What's messing with your Groove?

[CitizenCain]

None which has anything to do with which way is "easier."

And given Illusions' grasp of scripting/programming (having trouble with "paragraphs" of code and the like), it's far "worse form" to insist on a solution he's probably going to have all manner of difficulty implementing, just because ancient clients may have trouble parsing a long url - they probably won't be able to render his nifty nav bar either (which is what the variable passing is actually for, making the issue of archaic browsers moot).

So feel free to continue spouting off irrelevant best practices and the like, and completely ignore the actual issue (what's easiest for this particular site, which is doubtlessly not all that standards compliant anyway), but recognize that your inability to consider what the actual objective is here makes *you* the one talking out of your ass. Again. As usual.

[Khendraja'aro]

If someone is just learning to use a language, is it better to point him to the quick and dirty way - or to the actually correct way which is more sustainable in the future?

And, please, you just said yourself that it's one more line of code. Yeah, that will make the whole thing sooooo much more difficult.

And one added bonus: With your method, the clients have to deselect the nav bar every time they visit the site afresh. With cookies, they deselect the nav bar once and it's done for the life time of the cookie. But feel free to ignore that little fact.
Strangely enough, I don't see my user identifier in the URI of this page and yet the forum knows who I am. Even when I close the browser in between visits.

I wonder how that is done... clearly you just don't like to admit that you're wrong.

edit: I just looked at the tutorial you gave him... Great.

document.cookie = "whatever";
whatever = document.cookie; 

versus

function getValue(varname)
{
  // First, we load the URL into a variable
  var url = window.location.href;

  // Next, split the url by the ?
  var qparts = url.split("?");

  // Check that there is a querystring, return "" if not
  if (qparts.length == 0)
  {
    return "";
  }

  // Then find the querystring, everything after the ?
  var query = qparts[1];

  // Split the query string into variables (separates by &s)
  var vars = query.split("&");

  // Initialize the value with "" as default
  var value = "";

  // Iterate through vars, checking each one for varname
  for (i=0;i<vars.length;i++)
  {
    // Split the variable by =, which splits name and value
    var parts = vars[i].split("=");
    
    // Check if the correct variable
    if (parts[0] == varname)
    {
      // Load value into variable
      value = parts[1];

      // End the loop
      break;
    }
  }
  
  // Convert escape code
  value = unescape(value);

  // Convert "+"s to " "s
  value.replace(/\+/g," ");

  // Return the value
  return value;
} 

Yeah, so much easier and less lines of code

[CitizenCain]

If someone is just learning to use a language, is it better to point him to the quick and dirty way - or to the actually correct way which is more sustainable in the future?

Depends why they're learning it, of course. If the person in question is a graphic designer with no aptitude or desire to learn programming (except for the need to update his site to help him land a job doing graphics shit), then I'd say the quick and dirty way is the proper solution.

And, please, you just said yourself that it's one more line of code. Yeah, that will make the whole thing sooooo much more difficult.

No, I said an extra *step*. An extra step - as in one more layer of complexity in a situation where the guy's already struggling.

And one added bonus: With your method, the clients have to deselect the nav bar every time they visit the site afresh. With cookies, they deselect the nav bar once and it's done for the life time of the cookie. But feel free to ignore that little fact.
Strangely enough, I don't see my user identifier in the URI of this page and yet the forum knows who I am. Even when I close the browser in between visits.

I wonder how that is done... clearly you just don't like to admit that you're wrong.

edit: I just looked at the tutorial you gave him... Great.

document.cookie = "whatever";
whatever = document.cookie; 

versus

<snip>

Yeah, so much easier and less lines of code

What did you do, find the most convoluted and retarded way to fetch a variable in PHP?

It's $_GET[variable].

That long ass code snippet you Googled sanitizes and splits urls for passing into other variables. Can't figure how you thought *that* was the way to fetch a variable, unless you've never written a line of code in your life and creamed your pants when you saw the function name, or are disingenuously trying to cover your ass, by giving out bad advice.



Seriously, how fucking retarded are you trying to be? The guy's enhancing his resume/CV, not designing a corporate website.

Well, whatever the case, Illusions certainly has enough info to decide which way to go on the issue (cookies or quick-and-dirty url hack), so I don't see much point in continuing with this. I'm off to the bar.

[Khendraja'aro]

Depends why they're learning it, of course. If the person in question is a graphic designer with no aptitude or desire to learn programming (except for the need to update his site to help him land a job doing graphics shit), then I'd say the quick and dirty way is the proper solution.

Whatever floats your boat.

No, I said an extra *step*. An extra step - as in one more layer of complexity in a situation where the guy's already struggling.

I beg to differ. You have to create the query string and then read from it. Two steps. You have to create the cookie and then read from it. Two steps as well.

I don't see anything adding a "layer of complexity" here. It's really not rocket science.

What did you do, find the most convoluted and retarded way to fetch a variable in PHP?

It's $_GET[variable].

That long ass code snippet you Googled sanitizes and splits urls for passing into other variables. You don't need to strip the special characters out of a page number, because it's a small integer value... and integer values don't contain anything but numeric characters. Can't figure how you thought *that* was the way to fetch a variable function, unless you've never written a line of code in your life and creamed your pants when you saw the function name, or are disingenuously trying to cover your ass, by giving out bad advice.



Seriously, how fucking retarded are you trying to be? The guy's enhancing his resume/CV, not designing a corporate website.

My dear, I just quoted YOUR OWN LINK right back at you. YOU YOURSELF POINTED HIM AT THAT CODE YOU'RE NOW LAUGHING ABOUT.

To quote you yourself: How fucking retarded are you? Do you even read your own recommendations?

And why are you talking about PHP? Wait, I'll quote the original question:

[...]I can't find any clear sources of how to easily get the data in query string using javascript. [...]

Take note of the word "javascript".

[Illusions]

Uhh...well that argument went well, anyways, multiple things:

1) I like easy and simple. By easy and simple I mean the least steps possible, and with code that I'm likely going to still remember what its does later on. PHP has a function specifically crafted for grabbing variables from a query string. Its one line long. Javascript seems to as well, its more than one line long. PHP wins. In addition the goal of this project is "build a portfolio website with some unconventional features to make access easier" and not "learn multiple programming languages". If it doesn't serve the goal it gets booted, and I'd really hate to spend a lot of time learning something complex only to find out later after I show the site for feedback that the feature I spent a week or so implementing is not useful and should be scrapped. Then I'd be sitting on wasted time because even though I learned something, it would not really be applicable to anymore future tasks. That is time that could be spent either making more portfolio pieces, or learning new techniques that I can use to make more portfolio pieces.

2) I was using query strings because I don't think stuffing a 1k file on someone's computer is worth it just for storing whether or not the navigation bar should be visible. This was a personal choice that I considered.

3) I don't have to worry about url length because its not going to be going over 255 characters. Its literally going to be, at its longest, something like: http://www.illusionscg.com/imagepage01.php?navbar=1.

4) Query strings can be saved between sessions. You bookmark it in the state you want. So if you want the navbar off, bookmark www.illusionscg.com/index.php?navbar=0

5) I can create the query string using simple javascript search and replace functions to add the relevant query string to the end of all links. This allows it to persist between different pages.

6) Its also really easy to sanitize. Before I even pass it to the javascript I have the php determine if its 0 or 1. If its not it sets it to 1.

7) I'm really just building a personal portfolio website so that when potential people looking to hire me ask for examples of work I can point them to it. The only reason I'm using PHP and javascript at all is to make changing stuff later on easier. I've taken the nature and scope of said project into consideration when deciding just what I need to know. I'm not stupid, I just have very simple needs and I'm catering to them. I try to take a professional approach in the stuff I do, regardless of whether its something I plan to do in the future, so I have researched and self-taught myself enough to do what I want. What is harder to self teach are certain tricks or hacks that would likely be brought up in an in depth programming course or book catering towards programming.

For instance, its probably a lot quicker to be told that you can make a simple on/off toggle using x = |x-1| ...than it is to come up with this or figure it out on your own. For those wondering what that does, say X is zero. When we get to x = |x-1| we'd set x equal to the absolute value of 0 - 1, which is 1. If you then performed that operation again, you'd get the absolute value of 1 -1, which is 0.

Then there is also the fact that some resources aren't useful. There's a very long page on Stackoverflow where someone wanted to know how to include a php script inside of <script> something here </script>. There were multiple responses by numerous other people with overly complicated answers. No one bothered to mention that you could just use php and echo the script tags and what they contain.

So in conclusion...I'd really like to get this thing done and get back to working on art. Thanks for all the assistance everyone ... That argument was a bit heated and unnecessary though.

Edit: Website links are just relative examples. Its not online yet, and exists only as files on a thumb drive that also has XAMPP on it to temporarily turn my computer into a PHP server.

[Khendraja'aro]

My dear, if you find the concept of cookies "complex" then I dare say that you better leave both PHP and Javascript well alone.

And the functions in PHP for accessing cookies is not complex as well. You obviously didn't even look.

setcookie("TestCookie", $value, time()+3600);
echo $_COOKIE["TestCookie"]; 

And your x-1 example is a complicated version of the true/false mechanism

$true_or_false = $true_or_false ? False : True;
//slightly longer version of the above:
$true_or_false = ($true_or_false == true) ? False : True;
//Your version with x would look like this in shorthand:
$x = $x ? False : True;
//Or of you absolutely want to keep your zero and one values:
$x = $x ? 0 : 1;
//shorthand explanation:
$target_variable = (expression_to_be_validated) : variables_new_value_if_expression_is_true ? variables_new_value_if_expression_is_false; 

This is the shorthand notation of

if ($true_or_false == True) {
   $true_or_false = False;
} else {
   $true_or_false = True;
} 

This exploits the fact that PHP treats the value zero (0) like the boolean false, while values different from zero or an empty string will be true. ( http://de2.php.net/manual/en/language.types.boolean.php )
And it has the advantage that you (or someone else) can look at it later and definitely see what is going on. The boolean variable type is intended for these kind of on/off-switches. With stuff like |x-1| you run the risk of having to think about it if you're looking at your own code, say, a year later.

If you treat such switches as booleans, you can simplify your conditions a bit. Let your variable "$show_navbar" be a boolean which determines whether you show the navbar or not. The next two code snippets do exactly the same:

if($show_navbar == True) {
   printf("Navbar status: %s", $show_navbar);
}

if($show_navbar) {
   printf("Navbar status: %s", $show_navbar);
} 

[Illusions]

My dear, if you find the concept of cookies "complex" then I dare say that you better leave both PHP and Javascript well alone.

And the functions in PHP for accessing cookies is not complex as well. You obviously didn't even look.

Well you're right that I didn't look at how PHP stores cookies because:

2) I was using query strings because I don't think stuffing a 1k file on someone's computer is worth it just for storing whether or not the navigation bar should be visible. This was a personal choice that I considered.

And what I was referring to as complex was getting, storing, writing, and accessing the variables in query strings using Javascript, as opposed to how simple it was with PHP. Also the true/false mechanism I'm using is in javascript that sets the value of all urls that have 'navbar=#' (where # is either 0 or 1) on a page to either navbar=0 or navbar=1.

[Khendraja'aro]

Well, as I said before: It may be easy NOW - but it's always better to use the right way from the start. Especially if you're using this as a showcase. Additionally, you have to put this query string creator stuff into every link. Now, what will you do if you have a website with 20 pages and hundreds of links?

With cookies, you can create one central file which parses the cookies state, returns an appropriately formed link to a css file and include that once per every page you create. Which also creates a nice backbone if you want to add database connection - which then could be inserted into the same include.

With query strings, you have to take care that you don't miss one link. Of course, you can work around that as well, by capturing the output in a buffer and manipulating every link with, say, regular expressions - but it's a bit more complicated than it needs be.

The point is that your approach is not scalable.

Otherwise such sloppy habits will come back to bite you in the ass.

And the cookie file size is dependant on the amount of data you store in them. I don't quite see where you got the idea that they're always Kilobyte sized.

[Illusions]

Well, as I said before: It may be easy NOW - but it's always better to use the right way from the start.

Plenty of websites use query strings to store data about simple page related stuff. This forum does, Amazon does, Google does, Gmail does, Bing, and a lot more websites using PHP to cleanup the appearance of an url address before serving it back to you do as well, you just never get to see it (ie. when they change something like www.somewebsite.com?theme=324&topic=05&page=01 to www.somewebsite.com/324/05/01/ ).

Especially if you're using this as a showcase. Additionally, you have to put this query string creator stuff into every link. Now, what will you do if you have a website with 20 pages and hundreds of links?

I don't think I'll have hundreds of links, but on each new page load I have PHP grab the navbar value, echo out <script>var navbar = x</script> in the header, and also include a link to a .js file that takes that value on page load, looks for all occurrences of .php, and appends ?navbar=x to them. Then when a toggle button is clicked another script looks for all occurences of navbar=x and replaces it with the opposite x value. I already have it working, I just have to fix the show/hide javascript (since I was unaware that dynamically editing something unbinds jquery events like .click( ) from the edited objects unless you're using .live( ). Also have to write some code to get the navbar to respond to the values, but so far the passing of values from page to page works with the dozen or so links I have.

The only worry I have so far is how it will handle anchor links, as I haven't tested that yet.

With cookies, you can create one central file which parses the cookies state, returns an appropriately formed link to a css file and include that once per every page you create. Which also creates a nice backbone if you want to add database connection - which then could be inserted into the same include.

I don't want to store anything long term on the user's machine though, and think its poor form when every website assumes that it has the right to do so.

With query strings, you have to take care that you don't miss one link. Of course, you can work around that as well, by capturing the output in a buffer and manipulating every link with, say, regular expressions - but it's a bit more complicated than it needs be.

The javascript code I'm using is a global, case insensitive search.

The point is that your approach is not scalable.

Its scalable to the extent I need it to be though. Since I'm not looking for a job as a web designer (at least on the coding/markup end I wouldn't), or a programmer, nor serving up a forum or anything I think it should be fine.

Otherwise such sloppy habits will come back to bite you in the ass.

How though? Max simultaneous users is never going to be above 25, there isn't ever going to be anymore than 25 links per page, most of the dynamic stuff on the website has to do with the navigation bar, which...if people hate it or find it annoying...will be removed. The extent to which I'm using PHP is to make parts of the page modular, so instead of updating a footer once for every page, I can update it once for the whole site, and just have a PHP include on all the other pages pointed to that footer. What you're essentially telling me is that I should buckle down and go in depth to code this thing as if its going to be a major site. Its not. It would be like me telling you to go and learn typography, text layout, paper qualities and types, and investigate professional printing options to do your résumé. Adherence to web standards and aptitude with web based design languages is not taken into account in the jobs I am looking for.

And the cookie file size is dependant on the amount of data you store in them. I don't quite see where you got the idea that they're always Kilobyte sized.

I made a simple .txt file to test this out and put navbar = 0 inside. Its 10 bytes in size, and size on disk is 4 KB.

Edit: Curiosity made me click that link and apparently it does link to someone's empty drupal page.

[CitizenCain]

Oh, give it up, Illusions. Just admit you're wrong and concede that Khen knows more about your website than you do.

Or is your problem that you can never admit when you're wrong?

Oh, and P.S.:

I don't want to store anything long term on user's machine though, and think its poor form when every website assumes that it has the right to do so.

I would hire you to do graphics for me based on this alone... if I had any graphics to do, that is.

[Khendraja'aro]

Plenty of websites use query strings to store data about simple page related stuff. This forum does, Amazon does, Google does, Gmail does, Bing, and a lot more websites using PHP to cleanup the appearance of an url address before serving it back to you do as well, you just never get to see it (ie. when they change something like www.somewebsite.com?theme=324&topic=05&page=01 to www.somewebsite.com/324/05/01/ ).

Actually, no they don't. You're confusing (semi-permanent) configuration values (which you're putting into the query term) and actual query statements. Stuff like the offset, limit and the page id is meant to go into the URI. Stuff like "don't show the nav bar" isn't.

What they're doing is "prettifying" the URI. That's got nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's rewriting how the URI looks but it's not changing the actual content of the URI.

I don't think I'll have hundreds of links, but on each new page load I have PHP grab the navbar value, echo out <script>var navbar = x</script> in the header, and also include a link to a .js file that takes that value on page load, looks for all occurrences of .php, and appends ?navbar=x to them. Then when a toggle button is clicked another script looks for all occurences of navbar=x and replaces it with the opposite x value. I already have it working, I just have to fix the show/hide javascript (since I was unaware that dynamically editing something unbinds jquery events like .click( ) from the edited objects unless you're using .live( ). Also have to write some code to get the navbar to respond to the values, but so far the passing of values from page to page works with the dozen or so links I have.

Geeze. And you call that "easy"? And with using session / cookies you wouldn't have to worry about stuff that manipulates the query string like it's supposed to, by the way.

I don't want to store anything long term on the user's machine though, and think its poor form when every website assumes that it has the right to do so.

If the user doesn't want to do that, he can disable cookies. Done. That's what they're are there for in the first place. And "long-term"? You know that cookies have a expiry date you can set? You can choose whether the cookie expires in 5 seconds, 10 days or half a year. You can make a cookie as long- or short term as you want it to be.

And if you're honestly upset about some 4K of data, then I'm honestly astounded that you're in the graphics business. That's really laughable. I mean, you're shoving a ten- to thousandfold of that data down the pipe and you're worried about a single 4K file which deletes itself in 10 minutes if you want it to?

[Timbuk2]

Out and about last night. Feeling a little tired after having a meal at Strada, so had a vodka red-bull in a bar then caught a bus down to Kingston to a jazz pub.

Came out in a rash across my face, heart started racing, short of breath, feeling slightly panicky. Took this episode about 45 mins to subside.

Jesus that stuff is dreadful.

Not surprised it's banned in so many countries.

[termite]

Jazz is banned in many countries?

[littlelolligagged]

Jazz in banned in many countries?

Yes.

It has to do with Jews and Negroes since the Nazis won the war.



I have never tried one of those energy drinks. I prefer to get my fix from coffee.

[termite]

I have never tried one of those energy drinks. I prefer to get my fix from coffee.

I've had Red Bull a few times - including with vodka - but it tastes sickly sweet and doesn't give me more caffeine than my freshly brewed coffee so I'm not a big fan of the energy drink obsession that seems to be so common.

BTW speaking of Vodka - I had the pleasure of drinking straight shots of chilled Mongolian Vodka and I lived to tell the tale - albeit with a bit of a headache.



Is good!

[littlelolligagged]

I'm not really a fan of vodka, though.

[termite]

I'm not really a fan of vodka, though.

Me neither, but I have a couple of Mongolian guys working for me and they insisted and you know I'm a sociable guy so I said "Sure why not?"

Then instead of pouring it into like a little tiny shot glass he pours it into my work coffee cup which is way too big for vodka shots!

I look at it as a cultural exchange, they gave me Mongolian vodka and I taught them how to swear like an Aussie - a bit like that scene out of Stripes only with Vodka.

Now I say "Good morning Bata how the fuck are you mate?" and he says "Fucking grouse mate how bout you?"

Apparently his wife hates me now.

[littlelolligagged]

Well, it is important to share these important cultural traditions, after all.

[Flixy]

Cultural tradition sharing is fun - I had some serbian home distilled booze saturday, very tasty! But I forgot the name..

[littlelolligagged]

You should drink more often, Trixy.

[Nessus]

In fact, if you keep showing up in IRC, we must insist

[littlelolligagged]

There are rules, after all.

[Illusions]

Actually, no they don't. You're confusing (semi-permanent) configuration values (which you're putting into the query term) and actual query statements. Stuff like the offset, limit and the page id is meant to go into the URI. Stuff like "don't show the nav bar" isn't.

Actually quite a few popular websites use query strings for stuff like "don't show the nav bar" for when it doesn't make sense to stuff it in a cookie. Gmail uses it in mailto links. Even vBulletin uses it in a similar manner

So I'll leave it up to you to decide whether you are right or wrong on this one.

What they're doing is "prettifying" the URI. That's got nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's rewriting how the URI looks but it's not changing the actual content of the URI.

I'm saying that you may not notice said query string usage in some websites because they are using URL rewriting.

Geeze. And you call that "easy"? And with using session / cookies you wouldn't have to worry about stuff that manipulates the query string like it's supposed to, by the way.

Well since easy is a subjective term, related to the person using it, yes it is easier for me.

If the user doesn't want to do that, he can disable cookies. Done. That's what they're are there for in the first place. And "long-term"? You know that cookies have a expiry date you can set? You can choose whether the cookie expires in 5 seconds, 10 days or half a year. You can make a cookie as long- or short term as you want it to be.

I just don't like putting a cookie on a machine when it isn't absolutely necessary. I'm not sure what the hell the huge deal is about that, and besides, I don't have any data on how many users disable cookies, and how many users who don't disable cookies still don't want them.

And if you're honestly upset about some 4K of data, then I'm honestly astounded that you're in the graphics business. That's really laughable. I mean, you're shoving a ten- to thousandfold of that data down the pipe and you're worried about a single 4K file which deletes itself in 10 minutes if you want it to?

Generally the unspoken agreement is that if you go to a website that specializes in showing pictures that its going to temporarily load up some portion of hard drive space on your computer with said pictures. There is no inherent acceptance that I should, and without notice beforehand, be allowed to store a cookie on said users machine, whether or not it expires 5 seconds, 5 minutes, or 5 years from now.

I take it when you go to a restaurant you expect food if you order it. Its what a restaurant does, it serves food that you order. In a similar vein my portfolio site will be like a restaurant. Except people will be going there to look a pictures. They'll get to look at a menu of items, and select from them the larger items they wish to digest. In both instances, the restaurant and my site, the items the person chooses will be temporarily stored.

However what you're telling me here is that its laughable for me to think it is okay to store a cookie on the user's machine, even though they only knowingly agreed to be served images, simply because the images are much weightier storage-wise than the cookie. Yet I don't think you'd be okay if when you showed up at a restaurant the maître d’ surreptitiously RFID chipped you (don't worry its much less weighty than the food) in case they wanted to store some information about you while you were in the restaurant.

[Flixy]

You should drink more often, Trixy.

More? I drank a fair amount of alcohol every day for the past 5 days (good weather on wednesday, queens night thursday, queens day friday, going out on saturday and on sunday it was the last day that the bar I used to work was open, so all booze half priced), now it's time to study again. Missed only one deadline but if I dont study hard now, I''ll miss more

[littlelolligagged]

But that is only 5 days.

Have a gin tonic beer while you study, at least.

[Nessus]

More? I drank a fair amount of alcohol every day for the past 5 days (good weather on wednesday, queens night thursday, queens day friday, going out on saturday and on sunday it was the last day that the bar I used to work was open, so all booze half priced), now it's time to study again. Missed only one deadline but if I dont study hard now, I''ll miss more

Son, I don't think you quite comprehend the caliber of people you're associating with

[GGT]

Another power failure here (happens all the time) but this time my computer reset its date to 12/31/69. That can't be good.

[CitizenCain]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_epoch

[GGT]

I think it's my battery.

[CitizenCain]

Undoubtedly. It's gonna be that small watch-battery looking thing on your motherboard that's died. (And, it *is* pretty much a watch battery.) Without a charge, your computer can't keep track of time when the computer powers off, so it resets to UNIX Epoch Time each reboot.