Jump to content

.josh

Staff Alumni
  • Content Count

    14,780
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    43

.josh last won the day on September 16 2019

.josh had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,420 Excellent

About .josh

  • Rank
    .josh

Recent Profile Visitors

38,961 profile views
  1. .josh

    JS Open Hours

    So a couple of things. Firstly, sure, there are more "elegant" ways of writing this if "make the shortest amount of code possible" is what you consider "elegant". However, I would argue what is more readable and flexible for yourself and other non/semi-coders in the future would be to have a lookup table of hours, Something along the lines of this (I think I got the hours of operation right, based on your condition): function checkTime() { // array of 7 elements, one for each day of the week var hoursOfOperation = [ // array of 24 elements, one for each hour of the day. // 0 value means closed, 1 value means open [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0], // sunday - closed all day! [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0], // monday - open 9a to 5p [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0], // tuesday - open 9a to 5p [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0], // wednesday - open 9a to 1p [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0], // thursday - open 9a to 5p [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0], // friday - open 9a to 5p [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0] // saturday - open 10a to 1p ]; var now = new Date(); var messageDiv = document.getElementById('messageDiv'); var dayOfWeek = now.getDay(); var hour = now.getHours(); var status = hoursOfOperation[dayOfWeek][hour] ? 'open' : 'closed'; messageDiv.innerHTML='We are '+status+'!'; messageDiv.className=status; } // end checkTime See, now you can easily update a table for any hour of any day without messing with conditions. Secondly, I should point out to you that since javascript is client-side, the date/time is generated by the user's system clock locally set on their computer. Meaning, what their browser says the date/time is may not accurately reflect your actual hours of operation. Consider someone in Colorado visiting your page, vs. someone in China.. completely different timezone. So, if you want to (more) accurately reflect your actual hours of operation, you will need to include some conversion to your timezone. But even then, this is no guarantee it will be 100%, because visitors can (and often do, particularly kiddies trying to get around time/date based software restrictions ) change their time settings easy enough. Or alter your javascript. So if you really truly want the most accuracy out of all this, you should move this stuff server-side. But there is a snag to that, which is the constant check for current open/close status. Which brings me to my last point: I don't know what your actual site looks like, but is it really necessary to use setInterval to constantly check and update this? Things like setInterval come with a performance penalty, and I have a sneaking suspicion just showing an updated status on every page load will likely be just fine..
  2. yeah well I have a feeling that's not what he really wants.
  3. You need to restructure your code to use AJAX. Read up on how to submit an AJAX POST request and receive a response to update a div or w/e on the same page. There are a billion tutorials out there for it. Come back with specific questions about it if you get stuck.
  4. Literally the only thing I have ever seen popup when I try to close my tab/browser or otherwise navigate from the page that I only _marginally_ consider "okay" (read: barely tolerable) is a warning about losing unsaved changes to something.
  5. At face value, this should work for you: preg_match('~^\d+/\d+$~',$subject,$match); if ($match) { // matched, do something } but i have a sneaking suspicion you aren't telling us the whole story/requirements.
  6. You can try adding something like this. I've seen it more or less work as a bandaid for some: $(document.ready(function() { $('.product-small .show-details').hide(); }); I don't really have an explanation why it happens though.
  7. Here is a basic example for what you want to do, that will work for the link example you provided: <script> $(document).ready(function(){ $('a').each(function() { var onclick = $(this).attr('onclick')||''; var qs = location.search.replace('?',''); var url=onclick.match(/window\.open\('([^']+)/); if (url&&url[0]) { newUrl = url[0] + ((url[0].indexOf('?')==-1) ? '?' : '&') + qs; $(this).attr('onclick',onclick.replace(url[0],newUrl)); } var href = $(this).attr('href')||''; if (href) { href += ((href.indexOf('?')==-1) ? '?' : '&') + qs; $(this).attr('href',href); } }); }); </script> However, this is generally bad practice, as it can easily break. The better thing to do would be to move all of the onclick code to a callback function and then attach the callback function with a click event handler. That way, you can use a variable instead of hardcoded value and then update the variable instead of trying to scrape onclick like this. sidenote: your trackOutboundLink() function will never fire because of that return false; before it.
  8. If you are absolutely, positively, 100% sure you will not ever need to actually do any queries to return data sets based off stuff within there, then it shouldn't be an issue
  9. Just a random thought.. I don't know full context so this may or may not be something you can do, but I assume if it's a list of numbers you will split at the comma and loop anyways.. why not just simplify to ^[0-9,]+$
  10. To directly answer your question, with regex you can use a negative character class to match anything that is not a quote. You didn't actually post your regex code, so a simple example matching relevant part: preg_match('~<span id="[^"]*">~',$content,$match); However, I agree with kicken about using a DOM parser. Depending on what exactly you are looking to grab, you can sometimes get away with parsing html with regex, but in general, regex alone cannot be used to fully and reliably parse html. Regular expressions (regex) parses regular language types (hence the name), meaning, there is an identifiable pattern to the context. HTML is a context free language, which means it is not regular. In order to reliably parse html, you need a combination of regex, loops, conditions, tokens, etc. basically, all the things that make up a DOM parser, which is exactly why we have DOM parsers.
  11. regex engine ignores does not capture groups in zero-width assertions (e.g. your positive lookahead), so there is no performance difference between using (?:[pattern]) vs. ([pattern]) unless you want to count the unmeasurably small amount of time it takes to read (and ignore) a single colon char.
  12. a) Let me remind you that you are responding to a post that was posted several years ago, when this stuff was a much bigger issue. b) I work in the web analytics industry. I look at web stats all day long. And I talk to corporations all day long about those numbers vs. their web sites and the user experience (UX) of their sites. What I see is the exact opposite of your thoughts about webmasters still striving to cater to <IE8. I have been fighting for clients to ditch IE6/7/8 support for years and they are only just now starting to come around since earlier this year, only because of Microsoft ending support for it. So the ball is rolling, yes, but I'm sorry, I disagree with the notions that web devs are in a place where they can just completely forget about supporting it. If you don't believe people are still catering to IE6/7 then I don't believe you have much experience dealing with corporations, and possibly even clients in general. I don't doubt for a second there are plenty of random no-name sites and even some "cutting edge" sites that are "with the times" and cater to younger crowds. And of course it's easy for people to upgrade. And of course there's no reason for them not to. But the stats show that there's still a fair chunk of people that don't, and nobody wants to throw away potential revenue, even if it's 1% of users. Also, I'm not saying there isn't a non-jQuery or non-framework solution for things. That's just silly. All I'm saying is when you have a complex site doing complex things, and having to deal with making sure it works for the widest audience possible, you will more often than not save yourself a lot of time by using a framework like jQuery. Look, I'm done arguing with you about this. As I mentioned in a previous post, I used to be hardcore on the other side of the fence, absolutely shunning frameworks as extra bloat used by people who can't be bothered to learn "real" javascript. I know exactly where you're coming from because I've been there, so I know there's little point in trying to argue with you about it.
  13. Frank, that's not a fully cross-browser compatible version of ajax for <IE8. Most people still strive to support IE6 and IE7, even though Microsoft stopped officially supporting those versions (and IE8) earlier this year (April 2014 - XP no longer supported, so by extension <IE9 no longer supported). Also sidenote: you gave a simple example of what to do with the response. That example isn't cross-browser compatible either. And in reality, most people use ajax in conjunction with more complex code, from event handlers to selectors, notwithstanding applying previous stuff to whatever dynamically generated content is likely to come from the ajax call. All of that stuff must be applied in a cross-browser compatible way.
  14. It was not my intention (nor do I think I implied it) to say you're stupid if you don't use a framework. I said do yourself a favor and make your life easier. Also, I am not "just another soldier" in the "we use frameworks" army. I actually actively resisted and opposed frameworks for a very long time. I too made arguments such as "If people learn jQuery, they won't learn the core language and therefore they will be weak." But the bottom line is that there's always going to be a certain amount of coding involved to keep things cross-browser compatible. And after several years of developing and maintaining my own baked framework (because that is essentially what you wind up with), I came to the realization that there's a whole lot of people out there much smarter than me who are dedicated to maintaining frameworks such as jQuery, vs. just myself, and on my very best of days my code will look very similar to theirs anyways. In short, I came to the realization that it was a waste of my time trying to develop and maintain my own baked framework, because my coding career does not revolve around that framework. Now, I still agree with the notion that one should take the time to learn javascript without frameworks, before diving into using them. I still absolutely agree with the dangers of not properly learning the nuances of javascript if you don't. And the same can be said for any language and framework. But if you've reached that level of expertise, all you are doing is holding yourself back by dedicating time and effort to maintaining your own baked solution. There's basically no compelling argument to do it, unless you are looking to distribute it and focus solely on it. Literally thousands of sites and coders out there developing, testing and submitting feedback etc. to a framework will always do it better than you, one person, trying to basically do the same thing on your own. And for what? Bragging rights? If I'm "just another.." then tell me, what makes you think rolling your own is better? I honestly want to know, because as I said, I did start on your side of the fence. Anyways, I also agree that there's little point in using it if you're only going to use like 1 tiny piece of it. I suppose I will concede that maybe I should amend the OP to weigh the options. But thing is, 9/10 times I see people not using a framework for stuff like AJAX.. turns out the site they are working on is already using a framework. This certainly comes up a lot more for freelancers and coders working in agencies who work with many clients on many sites and it's constantly new sites/clients in the door, vs. some coder working as web dev for a single company. Point being that if you get hired by a client to do some work on their site, it is better to evaluate what they already have going on there and use what's already there, than to just start throwing your own stuff into the mix. If you want to talk about unnecessary bloat, well that's a prime example right there. P.s. - telling me to "keep it civil" right after you've thrown out a "you're just another.." statement.. classy.
  15. sounds more like a memory problem, not an ftp program problem. By "map" I assume you mean folder or directory, right? you may need to ftp from command line or write your own script that ftps to it..IOW a method that doesn't involve trying to grab and display a list of the working directory/folder. And then NOT do things like list or display dir content.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.