Skip to main content

jQuery quirks

Ok folks. let's get technical here (been a while, hasn't it)?

So I decided to start using jQuery instead of Prototype as the JavaScript framework for my next project. Overall I am very happy with it (great plugins, good performance, cleaner overall structure, etc...).

It does have a few weird things about it though which people should bear in mind. Nothing that would stop people from using it, but things people should know.

In Prototype, the $() function returns an HTML element and the Prototype uses the prototype keyword to add extra functionality to the vanilla elements in the page (hence its name).

In jQuery, the $() function actually returns a jQuery object which is bound to the HTML element. This jQuery object then encompasses most of the functionality you will ever need on an element.

For the most part, this is a good thing. By using this strategy, jQuery is non invasive
and will play nice with any other JS framework (it even has a noConflict mode in case you want to use it with Prototype which will assign the $() function to any other combo you want).

However, when you use the $() function in jQuery, then you have to be aware that you are not really calling an HTML element so the standard HTML attributes may not be there.

Here is an example.

Let's say you have a text field


<input name="myTextField" id="myTextField" value="Hello Earth" type="text">

Without jQuery you would have to do this


var myTextField = document.getElementById('myTextField')


In jQuery you can simply use the $() function instead.

var myTextField = $('#myTextField');

However, let's say you need to update its value. You would think this would be the way to do it:

myTextField.value = "Hello Mars";

For some reason though, you find it is not working and this is driving you nuts. Why is this the case?

The reason is that myTextField is actually a jQuery object, not an HTML element. So the way to update a jQuery object's value is by using the val function.

myTextField.val("Hello Mars");

Once you remember that, then you should be plain sailing.

The only thing is that sometimes you may need to call an obscure HTML element attribute like scrollBy. There are plugins to deal with it, but nothing native in jQuery. Currently I am falling back to document.getElementById to get these. This is not necessarily a bad thing because jQuery, as I said before, is non invasive so it leaves the rest of your JS alone (as a good framework should).

UPDATE

I just found out you can use jQuery's get() function in order to access the actual HTML element(s) instead of using document.getElementById. In other words, the following should work:

myTextField.get()[0].value = "Hello Mars";

Note the [0] is needed because get returns an array of elements.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Or
myTextField[0].value = "Hello Mars";

Popular posts from this blog

Freezing Gems

What is a gem and why would you want to freeze it? In Ruby, there are times when you want to access pieces of functionality that other people of written (3rd party libraries) and you normally have 2 options. You can install a plug in or install a gem. Normally the method you use is determined by which ever is made available by the author. Gems are installed on the host machine and are pretty handy when you want to run things in the command line or else across lots of projects, but their downside is that if you use a gem in a Rails project there is no automatic publishing mechanism when you deploy your site. You will need to log onto the remote host machine and install the gem manually. Plugins are specific to Rails and are similar to gems in that they are also 3rd party libraries. However they are associated with your Rails project as opposed to your machine so they will get posted to the server on a regular deploy. Freezing a gem is the process of transforming a gem into a plug in

Unit/Functional Testing RubyAMF

One of my current projects is using RubyAMF to communicate with Flash (http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubyamf/). On the whole this is really nice because it allows you to transfer Ruby objects directly to ActionScript ones (as opposed to translating the object into XML, sending the XML and then recreating the object in ActionScript). However, Rails does not provide a built in transport mechanism for AMF, so we cannot run functional testing directly on the data call (as we could for an XML or HTML transport layer). This is a show stopper for a lot of people (Rails w/o Unit testing = a big mess of trouble when something goes wrong). We can though serve both the HTML and the AMF formats depending on the request format. This means that we can test the object instantiation logic and make sure there are no errors in the controllers (though we cannot check the actual format of the data being served). In the controller, instead of rendering AMF alone, do the following respond_to do |format|

Responsive Web Design

I wanted to go over Responsive Web Design using CSS. In the old days of web development, we had to code to common screen sizes (i.e. 800 X 600, 1024 X 768) and we patiently waited for people to upgrade their computers to have a decent amount of screen real estate so we could design things the way we really wanted. We also took on semi stretchy web layouts etc to expand and contract appropriately. Then about 2 or 3 years ago, Apple released this little device called an iPhone with a 320 X 480 resolution which took the world by storm and suddenly a lot of people were viewing your website on a tiny screen again... Anyways, as it can be difficult to design a site which looks good on 320 X 480 AND 1680 X 1050, we need to come up with some kind of solution. One way is to sniff the client and then use an appropriate stylesheet, but then you are mixing CSS with either JavaScript or server side programming and also potentially maintaining a list of appropriate clients and stylesheets. Also,