dynapi-dev

[Dynapi-Dev] opacity extension for DynAPI (following up on Netscape 6 discussi on)

[<rua...@ee...>]

Hi,

I was reading your Netscape 6 discussion. And I thought that one way to
maintain browser compatibility on the bleeding edge would be to provide
similar behaviour on older browsers (when possible). I wrote an extension to
the DynAPI which allows you to set the opacity of a DynLayer in ie4, ie5 and
ns6 (ns4 just show or hides the layer when the opacity reaches 0 or 100).
This allows for similar behavior on all browsers, special effects on the
newer ones that support it and it degrades gracefully on older browser (read
ns4). I've attached it to this message as a zip file.

I think you can add the bleeding edge to DynAPI, just depends on whether you
mind whether your pages look exactly the same on all browsers.

Hope you like it,
Ruairi McComb

[Dynapi-Dev] opacity extension for DynAPI (following up on Netscape 6 discussi on)

[<rua...@ee...>]

Silly me, 

sorry about that sent the message before I attched the zip file.

	la prisa mata (haste kills)


 <<opacity.zip>> 

Re: [Dynapi-Dev] opacity extension for DynAPI (following up on Netscape 6 discussi on)

[Richard B. <ma...@ri...>]

That looks very nice, you don't happen to have some examples of this I could
put up?
just one thing, it would be even better (I think) if it used thread.js
instead of setInterval, to balance out processor use. (or am I wrong on
that?)

Cheers,
Richard Bennett

ma...@ri...
www.richardinfo.com
(Everything running on, and ported to the 19/12/2000 snapshot of DynAPI2)

----- Original Message -----
From: <rua...@ee...>
To: <dyn...@li...>
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 2:24 PM
Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] opacity extension for DynAPI (following up on Netscape
6 discussi on)


> Silly me,
>
> sorry about that sent the message before I attched the zip file.
>
> la prisa mata (haste kills)
>
>
>  <<opacity.zip>>
>

Re: [Dynapi-Dev] opacity extension for DynAPI (following up on Netscape 6 discussi on)

[Michael P. <mp...@ph...>]

Doesn't thread just use setTimeout anyway?

Richard Bennett wrote:

> That looks very nice, you don't happen to have some examples of this I could
> put up?
> just one thing, it would be even better (I think) if it used thread.js
> instead of setInterval, to balance out processor use. (or am I wrong on
> that?)
>
> Cheers,
> Richard Bennett
>
> ma...@ri...
> www.richardinfo.com
> (Everything running on, and ported to the 19/12/2000 snapshot of DynAPI2)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <rua...@ee...>
> To: <dyn...@li...>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 2:24 PM
> Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] opacity extension for DynAPI (following up on Netscape
> 6 discussi on)
>
> > Silly me,
> >
> > sorry about that sent the message before I attched the zip file.
> >
> > la prisa mata (haste kills)
> >
> >
> >  <<opacity.zip>>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> Dyn...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev

--
Michael Pemberton
mp...@ph...
ICQ: 12107010

Re: [Dynapi-Dev] opacity extension for DynAPI (following up on Netscape 6 discussi on)

[Richard B. <ma...@ri...>]

> Doesn't thread just use setTimeout anyway?
Yes, but I had the idea that it balances out the processor load, to
compensate for the inherent lack of multi-threading in JS, allocating an
equal amount of processor time to each animation, I haven't tested whether
thread running 100 animations is more efficient than 100 animations using
their own setTimeout, but I would expect so.

Cheers,
Richard Bennett

ma...@ri...
www.richardinfo.com
(Everything running on, and ported to the 19/12/2000 snapshot of DynAPI2)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Pemberton" <mp...@ph...>
To: <dyn...@li...>
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 5:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] opacity extension for DynAPI (following up on
Netscape 6 discussi on)


> Doesn't thread just use setTimeout anyway?
>
> Richard Bennett wrote:
>
> > That looks very nice, you don't happen to have some examples of this I
could
> > put up?
> > just one thing, it would be even better (I think) if it used thread.js
> > instead of setInterval, to balance out processor use. (or am I wrong on
> > that?)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Richard Bennett
> >
> > ma...@ri...
> > www.richardinfo.com
> > (Everything running on, and ported to the 19/12/2000 snapshot of
DynAPI2)
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <rua...@ee...>
> > To: <dyn...@li...>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 2:24 PM
> > Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] opacity extension for DynAPI (following up on
Netscape
> > 6 discussi on)
> >
> > > Silly me,
> > >
> > > sorry about that sent the message before I attched the zip file.
> > >
> > > la prisa mata (haste kills)
> > >
> > >
> > >  <<opacity.zip>>
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> > Dyn...@li...
> > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
>
> --
> Michael Pemberton
> mp...@ph...
> ICQ: 12107010
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> Dyn...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
> ____________________________________________________________
> Get your free domain name and domain-based e-mail from
> Namezero.com. New!  Namezero Plus domains now available.
> Find out more at: http://www.namezero.com
>

Re: [Dynapi-Dev] opacity extension for DynAPI (following up on Netscape 6 discussi on)

[Jordi \ilMaestro\ M. <jmi...@or...>]

I've tested, and it is far more efficient to have one single interval.
Moverover, my tests showed that NS will fail miserably to render any of the
animated layers when there's, say, about 50 setIntervals moving different
layers, whereas having one interval move 100 layers performed smoothly.


Richard Bennett wrote:

>  I haven't tested whether
> thread running 100 animations is more efficient than 100 animations using
> their own setTimeout, but I would expect so.
>
> Cheers,
> Richard Bennett

Re: [Dynapi-Dev] opacity extension for DynAPI (following up on Netscape 6 discussi on)

[Michael P. <mp...@ph...>]

cool.  haven't had much of a chance to play with the intervals yet.  thanks for
the info.

Jordi \"ilMaestro\" Ministral wrote:

> I've tested, and it is far more efficient to have one single interval.
> Moverover, my tests showed that NS will fail miserably to render any of the
> animated layers when there's, say, about 50 setIntervals moving different
> layers, whereas having one interval move 100 layers performed smoothly.
>
> Richard Bennett wrote:
>
> >  I haven't tested whether
> > thread running 100 animations is more efficient than 100 animations using
> > their own setTimeout, but I would expect so.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Richard Bennett
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> Dyn...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev

--
Michael Pemberton
mp...@ph...
ICQ: 12107010