5 ms·

Just FYI, most, if not all, of this is built into javascript already, via the DOM. http://www.joezimjs.com/javascript/the-lazy-mans-url-parsing/ http://www.joez

by bitsm 14y ago

Just FYI, most, if not all, of this is built into javascript already, via the DOM. http://www.joezimjs.com/javascript/the-lazy-mans-url-parsing/ http://www.joezimjs.com/javascript/the-lazy-mans-url-parsing...

yahelc 14y ago
Agreed, this is the way to do it. The only caveat is that IE has a bug where it omits the leading / on the pathname. You can normalize it with a simple one-liner: http://stackoverflow.com/a/6168370/172322 http://stackoverflow.com/a/6168370/172322
- lloeki 14y ago
  > Agreed, this is the way to do it. This sounds like arguing that we should use getElementById&al, addEventListener, and array.length with for loops instead of $('selector').on 'foo' and .each(). While this lib's inner code leaves to be desired in a number of ways, I really appreciate the readability and the lack of need to instantiate a full-blown DOM element then read a property to obtain a simple single result or two.
  - yahelc 14y ago
    Not the same thing. jQuery is worth it if you're doing lots of DOM element selection. If the entirety of your usage of jQuery is a single $("#foo").bind(...) call, then it's probably not worth loading the entire library for that. URL parsing, for 90% of uses, tends to be a one-off need that doesn't really justify the addition of another library. Making decisions about what library to include is about trade-offs; this library is worth it if you need the query string sugaring or are doing lots of URL parsing. But "instantiating a full blown DOM element" to parse a single URL is over-stating the cost of the activity, especially when compared to adding an additional library to your application.
lowboy 14y ago
This was my initial reaction as well, but I appreciate the qs/hash sugaring: http://www.domain.com/path/index.html?query1=test&silly=willy#test=hash&chucky=cheese $.url('?'); // query1=test&silly=willy $.url('?silly'); // willy $.url('?poo'); // (an empty string) $.url('#'); // test=hash&chucky=cheese $.url('#chucky'); // cheese $.url('#poo'); // (an empty string)
- mistercow 14y ago
  I think that's a bit too much functionality to put down as "sugar".

by bitsm 14y ago

yahelc 14y ago

Agreed, this is the way to do it. The only caveat is that IE has a bug where it omits the leading / on the pathname. You can normalize it with a simple one-liner: http://stackoverflow.com/a/6168370/172322 http://stackoverflow.com/a/6168370/172322

lloeki 14y ago
> Agreed, this is the way to do it. This sounds like arguing that we should use getElementById&al, addEventListener, and array.length with for loops instead of $('selector').on 'foo' and .each(). While this lib's inner code leaves to be desired in a number of ways, I really appreciate the readability and the lack of need to instantiate a full-blown DOM element then read a property to obtain a simple single result or two.
- yahelc 14y ago
  Not the same thing. jQuery is worth it if you're doing lots of DOM element selection. If the entirety of your usage of jQuery is a single $("#foo").bind(...) call, then it's probably not worth loading the entire library for that. URL parsing, for 90% of uses, tends to be a one-off need that doesn't really justify the addition of another library. Making decisions about what library to include is about trade-offs; this library is worth it if you need the query string sugaring or are doing lots of URL parsing. But "instantiating a full blown DOM element" to parse a single URL is over-stating the cost of the activity, especially when compared to adding an additional library to your application.

lowboy 14y ago

This was my initial reaction as well, but I appreciate the qs/hash sugaring: http://www.domain.com/path/index.html?query1=test&silly=willy#test=hash&chucky=cheese $.url('?'); // query1=test&silly=willy $.url('?silly'); // willy $.url('?poo'); // (an empty string) $.url('#'); // test=hash&chucky=cheese $.url('#chucky'); // cheese $.url('#poo'); // (an empty string)

mistercow 14y ago
I think that's a bit too much functionality to put down as "sugar".