javascript - Why would I ever want a static NodeListHTMLCollection over a "live" NodeList if I don't n

admin管理员组

文章数量:1399180

I generally hear that because live NodeLists are "bad" (see this Zakas article) and that informed the decision for querySelectorAll to return a static HTMLCollection. Why do people think live NodeLists are a bad thing? Code examples would probably help me understand this best.

If, whenever I care to use the value of a cached collection of Nodes for any putation that collection happens to not be a stale snapshot, I can't really see that as a "bad" thing.

I understand exactly how much more useful it is to select elements with a CSS Selector string, but if I can only reliably run code against that collection right after acquiring it, it seems to be quite a bit less useful than a live NodeList.

I generally hear that because live NodeLists are "bad" (see this Zakas article) and that informed the decision for querySelectorAll to return a static HTMLCollection. Why do people think live NodeLists are a bad thing? Code examples would probably help me understand this best.

If, whenever I care to use the value of a cached collection of Nodes for any putation that collection happens to not be a stale snapshot, I can't really see that as a "bad" thing.

I understand exactly how much more useful it is to select elements with a CSS Selector string, but if I can only reliably run code against that collection right after acquiring it, it seems to be quite a bit less useful than a live NodeList.

• javascript
• dom
• nodelist
• selectors-api

Share Improve this question Follow asked Feb 28, 2013 at 15:31 bodinebodine 1,82344 gold badges2121 silver badges2828 bronze badges 1

• Check out NodeList.js – Edwin Reynoso Commented Aug 8, 2015 at 13:52

Add a ment  | 

2 Answers 2

Sorted by: Reset to default 9

Live nodelists are not bad, but their behaviour can be confusing if you're not used to it. Especially if you think of them as arrays (they're not arrays)

Consider a classic example of doubling the number of divs in a page. Here are three attempts at this:

// Example 1 (doesn't work)
for(var i = 0; i < document.querySelectorAll("div").length ; i++){
    document.body.appendChild(document.createElement("div"));
}

// Example 2 (works)
var divs = document.querySelectorAll("div");
for(var i = 0; i < divs.length ; i++){
    document.body.appendChild(document.createElement("div"));
}

// Example 3 (doesn't work)
var divs = document.getElementsByTagName("div");
for(var i = 0; i < divs.length; i++){
    document.body.appendChild(document.createElement("div"));
}

Example 1 is clearly an infinite loop. Each iteration, it rechecks the number of divs in the page.

Example 2 works as expected because the nodelist is already cached (of course it would be better to simply cache the length).

Example 3 looks like example 2. Many people would expect it to work the same way, as the nodelist is cached. But as the nodelist is live, it is actually another infinite loop. This catches some people out.

Also, if a function returns a static nodelist, you can requery the DOM each time you need it. This is arguably simpler than converting your live list to static.

live NodeList are quicker to retrieve, so they are more performant
static NodeList is less performant.

see the difference by eg. between querySelector(querySelectorAll) and getElementById

In the same conditions getElementsByTagName is better to use than querySelectorAll...

At least that I read from the Microsoft official training guide "Programming in HTML5 with JavaScript and CSS3"...

本文标签：