Including one external JS file directly into another

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by Neo Geshel, Feb 3, 2007.

  1. Neo Geshel

    Neo Geshel Guest

    I am seeking a method to load one JS file directly into another,
    *without* having to dynamically write <script> tags.

    Is there any method whereby I can call only one external JS file using a
    single <script> tag, but have that external JS file insert into ITSELF
    the contents of five others?

    Something like:

    /*start external.js*/
    import ("/js/script1.js")
    import ("/js/script2.js")
    import ("/js/script3.js")
    import ("/js/script4.js")
    import ("/js/script5.js")
    /*end external.js*/

    TIA
    ...Geshel
    --
    *********************************************************************
    My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
    Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
    Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
    a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL†(all uppercase).
    *********************************************************************
    Neo Geshel, Feb 3, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Neo Geshel

    -Lost Guest

    > "Neo Geshel" <> wrote in message news:...
    > I am seeking a method to load one JS file directly into another, *without* having to
    > dynamically write <script> tags.


    > Is there any method whereby I can call only one external JS file using a single <script>
    > tag, but have that external JS file insert into ITSELF the contents of five others?


    Based on Hunlock's lovely little snippet:

    http://www.hunlock.com/blogs/Howto_Dynamically_Insert_Javascript_And_CSS

    I wrote:

    function embed_scripts()
    {
    var arg_obj = String(arguments[0]);
    var arg = (arguments.length == 1) ? arg_obj.split(',') : arguments;
    var head_obj = document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0];
    for (var i = 0; i < arg.length; i++)
    {
    var script_obj = document.createElement('script');
    script_obj.type = 'text/javascript';
    script_obj.src = arg + '.js';
    head_obj.appendChild(script_obj);
    }
    }

    It can accept either an array:

    var _scripts = ['script1', 'script2'];
    window.onload = embed_scripts(_scripts);

    ....or a comma-separated list of arguments:

    window.onload = embed_script('script1', 'script2');

    Now, just because it worked flawlessly for me does not mean it is bulletproof. I may not
    have tested all situations or it could be coincidental that it works.

    One thing for certain, it makes no attempt to check whether or not 'script1' is a valid
    file.

    Let's see who "slams my head against the wall." *grin*

    -Lost
    -Lost, Feb 3, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Neo Geshel

    -Lost Guest

    "-Lost" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    <snip previous code>

    > window.onload = embed_script('script1', 'script2');


    I forgot the 's' at the end of the function name on this line.

    <snip>

    -Lost
    -Lost, Feb 3, 2007
    #3
  4. Neo Geshel

    RobG Guest

    On Feb 3, 1:39 pm, "-Lost" <>
    wrote:
    > > "Neo Geshel" <> wrote in messagenews:...
    > > I am seeking a method to load one JS file directly into another, *without* having to
    > > dynamically write <script> tags.
    > > Is there any method whereby I can call only one external JS file using a single <script>
    > > tag, but have that external JS file insert into ITSELF the contents of five others?

    >
    > Based on Hunlock's lovely little snippet:
    >
    > http://www.hunlock.com/blogs/Howto_Dynamically_Insert_Javascript_And_CSS

    [...]
    > Let's see who "slams my head against the wall." *grin*


    A little research, thread "createTextNode and IE7":

    <URL: http://groups.google.com.au/group/comp.lang.javascript/
    browse_frm/thread/7e23f42490c301de/3441a1cc21869a10?
    lnk=gst&q=createTextNode+IE+Randy+Web&rnum=1&hl=en#3441a1cc21869a10 >

    --
    Rob
    RobG, Feb 3, 2007
    #4
  5. Neo Geshel

    -Lost Guest

    "RobG" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Feb 3, 1:39 pm, "-Lost" <>
    > wrote:
    >> > "Neo Geshel" <> wrote in messagenews:...
    >> > I am seeking a method to load one JS file directly into another, *without* having to
    >> > dynamically write <script> tags.
    >> > Is there any method whereby I can call only one external JS file using a single
    >> > <script>
    >> > tag, but have that external JS file insert into ITSELF the contents of five others?

    >>
    >> Based on Hunlock's lovely little snippet:
    >>
    >> http://www.hunlock.com/blogs/Howto_Dynamically_Insert_Javascript_And_CSS

    > [...]
    >> Let's see who "slams my head against the wall." *grin*

    >
    > A little research, thread "createTextNode and IE7":
    >
    > <URL: http://groups.google.com.au/group/comp.lang.javascript/
    > browse_frm/thread/7e23f42490c301de/3441a1cc21869a10?
    > lnk=gst&q=createTextNode+IE+Randy+Web&rnum=1&hl=en#3441a1cc21869a10


    Thank you very much for the link.

    I see now that I totally omitted testing in Internet Explorer, which subsequently crashes
    version 6. Does it do this in version 7 as well (I do not have 7 installed)?

    Baring in mind I am only a third through that thread, I wonder, rather than resorting to
    rewriting the function to include createTextNode, I could simply append the document
    before assigning it any value. That in itself stopped the crash in Internet Explorer 6,
    and the script runs successfully.

    Is there any apparent flaw in that assumption?

    Thanks again, I'll continue reading.

    -Lost
    -Lost, Feb 3, 2007
    #5
  6. Neo Geshel

    Neo Geshel Guest

    -Lost wrote:
    >> "Neo Geshel" <> wrote in message news:...
    >> I am seeking a method to load one JS file directly into another, *without* having to
    >> dynamically write <script> tags.

    >
    >> Is there any method whereby I can call only one external JS file usinga single <script>
    >> tag, but have that external JS file insert into ITSELF the contents offive others?

    >
    > Based on Hunlock's lovely little snippet:
    >
    > http://www.hunlock.com/blogs/Howto_Dynamically_Insert_Javascript_And_CSS
    >
    > I wrote:
    >
    > function embed_scripts()
    > {
    > var arg_obj = String(arguments[0]);
    > var arg = (arguments.length == 1) ? arg_obj.split(',') : arguments;
    > var head_obj = document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0];
    > for (var i = 0; i < arg.length; i++)
    > {
    > var script_obj = document.createElement('script');
    > script_obj.type = 'text/javascript';
    > script_obj.src = arg + '.js';
    > head_obj.appendChild(script_obj);
    > }
    > }
    >
    > It can accept either an array:
    >
    > var _scripts = ['script1', 'script2'];
    > window.onload = embed_scripts(_scripts);
    >
    > ...or a comma-separated list of arguments:
    >
    > window.onload = embed_script('script1', 'script2');
    >
    > Now, just because it worked flawlessly for me does not mean it is bulletproof. I may not
    > have tested all situations or it could be coincidental that it works.
    >
    > One thing for certain, it makes no attempt to check whether or not 'script1' is a valid
    > file.
    >
    > Let's see who "slams my head against the wall." *grin*
    >
    > -Lost
    >
    >


    Unfortunately, you seem to have a slight problem understanding the
    English language.

    <quote>
    *without* having to dynamically write <script> tags
    </quote>

    What part of that sentence did you fail to understand?? And yet, you
    gave me a document.createElement() solution WHICH WAS EXACTLY I DID NOT
    WANT TO SEE, AS I HAVE ALREADY SEEN IT ON ABOUT 50+ PAGES OF GOOGLE
    SEARCH RESULTS. This NG is the resource of last resort for me. If I
    can’t find it on Google, I ask here. And I made a point of mentioning
    what I *didn’t* want to see as an answer, as I have already rejected it
    as being too clumsy and inelegant.

    So, in summary, I am looking for a solution that DOES NOT make use of
    document.createElement() in any fashion whatsoever.

    Cheers.
    ...Geshel
    --
    ***********************************************************************
    My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
    Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
    Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
    a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL†(alluppercase).
    ***********************************************************************
    * “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer *
    * god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other *
    * possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.†*
    * - Stephen F. Roberts *
    ***********************************************************************
    * “Anyone who believes in Intelligent Design (“creationismâ€) is just *
    * as ignorant, irrational and ill-educated as someone who believes *
    * that the world is a flat disc, that the Sun circles the Earth or *
    * that there really is a tooth fairy. Darwinism has an overwhelming *
    * foundation of evidence that can be tested and reproduced. *
    * *
    * “Intelligent Design, on the other hand, has no evidence at all;not *
    * one single shred of testable proof. As such, Intelligent Design is *
    * Religious Mythology, and has no right whatsoever to be in our *
    * Science classrooms.†- 99.99+% of Scientists *
    ***********************************************************************
    Mignon McLaughlin once said that “A nymphomaniac is a woman [who is]
    as obsessed with sex as the average man.†Unfortunately, sincetrue
    nymphomaniacs are so rare, this means that it takes an extraordinary
    woman to keep up with an ordinary man.
    ***********************************************************************
    Neo Geshel, Feb 3, 2007
    #6
  7. Neo Geshel

    RobG Guest

    [...]
    > Unfortunately, you seem to have a slight problem understanding the
    > English language.


    You seem to have serious misunderstanding of news groups. Ignorance
    is tolerated; outright rudeness and disrespect for Usenet etiquette is
    not.

    It is a good idea to read the FAQ:
    <URL: http://www.jibbering.com/faq/ >

    --
    Rob
    RobG, Feb 3, 2007
    #7
  8. Neo Geshel

    -Lost Guest

    "Neo Geshel" <> wrote in message
    news:0rVwh.868218$5R2.200561@pd7urf3no...
    -Lost wrote:
    >> "Neo Geshel" <> wrote in message news:...


    >> I am seeking a method to load one JS file directly into another, *without* having to
    >> dynamically write <script> tags.

    >
    >> Is there any method whereby I can call only one external JS file using a single
    >> <script> tag, but have that external JS file insert into ITSELF the contents of five
    >> others?


    I provided you exactly that. I'll quote for a moment that your request was "*without*
    having to dynamically write <script> tags."

    Hunlock's article is "dynamically inserting" JavaScript (or CSS). Inserting elements is
    different than "writing" a <script> tag. E.g.:

    document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="x.js">...<\/script>');

    My meager function made no attempt to "write" anything. Least of all a script tag.

    It did however "dynamically insert" the script element, modify its values, and then append
    it to the existing head element.

    >Unfortunately, you seem to have a slight problem understanding the English language.


    Despite the popularity of asininity in your remarks, I will refrain from partaking.

    > <quote>
    > *without* having to dynamically write <script> tags
    > </quote>


    It was actually my direct understanding of the English language and your inability to
    properly describe your request.

    > as I have already rejected it as being too clumsy and inelegant.


    Oh really? Your alternative solution is... ?

    I guess I could mention creating the source server-side, but I fear it would set you off
    on another rant.

    > So, in summary, I am looking for a solution that DOES NOT make use of
    > document.createElement() in any fashion whatsoever.


    Making *that* clear in the first place would have alleviated the greatest part of this
    thread.

    > Cheers.
    > ...Geshel


    And to you.

    -Lost
    -Lost, Feb 3, 2007
    #8
  9. Neo Geshel

    Neo Geshel Guest

    -Lost wrote:
    > "Neo Geshel" <> wrote in message
    > news:0rVwh.868218$5R2.200561@pd7urf3no...
    > -Lost wrote:
    >>> "Neo Geshel" <> wrote in message news:...

    >
    >>> I am seeking a method to load one JS file directly into another, *without* having to
    >>> dynamically write <script> tags.
    >>> Is there any method whereby I can call only one external JS file using a single
    >>> <script> tag, but have that external JS file insert into ITSELF the contents of five
    >>> others?

    >
    > I provided you exactly that. I'll quote for a moment that your requestwas "*without*
    > having to dynamically write <script> tags."
    >
    > Hunlock's article is "dynamically inserting" JavaScript (or CSS). Inserting elements is
    > different than "writing" a <script> tag. E.g.:
    >
    > document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="x.js">...<\/script>');
    >
    > My meager function made no attempt to "write" anything. Least of all ascript tag.
    >
    > It did however "dynamically insert" the script element, modify its values, and then append
    > it to the existing head element.


    Google: Javascript append content
    http://www.google.ca/search?num=100...q=javascript append content&btnG=Search&meta=

    Google: Javascript dynamic write
    http://www.google.ca/search?num=100...&q=javascript dynamic write&btnG=Search&meta=

    With the majority of the results’ subjects being the same across the two
    search terms (and a number of pages being the same across both search
    results), I'd say they were both about the same damn thing.

    Or in other words: Po-tay-to, po-tah-to; to-may-to, to-mah-to. Same
    shit, different pile.

    In fact, many sites consider the two methods to be the same thing:
    http://www.codehouse.com/javascript/articles/external/
    and make the distinction between them by calling one a "static" method,
    and the other the “DHTML†method.

    And the difference between “appending†and “writing†are very slim
    indeed. In either way, content gets "written" into the page, it's simply
    the method that is used that changes. One uses a direct, sledge-hammer
    like method, and the other uses fancy DHTML tricks to lock onto a
    pre-existing tag and shoehorn the content in after the tag.

    Kind of like the difference between pencilling in the margins of a book,
    and making a proper footnote. The DHTML method is simply more
    “professional†and more compliant with modern web standards than the
    other. Otherwise, they both dynamically add content to the web page, be
    it <script> tags or other stuff.

    So, once again, I am *not* looking for methods that will “dynamically
    insert†or “dynamically append†or “dynamically write†or “dynamically
    add†or do to the web page itself any other dynamic action whose
    definition you care to whimsically constrict to absurdly narrow parameters.

    In other words, I am looking for a way of calling additional JS files
    from within the “original†external JS file, without having <script>
    tags added, in any way whatsoever, to the web page.

    Just as I had originally asked. Was that really so hard to comprehend???

    ...Geshel.
    --
    ***********************************************************************
    My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
    Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
    Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
    a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL†(alluppercase).
    ***********************************************************************
    * “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer *
    * god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other *
    * possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.†*
    * - Stephen F. Roberts *
    ***********************************************************************
    * “Anyone who believes in Intelligent Design (“creationismâ€) is just *
    * as ignorant, irrational and ill-educated as someone who believes *
    * that the world is a flat disc, that the Sun circles the Earth or *
    * that there really is a tooth fairy. Darwinism has an overwhelming *
    * foundation of evidence that can be tested and reproduced. *
    * *
    * “Intelligent Design, on the other hand, has no evidence at all;not *
    * one single shred of testable proof. As such, Intelligent Design is *
    * Religious Mythology, and has no right whatsoever to be in our *
    * Science classrooms.†- 99.99+% of Scientists *
    ***********************************************************************
    Mignon McLaughlin once said that “A nymphomaniac is a woman [who is]
    as obsessed with sex as the average man.†Unfortunately, sincetrue
    nymphomaniacs are so rare, this means that it takes an extraordinary
    woman to keep up with an ordinary man.
    ***********************************************************************
    Neo Geshel, Feb 3, 2007
    #9
  10. You could write a function which pulls the source in using an XHR, and evals it in a success handler function. Of course you're limited to pulling from the originating server but...
    TheBagbournes, Feb 3, 2007
    #10
  11. Neo Geshel

    Smarty Guest

    On Feb 3, 3:47 pm, Neo Geshel <> wrote:
    > -Lost wrote:
    > > "Neo Geshel" <> wrote in message
    > >news:0rVwh.868218$5R2.200561@pd7urf3no...
    > > -Lost wrote:
    > >>> "Neo Geshel" <> wrote in messagenews:...

    >
    > >>> I am seeking a method to load one JS file directly into another, *without* having to
    > >>> dynamically write <script> tags.
    > >>> Is there any method whereby I can call only one external JS file using a single
    > >>> <script> tag, but have that external JS file insert into ITSELF the contents of five
    > >>> others?

    >
    > > I provided you exactly that. I'll quote for a moment that your request was "*without*
    > > having to dynamically write <script> tags."

    >
    > > Hunlock's article is "dynamically inserting" JavaScript (or CSS). Inserting elements is
    > > different than "writing" a <script> tag. E.g.:

    >
    > > document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="x.js">...<\/script>');

    >
    > > My meager function made no attempt to "write" anything. Least of all a script tag.

    >
    > > It did however "dynamically insert" the script element, modify its values, and then append
    > > it to the existing head element.

    >
    > Google: Javascript append contenthttp://www.google.ca/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&r...
    >
    > Google: Javascript dynamic writehttp://www.google.ca/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&r...
    >
    > With the majority of the results' subjects being the same across the two
    > search terms (and a number of pages being the same across both search
    > results), I'd say they were both about the same damn thing.
    >
    > Or in other words: Po-tay-to, po-tah-to; to-may-to, to-mah-to. Same
    > shit, different pile.
    >
    > In fact, many sites consider the two methods to be the same thing:http://www.codehouse.com/javascript/articles/external/
    > and make the distinction between them by calling one a "static" method,
    > and the other the "DHTML" method.
    >
    > And the difference between "appending" and "writing" are very slim
    > indeed. In either way, content gets "written" into the page, it's simply
    > the method that is used that changes. One uses a direct, sledge-hammer
    > like method, and the other uses fancy DHTML tricks to lock onto a
    > pre-existing tag and shoehorn the content in after the tag.
    >
    > Kind of like the difference between pencilling in the margins of a book,
    > and making a proper footnote. The DHTML method is simply more
    > "professional" and more compliant with modern web standards than the
    > other. Otherwise, they both dynamically add content to the web page, be
    > it <script> tags or other stuff.
    >
    > So, once again, I am *not* looking for methods that will "dynamically
    > insert" or "dynamically append" or "dynamically write" or "dynamically
    > add" or do to the web page itself any other dynamic action whose
    > definition you care to whimsically constrict to absurdly narrow parameters.
    >
    > In other words, I am looking for a way of calling additional JS files
    > from within the "original" external JS file, without having <script>
    > tags added, in any way whatsoever, to the web page.
    >
    > Just as I had originally asked. Was that really so hard to comprehend???
    >
    > ...Geshel.
    > --
    > ***********************************************************************
    > My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
    > Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
    > Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
    > a subject-line of "NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL" (all uppercase).
    > ***********************************************************************
    > * "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer *
    > * god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other *
    > * possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." *
    > * - Stephen F. Roberts *
    > ***********************************************************************
    > * "Anyone who believes in Intelligent Design ("creationism") is just *
    > * as ignorant, irrational and ill-educated as someone who believes *
    > * that the world is a flat disc, that the Sun circles the Earth or *
    > * that there really is a tooth fairy. Darwinism has an overwhelming *
    > * foundation of evidence that can be tested and reproduced. *
    > * *
    > * "Intelligent Design, on the other hand, has no evidence at all; not *
    > * one single shred of testable proof. As such, Intelligent Design is *
    > * Religious Mythology, and has no right whatsoever to be in our *
    > * Science classrooms." - 99.99+% of Scientists *
    > ***********************************************************************
    > Mignon McLaughlin once said that "A nymphomaniac is a woman [who is]
    > as obsessed with sex as the average man." Unfortunately, since true
    > nymphomaniacs are so rare, this means that it takes an extraordinary
    > woman to keep up with an ordinary man.
    > ***********************************************************************- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    *without* having to
    >> dynamically write <script> tags.


    What u want? You want to run js without specifying <script> tag in
    anyway? LOL... Then pl create a browser which will detect js without
    <script> tag. Hope u wont ask in future that "I want to run a webpage
    without creating it" LOL....

    Better Luck In Next Post

    Sriram
    Smarty, Feb 3, 2007
    #11
  12. Neo Geshel

    Neo Geshel Guest

    Smarty wrote:
    >
    > *without* having to
    >>> dynamically write <script> tags.

    >
    > What u want? You want to run js without specifying <script> tag in
    > anyway? LOL... Then pl create a browser which will detect js without
    > <script> tag. Hope u wont ask in future that "I want to run a webpage
    > without creating it" LOL....
    >
    > Better Luck In Next Post
    >
    > Sriram
    >

    And if you had read the original post, you would have discovered that I
    talked about having one and only one “original†external JS file that
    was called by the web site (via a single hard-coded <script> tag). All
    the other JS files would be called by that JS file, and called *without*
    having additional <script> tags dynamically added (I have to be careful
    about my terms now that the definition-police are out and about) to the
    web page itself.

    So please, read the original post prior to putting foot in mouth.

    ...Geshel
    --
    ***********************************************************************
    My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
    Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
    Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
    a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL†(alluppercase).
    ***********************************************************************
    * “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer *
    * god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other *
    * possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.†*
    * - Stephen F. Roberts *
    ***********************************************************************
    * “Anyone who believes in Intelligent Design (“creationismâ€) is just *
    * as ignorant, irrational and ill-educated as someone who believes *
    * that the world is a flat disc, that the Sun circles the Earth or *
    * that there really is a tooth fairy. Darwinism has an overwhelming *
    * foundation of evidence that can be tested and reproduced. *
    * *
    * “Intelligent Design, on the other hand, has no evidence at all;not *
    * one single shred of testable proof. As such, Intelligent Design is *
    * Religious Mythology, and has no right whatsoever to be in our *
    * Science classrooms.†- 99.99+% of Scientists *
    ***********************************************************************
    Mignon McLaughlin once said that “A nymphomaniac is a woman [who is]
    as obsessed with sex as the average man.†Unfortunately, sincetrue
    nymphomaniacs are so rare, this means that it takes an extraordinary
    woman to keep up with an ordinary man.
    ***********************************************************************
    Neo Geshel, Feb 3, 2007
    #12
  13. Neo Geshel

    Neo Geshel Guest

    TheBagbournes wrote:
    > You could write a function which pulls the source in using an XHR, and
    > evals it in a success handler function. Of course you're limited to
    > pulling from the originating server but...


    That’s a start. I’ll look into it. Thanks.

    ...Geshel
    --
    ***********************************************************************
    My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
    Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
    Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
    a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL†(alluppercase).
    ***********************************************************************
    * “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer *
    * god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other *
    * possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.†*
    * - Stephen F. Roberts *
    ***********************************************************************
    * “Anyone who believes in Intelligent Design (“creationismâ€) is just *
    * as ignorant, irrational and ill-educated as someone who believes *
    * that the world is a flat disc, that the Sun circles the Earth or *
    * that there really is a tooth fairy. Darwinism has an overwhelming *
    * foundation of evidence that can be tested and reproduced. *
    * *
    * “Intelligent Design, on the other hand, has no evidence at all;not *
    * one single shred of testable proof. As such, Intelligent Design is *
    * Religious Mythology, and has no right whatsoever to be in our *
    * Science classrooms.†- 99.99+% of Scientists *
    ***********************************************************************
    Mignon McLaughlin once said that “A nymphomaniac is a woman [who is]
    as obsessed with sex as the average man.†Unfortunately, sincetrue
    nymphomaniacs are so rare, this means that it takes an extraordinary
    woman to keep up with an ordinary man.
    ***********************************************************************
    Neo Geshel, Feb 3, 2007
    #13
  14. Neo Geshel

    Randy Webb Guest

    Neo Geshel said the following on 2/3/2007 1:13 PM:
    > TheBagbournes wrote:
    >> You could write a function which pulls the source in using an XHR, and
    >> evals it in a success handler function. Of course you're limited to
    >> pulling from the originating server but...

    >
    > That’s a start. I’ll look into it. Thanks.


    Thats even worse than dynamically creating a script element. But, I
    won't tell the OP that, he may dicker with me about wordings (which I
    couldn't care less about).

    P.S. I can include as many .js files into another .js file as I want
    without having to create additional script elements. But, after the
    attitude of the OP in this thread I can assure you that Hell has a
    better chance of freezing before I divulge it.

    Then again, if the OP couldn't find out how to include one file in
    another after searching Google then me telling how to do it won't
    register with him.

    I will say this though, there is only *one* way to accomplish the
    half-assed attempt at explaining his desire without creating additional
    script elements.

    --
    Randy
    Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
    Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
    Randy Webb, Feb 3, 2007
    #14
  15. In article <0rVwh.868218$5R2.200561@pd7urf3no>, Neo Geshel
    <> writes

    <snip>
    >Unfortunately, you seem to have a slight problem understanding the
    >English language.


    Some people need reminding that the internet travels round the world and
    even reaches people who don't speak English at home. Some of those
    people know a lot about javascript. (And some don't.)


    ><quote>
    >*without* having to dynamically write <script> tags
    ></quote>


    Some people also need reminding that 'tag' is a technical term meaning
    special things in the HTML source file, such as '<script>'.

    Presumably you meant 'script element'. Even then, you didn't make it
    clear that you didn't want the DOM updated with a complete script
    element, even if it was done entirely inside a js file.


    >What part of that sentence did you fail to understand?? And yet, you
    >gave me a document.createElement() solution WHICH WAS EXACTLY I DID NOT
    >WANT TO SEE, AS I HAVE ALREADY SEEN IT ON ABOUT 50+ PAGES OF GOOGLE
    >SEARCH RESULTS. This NG is the resource of last resort for me. If I
    >can’t find it on Google, I ask here. And I made a point of mentioning
    >what I *didn’t* want to see as an answer, as I have already rejected
    >it as being too clumsy and inelegant.
    >
    >So, in summary, I am looking for a solution that DOES NOT make use of
    >document.createElement() in any fashion whatsoever.


    Surely the answer is obvious. You use your trusty text editor to merge
    all the bits of js into one large js file. You can't get more elegant
    than that.

    If that is inconvenient you can program the server to merge the files
    for you.

    John


    PS Your sig has Unicode characters that don't display properly in ASCII
    readers.
    --
    John Harris
    John G Harris, Feb 3, 2007
    #15
  16. Neo Geshel

    Neo Geshel Guest

    Randy Webb wrote:
    > Neo Geshel said the following on 2/3/2007 1:13 PM:
    >> TheBagbournes wrote:
    >>> You could write a function which pulls the source in using an XHR,
    >>> and evals it in a success handler function. Of course you're limited
    >>> to pulling from the originating server but...

    >>
    >> That�s a start. I�ll look into it. Thanks.

    >
    > Thats even worse than dynamically creating a script element. But, I
    > won't tell the OP that, he may dicker with me about wordings (which I
    > couldn't care less about).
    >
    > P.S. I can include as many .js files into another .js file as I want
    > without having to create additional script elements. But, after the
    > attitude of the OP in this thread I can assure you that Hell has a
    > better chance of freezing before I divulge it.


    As long as it doesn’t involve document.write and/or
    document.createElement(), then I’m all ears, because that’s exactly what
    I’ve been looking for.

    And that’s exactly what I’ve been asking for, from the start.

    > Then again, if the OP couldn't find out how to include one file in
    > another after searching Google then me telling how to do it won't
    > register with him.


    Maybe I haven’t been using the correct search terms. A tool is only as
    good as how you use it. I have Googled the following search terms (in
    various combinations):

    Javascript include dynamic dynamically insert -"document.write"
    -"document.createElement" "insert one javascript file into another"

    Nothing, after at least 100 search results per try. And I made quite a
    number of attempts before posting here.

    > I will say this though, there is only *one* way to accomplish the
    > half-assed attempt at explaining his desire without creating additional
    > script elements.


    Providing a taunt rather than hard evidence makes you only one thing in
    my eyes:

    A windbag. And a bloody big one, at that.

    Either put your nuts on the line, and be helpful (as in, provide me with
    what I have been asking for, from the start) or shut up.

    Cheers.
    ...Geshel
    --
    ***********************************************************************
    My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
    Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
    Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
    a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL†(alluppercase).
    ***********************************************************************
    * “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer *
    * god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other *
    * possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.†*
    * - Stephen F. Roberts *
    ***********************************************************************
    * “Anyone who believes in Intelligent Design (“creationismâ€) is just *
    * as ignorant, irrational and ill-educated as someone who believes *
    * that the world is a flat disc, that the Sun circles the Earth or *
    * that there really is a tooth fairy. Darwinism has an overwhelming *
    * foundation of evidence that can be tested and reproduced. *
    * *
    * “Intelligent Design, on the other hand, has no evidence at all;not *
    * one single shred of testable proof. As such, Intelligent Design is *
    * Religious Mythology, and has no right whatsoever to be in our *
    * Science classrooms.†- 99.99+% of Scientists *
    ***********************************************************************
    Mignon McLaughlin once said that “A nymphomaniac is a woman [who is]
    as obsessed with sex as the average man.†Unfortunately, sincetrue
    nymphomaniacs are so rare, this means that it takes an extraordinary
    woman to keep up with an ordinary man.
    ***********************************************************************
    Neo Geshel, Feb 3, 2007
    #16
  17. Neo Geshel

    Neo Geshel Guest

    John G Harris wrote:
    > In article <0rVwh.868218$5R2.200561@pd7urf3no>, Neo Geshel
    > <> writes
    >> What part of that sentence did you fail to understand?? And yet, you
    >> gave me a document.createElement() solution WHICH WAS EXACTLY I DID
    >> NOT WANT TO SEE, AS I HAVE ALREADY SEEN IT ON ABOUT 50+ PAGES OF
    >> GOOGLE SEARCH RESULTS. This NG is the resource of last resort for me.
    >> If I can’t find it on Google, I ask here. And I made a point of
    >> mentioning what I *didn’t* want to see as an answer, as I havealready
    >> rejected it as being too clumsy and inelegant.
    >>
    >> So, in summary, I am looking for a solution that DOES NOT make use of
    >> document.createElement() in any fashion whatsoever.

    >
    > Surely the answer is obvious. You use your trusty text editor to merge
    > all the bits of js into one large js file. You can't get more elegant
    > than that.


    I need to be able to load different files depending on which features
    exist in the calling page. Since some of my JS files (and some of the
    XML files that *they* call) are pretty hefty, I want to be able to call
    them dynamically (based on what the page needs) from inside a single, JS
    “handler†file, which is the only JS file that is actually called by the
    web page. This will allow me to minimize the amount of bandwidth used by
    a page.

    > If that is inconvenient you can program the server to merge the files
    > for you.


    The server can’t feature-detect. And using a browser capabilitiesfile
    is far too inelegant and ineffective. The UA can always be spoofed, but
    capabilities cannot.

    >
    > PS Your sig has Unicode characters that don't display properly in ASCII
    > readers.


    There are still ASCII Usenet readers out there that can't understand
    Unicode?? Wow. What are they? Are they compatible with XP? What year was
    their last release date? The only one that I’ve used that didn’t have
    Unicode support was Microplanet Gravity, and that’s because it died
    almost a decade ago, before Unicode support became essential on the web.
    It’s now abandonware, but I still use it for binaries, because ofits
    unparallelled ability to sort, combine and handle binary posts. I’ve
    tried to migrate to XanaNews, but it’s still too unstable for my needs.

    I see (from your headers) that you’re using a client called “Turnpikeâ€.
    Haven’t had much time to look at its product page, but I do notice that
    the web site is still referencing Windows NT and 95 in relation to the
    current version. I guess that’s why it still doesn’t haveUnicode
    support... I mean, in those days the vast majority of net users were
    still in North America, and being able to view anything other than
    American English was a non-issue.

    ...Geshel
    --
    ***********************************************************************
    My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
    Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
    Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
    a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL†(alluppercase).
    ***********************************************************************
    * “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer *
    * god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other *
    * possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.†*
    * - Stephen F. Roberts *
    ***********************************************************************
    * “Anyone who believes in Intelligent Design (“creationismâ€) is just *
    * as ignorant, irrational and ill-educated as someone who believes *
    * that the world is a flat disc, that the Sun circles the Earth or *
    * that there really is a tooth fairy. Darwinism has an overwhelming *
    * foundation of evidence that can be tested and reproduced. *
    * *
    * “Intelligent Design, on the other hand, has no evidence at all;not *
    * one single shred of testable proof. As such, Intelligent Design is *
    * Religious Mythology, and has no right whatsoever to be in our *
    * Science classrooms.†- 99.99+% of Scientists *
    ***********************************************************************
    Mignon McLaughlin once said that “A nymphomaniac is a woman [who is]
    as obsessed with sex as the average man.†Unfortunately, sincetrue
    nymphomaniacs are so rare, this means that it takes an extraordinary
    woman to keep up with an ordinary man.
    ***********************************************************************
    Neo Geshel, Feb 3, 2007
    #17
  18. On Feb 3, 4:23 pm, Neo Geshel <> wrote:
    > Either put your nuts on the line, and be helpful (as in, provide me with
    > what I have been asking for, from the start) or shut up.


    I've been on the net since its beginning, but this is the first time
    I've felt totally compelled and justified to insult someone. Neo,
    you're one of the biggest assholes I've ever seen. You ask for free
    help and then bash it. No one is obligated to provide you with
    jack. And now I don't see any reason for anyone to help you at all.

    And dump that stupid childish giant signature. Woof.

    Kev
    Kevin Darling, Feb 4, 2007
    #18
  19. Neo Geshel

    Neo Geshel Guest

    Kevin Darling wrote:
    > On Feb 3, 4:23 pm, Neo Geshel <> wrote:
    >> Either put your nuts on the line, and be helpful (as in, provide me with
    >> what I have been asking for, from the start) or shut up.

    >
    > I've been on the net since its beginning, but this is the first time
    > I've felt totally compelled and justified to insult someone. Neo,
    > you're one of the biggest assholes I've ever seen. You ask for free
    > help and then bash it. No one is obligated to provide you with
    > jack. And now I don't see any reason for anyone to help you at all.
    >
    > And dump that stupid childish giant signature. Woof.
    >
    > Kev
    >
    >


    Okay, so I got a little irritated. But I specifically stated what I *did
    not* want to see, and yet that’s all I got in response.

    I know a lot of people that post to Usenet fail to fully read the
    question before answering, but I went out of my way to point out what I
    did not want to see. Maybe I wasn’t specific enough, but I postedto
    Usenet for a quick-and-dirty answer (or even a point in the right
    direction). I had no interest in publishing an RFP.

    And then R.Webb decides to taunt me by claiming to have the answer, but
    refusing to tell me. That’s behaviour that is straight from
    Kindergarten, if you ask me. And I’m of the rather direct opinionthat
    if a person can’t put up, they should shut up.

    Maybe I’m too blunt. Maybe I’m not diplomatic enough. Butwhen someone
    asks a question and I decide to provide an answer, at least I read the
    d*mn question that was posted in the first place, so I can avoid giving
    them data that they are clearly not interested in.

    As for the sig, you’re right. It’s an old one for this computer, and I
    haven’t updated it with my current one in a while. Done.

    ...Geshel
    --
    ***********************************************************************
    My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
    Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
    Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
    a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL†(alluppercase).
    ***********************************************************************
    Neo Geshel, Feb 4, 2007
    #19
  20. Neo Geshel

    pcx99 Guest

    Hi Geshel,

    I had a nice article picked out which showed how to combined and (as a
    bonus) compress multiple js calls. No you can't do it inside the js
    itself but with a little server side script and a tweak of .htaccess you
    can do it quite nicely.

    However seeing how you treat people who try and pitch in to help you, I
    believe I'll withhold the link.






    Neo Geshel wrote:
    > -Lost wrote:
    >>> "Neo Geshel" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>> I am seeking a method to load one JS file directly into another,
    >>> *without* having to dynamically write <script> tags.

    >>
    >>> Is there any method whereby I can call only one external JS file
    >>> using a single <script> tag, but have that external JS file insert
    >>> into ITSELF the contents of five others?

    >>
    >> Based on Hunlock's lovely little snippet:
    >>
    >> http://www.hunlock.com/blogs/Howto_Dynamically_Insert_Javascript_And_CSS
    >>
    >> I wrote:
    >>
    >> function embed_scripts()
    >> {
    >> var arg_obj = String(arguments[0]);
    >> var arg = (arguments.length == 1) ? arg_obj.split(',') : arguments;
    >> var head_obj = document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0];
    >> for (var i = 0; i < arg.length; i++)
    >> {
    >> var script_obj = document.createElement('script');
    >> script_obj.type = 'text/javascript';
    >> script_obj.src = arg + '.js';
    >> head_obj.appendChild(script_obj);
    >> }
    >> }
    >>
    >> It can accept either an array:
    >>
    >> var _scripts = ['script1', 'script2'];
    >> window.onload = embed_scripts(_scripts);
    >>
    >> ...or a comma-separated list of arguments:
    >>
    >> window.onload = embed_script('script1', 'script2');
    >>
    >> Now, just because it worked flawlessly for me does not mean it is
    >> bulletproof. I may not have tested all situations or it could be
    >> coincidental that it works.
    >>
    >> One thing for certain, it makes no attempt to check whether or not
    >> 'script1' is a valid file.
    >>
    >> Let's see who "slams my head against the wall." *grin*
    >>
    >> -Lost
    >>

    >
    > Unfortunately, you seem to have a slight problem understanding the
    > English language.
    >
    > <quote>
    > *without* having to dynamically write <script> tags
    > </quote>
    >
    > What part of that sentence did you fail to understand?? And yet, you
    > gave me a document.createElement() solution WHICH WAS EXACTLY I DID NOT
    > WANT TO SEE, AS I HAVE ALREADY SEEN IT ON ABOUT 50+ PAGES OF GOOGLE
    > SEARCH RESULTS. This NG is the resource of last resort for me. If I
    > can’t find it on Google, I ask here. And I made a point of mentioning
    > what I *didn’t* want to see as an answer, as I have already rejected it
    > as being too clumsy and inelegant.
    >
    > So, in summary, I am looking for a solution that DOES NOT make use of
    > document.createElement() in any fashion whatsoever.
    >
    > Cheers.
    > ...Geshel



    --
    http://www.hunlock.com -- Musings in Javascript, CSS.
    $FA
    pcx99, Feb 4, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. vish
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,724
    Steve C. Orr, MCSD
    Jul 16, 2003
  2. Johan
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    1,597
    Arndt Jonasson
    Feb 27, 2007
  3. Morris Dovey
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,457
    Phlip
    Mar 8, 2008
  4. dave

    including one vbs file into other

    dave, Jul 14, 2004, in forum: ASP General
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    475
    Ray at
    Jul 15, 2004
  5. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    125
    Henry
    Sep 26, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page