Thanks again Mike!
I reckon I have it down to a 'T' now! :)
Just one doubt (sorry i've taken so much of your time already!):
When you say:
"Concatenate all of your scripts into a single file."
Do you mean the entire jquery library as well?
Is this feasible? Like, copy and paste the entire jquery library
(uncompressed), one plugin, and my custom code into one huge .js file
and then pack or minify it?
And host it somewhere fast like cachefly?
I can see doing this for the plugin and my custom js but jquery also
seems asking for trouble no?
Or am i not getting it? Did you mean dynamically append "loader.js"
in the main document body, and then in loader.js have 3 separate
<script src>? (wait does that even work?) sorry its late here ive
been on a crazy reching on 24 hour work bender.... :S
Thanks again and sorry for being so pedantic!!
Alex
On Sep 2, 4:40 pm, "Michael Geary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Alex Weber
>
> > So just to clear things up, you prefer using document.write()
> > to insert <script> tags instead of appending the elements to the DOM:
>
> > var finan = document.createElement('script');
> > finan.type = 'text/javascript';
> > finan.src = 'http://www.mydomain.com/js/mts_finan.js';
> > head.appendChild(finan);
>
> > i guess its more efficient because you don't have to access
> > the document object, but any other particular reasons?
>
> No, that isn't the reason at all. It's because it makes the code much
> simpler. You don't have to write any code to load the scripts in their
> proper sequence; it happens automatically. <script> tags are evaluated in
> the order they appear in the source code, and code you add with
> document.write is inserted immediately after the end of the script tag that
> does the document.write.
>
> Dynamically inserting a script element with createElement/appendChild is a
> great technique - in fact it's the basis for the popular JSONP method of
> cross-domain JSON downloads - but it doesn't automatically tell you when the
> script is loaded. That why your developer wrote that repeating interval code
> - to check when each script is ready and load the next one in sequence.
>
> > Awesome, one huge problem out of the way!
>
> Well, maybe, maybe not... :-) See below...
>
> > We're currently at a point where our server isn't exactly
> > being overloaded so i think its safe to host jquery.min on
> > google code and the plugin (yet to be minified) and custom
> > code possibly combined in 1 file, since there won't be a lot
> > of custom code to begin with.
>
> > Also, to satisfy your curiosity, the whole purpose of using
> > the mts_load.js function is because this code is a part of a
> > banner we're planning to distribute and host in numerous
> > websites, so a lot of them won't want scripts other than
> > their own embedded directly, so we found that calling one
> > simple function (mts_load) that would to all the dirty work
> > was acceptable with them :)
>
> When I recommended document.write, I wasn't really thinking about the whole
> context. There may be one good reason to use the dynamic script elements
> instead. When you document.write the script tags, the browser will wait
> while those script files are loaded. If you use dynamic script elements, the
> browser continues loading the rest of the page while the additional scripts
> are loaded. The only script it waits for is the main loader script which is
> loaded with a script tag.
>
> If this behavior is what you want, then you can still get it without all the
> timers and extra complication. Concatenate all of your scripts (except the
> loader itself) into a single file. Then simply use a single dynamic script
> element to load that entire script. You don't need any timers or sequencing
> that way. Simply load that one big script, and the code in it will run in
> the order you expect. Very simple, and you still get the benefit of letting
> the page continue loading while the secondary scripts are fetched
> asynchronously.
>
> -Mike
