This code is from http://twitter.github.com/
(function ($, undefined) {
// more code ...
$.getJSON("https://api.github.com/orgs/twitter/members?callback=?", function (result) {
var members = result.data;
$(function () {
$("#num-members").text(members.length);
});
});
// more code ...
})(jQuery);
First, things I understand:
All the code is wrapped in a IIFE
They are using Github API for getting the members
The URL includes the string '?callback=?' so the request is treated as JSONP.
What I don't understand is: why they are using $(function() ... inside the function that is executed if the request succeeds.
Is this code equivalent?
$(function() {
$.getJSON("https://api.github.com/orgs/twitter/members?callback=?", function (result) {
var members = result.data;
$("#num-members").text(members.length);
});
});
Maybe I'm wrong but what I think is that the second code snippet waits for the document to be loaded and then request the members ... so there is not parallelism? In the first code snippet the request is done in parallel with the document loading. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The $ function, if it is passed a function as its argument (it is a horribly overloaded function), will call that function when the DOM is ready.
Having it there stops the code inside (which tries to modify the DOM) from running before the DOM is complete.
If the DOM is already complete before $ is called, then the function will be called immediately.
Note that the HTTP request sent by getJSON might get a response before or after the browser has finished loading and parsing the DOM of the original document.
This allows the request for the data to be sent without waiting for the DOM to be ready while still protecting against premature modification.
Is this code equivalent?
No. That waits for the DOM to be ready before it even sends the request for the data.
Maybe I'm wrong but what I think is that the second code snippet waits for the document to be loaded and then request the members
You're not wrong. That is exactly what happens. The first snippet is most likely used so the JSONP request can be made/returned while waiting for the DOM to be ready. They are just making the best use of the time available.
The chances are the DOM will be ready by the time the AJAX request is complete, but to be on the safe side there is no harm wrapping it in a ready event handler (if the DOM is already ready, jQuery executes the callback immediately).
As you know, this library makes use of jQuery. Now, I know how much we all love jQuery, but what if I want to use another library, such as MooTools or Prototype, that redefines the $ character we all know and love? Using the second example you gave, it breaks the code, because the author is trying to use properties of the $ that likely no longer exist because $ != jQuery.
But in the Twitter snippet, $ is a local variable, an argument to the IIFE, and the jQuery object, which is far less likely to be overwritten, is passed in as that argument. So now, anyone wishing to use this function/library can go ahead and use it without fear that it will break if they combine it with another library using the $.
In summary, It's all about namespacing, to prevent another library overwriting the $ and breaking your function definition.
Related
I'm trying to define the property jQuery on the window object from a content script with code in the setter. That way, when the actual jQuery object is defined, I can use it right away. I seem to be unable to get it right, though.
The target website is Outlook.com. That's the webmail version of Outlook.
I tried to put the code in the content script directly, but even if I put "all_frames": true in the content_scripts section of the manifest (so the code gets injected into every frame), it isn't working.
function afterInit(){
var _jQuery;
console.log('This gets logged');
Object.defineProperty(window, 'jQuery', {
get: function() { return _jQuery; },
set: function(newValue) {
_jQuery = $ = newValue;
console.log('This is never logged!');
$(document.body).append($('<span>I want to use jQuery here</span>'));
}
});
}
afterInit();
I verified that window.jQuery is properly defined afterwards by the actual jQuery function/object, but my setter code is never executed.
I also tried it with message passing: I send a message with the code as a string to a background script, and use executeScript to execute it on the correct tab, but this also doesn't work.
chrome.runtime.sendMessage(
{action:'jQueryPreInit', value: '('+afterInit.toString()+')();'});
And in my background script:
chrome.runtime.onMessage.addListener(function(message, sender, callback) {
switch (message.action){
case "jQueryPreInit": chrome.tabs.executeScript(sender.tab.id, {code: message.value});
}
});
If I put something else than the Object.defineProperty code in the executeScript code, that works fine. I only have problems defining the property.
(quotes are from a comment)
I want to use the jQuery provided by the page itself. I could try inserting the same jQuery file as Outlook does and hope it gets loaded from cache, but I'd rather just keep my extension as clean as possible, and use what is already available.
Your attempt at optimizing the extension is not workable / not recommended.
First off, you will not be able to use the page's code anyway because of the isolation between content script and webpage code. You cannot obtain a reference to page's own jQuery/$.
But let's for a moment suppose that you could. And then the site updates jQuery to another version, renames the jQuery object or stops using it entirely, which is outside your control. Result: your extension is broken. This is, partially, the rationale behind the isolation in the first place.
As a result of the context isolation, you are guaranteed there are no conflicts between your copy of jQuery and whatever runs on the site. So you don't need to worry about that: use your copy, and use the standard $ to access it.
Bundling a <100 KB file with your extension as a one-time download that makes sure code is available 100% of the time and with at worst disk-access latency is not making it less "clean", quite the opposite. It's a common practice and is enshrined in the docs.
Looking at your actual code, it executes in the content script context (regardless whether it's through manifest or executeScript), not in the page context. As such, no matter what the page does, $ will not be defined there.
I verified that window.jQuery is properly defined afterwards by the actual jQuery function/object [...]
I assume that you tried to execute window.jQuery in the console; by default, that executes it in the page context, not in your content script context (therefore, not reflecting the state of the content script context and not invoking your getter/setter). If you want to test your content script, you need to change top in the context drop-down above the console to your extension's context.
All that said, however,
When all is said and done, I want to use jQuery's ajaxSuccess function to execute code every time an e-mail is opened in the read pane.
Here we've got a problem. Since the content script code and webpage code are isolated, your code will never know about AJAX executing in the page's copy (not through ajaxSuccess, anyway).
Possible courses of action:
Rely on other methods to detect the event you want. Perhaps monitoring the DOM.
Inject some code into the page itself; the only way to do so is by injecting a <script> tag into the page from the content script. There, you can access the page's copy of jQuery, attach your listener and message your content script when something happens.
Rely on the background page to detect activity you need with webRequest API. This will likely intercept the AJAX calls, but will not give you the reply contents.
Final note: this may not be as simple as AJAX calls; perhaps the page maintains a WebSocket connection to get realtime push updates. Tapping into this is trickier.
Thanks to Xan, I found there are only two ways to do this.
The first is by adding a <script> element to the DOM containing the appropriate code. This is a pretty extensive StackOverflow answer on how to do that: https://stackoverflow.com/a/9517879/125938.
The second is using Javascript pseudo-URLs and the window.location object. By assigning window.location a bookmarklet-style URL containing Javascript, you also bypass certain security measures. In the content script, put:
location = 'javascript:(' + (function(){
var _jQuery;
Object.defineProperty(window, 'jQuery', {
get: function() { return _jQuery; },
set: function(newValue) {
_jQuery = $ = newValue;
console.log('totally logged!');
$('<span>jQuery stuff here</span>');
}
});
}).toString().replace(/\n/g, ' ')+')();';
The reason I/you were originally failing to define it, was because both methods of code injection we were using, caused our code to be sandboxed into isolated worlds: https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/content_scripts#execution-environment. Meaning, they share the page's DOM and could communicate through it, but they can't access each other's window object directly.
How to know which Javascript (.js) executed a GET or Ajax call using Firebug or Google Chrome Plugin?
For example, a request for a image or html file executed by a Javascript, how to know which Javascript on the page executed that
Update:
I have to (shamefully) admit that the original below was wrong. Due to the nature of the js execution flow this works at the first execution time:
console.log($("script").last().attr("class")); //or whatever
That, however, is not good enough, as illustrated by a call on a timeout. We need to keep the reference to the script element, this can be achieved by wrapping script contents into a closure and creating a variable to store the jQuery reference:
(function(){
var $scriptElement = $("script").last();
console.log($scriptElement.attr("class")); //or whatever
})();
Now, I have to disclaim that with the markup as above it is unlikely to be practical unless you come up with a better way to store the script element reference... this pretty much became a rather bad example of what could be done but really shouldn't :(
Unless you have to get the reference in-code, you would be much better off looking at the console output, it actually tells you where the output originated from, with the line# and everything:
Original:
Not sure how applicable this would be to external js (script tag with a src), but for inline scripts you could do something like this w/jQuery:
$(this).closest("script");//gets you reference to the script element
I'm assuming it would just a matter of getting its src attribute! Let us know if it works.
console.log($(this).closest("script").attr("src"));
In chrome you can break on any xhr request. This will only set breakpoints for AJAX calls though.
I'm adding dynamic script by creating a script tag, setting its source and then adding the tag to the DOM. It works as expected, the script is getting downloaded and executes. However sometimes I would like to cancel script execution before it was downloaded. So I do it by removing the script tag from the DOM.
In IE9, Chrome and Safari it works as expected - after the script tag is removed from the DOM it doesn't execute.
However it doesn't work in Firefox - script executes even if I remove it from the DOM or change it its src to "" or anything else I tried, I cannot stop the execution of a script after it was added to the DOM. Any suggestions?
Thanks!
How about some sort of callback arrangement? Rather than have the dynamically added script simply execute itself when it loads, have it call a function within your main script which will decide whether to go ahead. You could have the main script's function simply return true or false (execute / don't execute), or it could accept a callback function as a parameter so that it can decide exactly when to start the dynamic script - that way if you had several dynamic scripts the main script could wait until they're all loaded and then execute them in a specific order.
In your main script JS:
function dynamicScriptLoaded(scriptId,callback) {
if (scriptId === something && someOtherCondition())
callback();
// or store the callback for later, put it on a timeout, do something
// to sequence it with other callbacks from other dynamic scripts,
// whatever...
}
In your dynamically added script:
function start() {
doMyThing();
doMyOtherThing();
}
if (window.dynamicScriptLoaded)
dynamicScriptLoaded("myIdOrName",start);
else
start();
The dynamic script checks to see if there is a dynamicScriptLoaded() function defined, expecting it to be in the main script (feel free to upgrade this to a more robust test, i.e., checking that dynamicScriptLoaded actually is a function). If it is defined it calls it, passing a callback function. If it isn't defined it assumes it is OK to go ahead and execute itself - or you can put whatever fallback functionality there that you like.
UPDATE: I changed the if test above since if(dynamicScriptLoaded) would give an error if the function didn't exist, whereas if(window.dynamicScriptLoaded) will work. Assuming the function is global - obviously this could be changed if using a namespacing scheme.
In the year since I originally posted this answer I've become aware that the yepnope.js loader allows you to load a script without executing it, so it should be able to handle the situation blankSlate mentioned in the comment below. yepnope.js is only 1.7kb.
I've just begun to work with Require.JS and I'm a bit unclear on the appropriate cases in which it should be used, as well as the correct way to use it in those cases.
Here's how I currently have things set up with Require.JS. I have two functions, functionA() and functionB(). Both of these functions require an additional function, functionC() to work properly.
I only want to load functionC() when necessary, i.e. when functionA() or functionB() is going to be called. So I have the following files:
functionC.js
functionC(){
//do stuff
}
functionA.js
functionA(){
define(['functionC'],function(){
//functionC() is loaded because it is listed as a dependency, so we can proceed
//do some functionA() stuff
});
}
functionB.js
functionB(){
define(['functionC'],function(){
//functionC() is loaded because it is listed as a dependency, so we can proceed
//do some functionB() stuff
});
}
So, is this set up correctly? And if I end up calling both functionA() and functionB() on the same page, is extra work being done since they both load the functionC.js file? If so, is that a problem? And if so, is there a way to set it up so that they first check to see if functionC.js has been loaded yet, and only load it if it hasn't been? Finally, is this an appropriate use of Require.JS?
define() should only be used to define a module. For the above example, where a piece of code should be dynamically loaded, using require() is more appropriate:
functionA.js
functionA(){
require(['functionC'],function(functionC){
//use funcC in here to call functionC
});
}
Some notes:
require([]) is asynchronous, so if the caller of functionA is expecting a return value from that function, there will likely be errors. It is best if functionA accepts a callback that is called when functionA is done with its work.
The above code will call require() for every call to functionA; however, after the first call, there is no penalty taken to load functionC.js, it is only loaded once. The first time require() gets called, it will load functionC.js, but the rest of the time, RequireJS knows it is already loaded, so it will call the function(functionC){} function without requesting functionC.js again.
You can find details about RequireJS and JavaScript modularity here: JavaScript modularity with RequireJS (from spaghetti code to ravioli code)
Here's my issue - I need to dynamically download several scripts using jQuery.getScript() and execute certain JavaScript code after all the scripts were loaded, so my plan was to do something like this:
function GetScripts(scripts, callback)
{
var len = scripts.length
for (var i in scripts)
{
jQuery.getScript(scripts[i], function()
{
len --;
// executing callback function if this is the last script that loaded
if (len == 0)
callback()
})
}
}
This will only work reliably if we assume that script.onload events for each script fire and execute sequentially and synchronously, so there would never be a situation when two or more of the event handlers would pass check for (len == 0) and execute callback method.
So my question - is that assumption correct and if not, what's the way to achieve what I am trying to do?
No, JavaScript is not multi-threaded. It is event driven and your assumption of the events firing sequentially (assuming they load sequentially) is what you will see. Your current implementation appears correct. I believe jQuery's .getScript() injects a new <script> tag, which should also force them to load in the correct order.
Currently JavaScript is not multithreaded, but the things will change in near future. There is a new thing in HTML5 called Worker. It allows you to do some job in background.
But it's currently is not supported by all browsers.
The JavaScript (ECMAScript) specification does not define any threading or synchronization mechanisms.
Moreover, the JavaScript engines in our browsers are deliberately single-threaded, in part because allowing more than one UI thread to operate concurrently would open an enormous can of worms. So your assumption and implementation are correct.
As a sidenote, another commenter alluded to the fact that any JavaScriptengine vendor could add threading and synchronization features, or a vendor could enable users to implement those features themselves, as described in this article: Multi-threaded JavaScript?
JavaScript is absolutely not multithreaded - you have a guarantee that any handler you use will not be interrupted by another event. Any other events, like mouse clicks, XMLHttpRequest returns, and timers will queue up while your code is executing, and run one after another.
No, all the browsers give you only one thread for JavaScript.
To be clear, the browser JS implementation is not multithreaded.
The language, JS, can be multi-threaded.
The question does not apply here however.
What applies is that getScript() is asynchronous (returns immediately and get's queued), however, the browser will execute DOM attached <script> content sequentially so your dependent JS code will see them loaded sequentially. This is a browser feature and not dependent on the JS threading or the getScript() call.
If getScript() retrieved scripts with xmlHTTPRequest, setTimeout(), websockets or any other async call then your scripts would not be guaranteed to execute in order. However, your callback would still get called after all scripts execute since the execution context of your 'len' variable is in a closure which persists it's context through asynchronous invocations of your function.
JS in general is single threaded. However HTML5 Web workers introduce multi-threading. Read more at http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/workers/basics/
Thought it might be interesting to try this out with a "forced", delayed script delivery ...
added two available scripts from
google
added delayjs.php as the 2nd
array element. delayjs.php sleeps
for 5 seconds before delivering an empty js
object.
added a callback that
"verifies" the existence of the
expected objects from the script
files.
added a few js commands that
are executed on the line after the
GetScripts() call, to "test" sequential js commands.
The result with the script load is as expected; the callback is triggered only after the last script has loaded. What surprised me was that the js commands that followed the GetScripts() call triggered without the need to wait for the last script to load. I was under the impression that no js commands would be executed while the browser was waiting on a js script to load ...
var scripts = [];
scripts.push('http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/prototype/1.6.1.0/prototype.js');
scripts.push('http://localhost/delayjs.php');
scripts.push('http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/scriptaculous/1.8.3/scriptaculous.js');
function logem() {
console.log(typeof Prototype);
console.log(typeof Scriptaculous);
console.log(typeof delayedjs);
}
GetScripts( scripts, logem );
console.log('Try to do something before GetScripts finishes.\n');
$('#testdiv').text('test content');
<?php
sleep(5);
echo 'var delayedjs = {};';
You can probably get some kind of multithreadedness if you create a number of frames in an HTML document, and run a script in each of them, each calling a function in the main frame that should make sense of the results of those functions.