into JScript engine. And JScript engine in IE of any version is one separate DLL library located at %SystemRoot%System32/jscript.dll It is made so because jscript.dll is not a part of IE, it is a system dll needed for Windows Script Host functionality in its JScript part. The other system dll %SystemRoot%System32/vbscript.dll provides WSH VBScript part of functionality. So either one has IE installed or not, these dll are there, unless the system is badly broken. But IE installations may upgrade these dll to newer ones if instructed to do so. So IE is just yet another user of jscript.dll. Moreover until IE7 it was possible to replace jscript.dll so making IE6 running with JScript for IE5 or IE5 running with JScript for IE6. Funny, but crashes quickly. Any way, to make the long story shorter: var isIE = /*@cc_on/*@if(@_jscript)true(a)else@*/false/*@end@*/; effectively checks if the environment uses jscript.dll so running Microsoft JScript of some (easy to check) version. If false, than it is not Microsoft JScript, that is not jscript.dll and no way in the world - atop of all other consequences - it may implement Microsoft ActiveXObject. I am obviously talking about officially released commercial software. > That is why your approach is junk. This is why my approach is bulletproof and ActiveXObject feature testing is junk. P.S. As a side note I am a bit suspicious about IE-compatibility experts claiming that they never had and/or not having any Microsoft products and being happy with *nux or MacOS. This one not directly to you, just an observation. Where do they get all their M$-related wisdom? From their "mis-fortunate" M$'ed friends? As a sample of the prevailing illiteracy on Msxml2.XMLHTTP topic this W3Schools "valuable advise" at http://www.w3schools.com/xpath/xpath_examples.asp "To solve the [0] and [1] problem in IE5+, you can set the SelectionLanguage to XPath." Splendid! "This property or method is not supported" runtime error for all IE users up to IE7, unless they manually updated their XMLHTTP libraries. About their XHR instantiation approach I have nothing to say at all: http://www.w3schools.com/ajax/ajax_xmlhttprequest_create.asp Whoever read comments in the code I posted will easily understand that W3Schools is NOT a place to learn, at least about Ajax. But hell with W3Schools - lousy were, lousy stay, lousy will remain. The whole Web info like that on the topic, and respectively all libs like that. "X said to Y that Z heard from... that..." And that's past over 5 years after the "Ajax" explosion! http://www.adaptivepath.com/ideas/essays/archives/000385.php What is wrong with the world?.. |