PDA

View Full Version : Can you view all running setIntervals?

Tails
03-29-2003, 08:00 PM
How can I check whether a setInterval was cleared or not? And can I clear an interval using strings and variables from arrays? Is there a way to view all (running) intervals that in an index similar to document.images[0] for sake of canceling many intervals in a for loop with arrays?

<body>
<img src="z.gif" height="12" width="2" />
<p></p><br />
<form>
<input type="button" value="stop!" onClick="clear(0)" />
</form>
</body>

<script>
A=new Array("grow")

grow=window.setInterval(grow,1)

function grow()
{
document.images[0].length+=2 // grow forever until...
}

function clear(X)
{
clearInterval(A[X])
}
</script>
Graeme Hackston
03-29-2003, 08:45 PM
I don't know if there's a better way but this is what I do.

Use a div or something on the page and each time the function is fired write something to it with obj.innerHTML +='something'
Tails
03-29-2003, 08:55 PM
That would work for visual sake, but I want other functions to detect it. I know how setIntervals can build up and run forever, and it would seem appropriate to clear some running ones if I have 5 more running.
Graeme Hackston
03-29-2003, 09:01 PM
I'm not clear of what you mean. Do you have conditions that stop the intervals? If so the other functions can be fired when they're met.

Also, what is this doing?

document.images[0].length
Tails
03-29-2003, 09:20 PM
Oops, that was supposed to be width. I made an interval to grow the image and then a button to stop that function name from an array. But it apparently didn't stop apparently, so that won't work.
Graeme Hackston
03-29-2003, 09:29 PM
You can do something like this. I wouldn't use the same name for a fuction and an interval.

grow2=window.setInterval(grow,1)

function grow()
{
document.images[0].width+=2
if (document.images[0].width >= somemeasure)
{
clearInterval(grow2)
}
}
Tails
03-29-2003, 09:34 PM
But I don't want to make an IF statement for each interval. I want a common function to turn off each interval. Here's an example page (but the source on this one uses setTimeout juggles) http://XFox_Prower.tirpod.com/future.htm
Graeme Hackston
03-29-2003, 09:50 PM
that link booted me to this page http://www.megago.com/l/? so I tried it in IE. Got the same page plus popups etc.

If you're doing this with multipule images you can use a for loop. Here's a mock up

for (var i=0;i<document.images.length;i++) {
window['grow' + i] = setInterval("grow("+i+")",1)
}

function grow(num)
{
document.images[num].width+=2
if (document.images[num].width >= somemeasure)
{
clearInterval(window['grow' + num])
}
}
Tails
03-29-2003, 09:54 PM
window[x] ? Is that for more than one window open or something? This is all on the same page. But if you have a popup blocking script I'd be glad to listen.
Graeme Hackston
03-29-2003, 10:03 PM
No, it's a reference to a global variable. Try this

<html>
<head>
<title></title>
<script>
a = 1
window['blah' + a] = 2
alert(blah1)
</script>
</head>
<body>
</body>
</html>
Graeme Hackston
03-30-2003, 01:23 PM
It just sunk in what you ment. Have you got the button going?

stop=false

for (var i=0;i<document.images.length;i++) {
window['grow' + i] = setInterval("grow("+i+")",1)
}

function grow(num)
{
document.images[num].width+=2
if (document.images[num].width >= somemeasure || stop)
{
clearInterval(window['grow' + num])
}
}

--------------

<input type="button" value="stop!" onClick="stop=true" />
Tails
03-31-2003, 08:30 PM
Well, the main reason I got so curoius about intervals is because of a page I have. Take a look at http://XFox_Prower.tripod.com/future.htm. Notice how the bars grow? This is with a juggling between 2 functions and setTimeout. With strings, I have it as only 2 functions and that's 5 bars. That would work instead having 5 setIntervals and 5 clearIntervals. I also have an equivalent page redone with setIntervals that is larger and I'd like to know from others if it is slower or faster on their machine. I'll have the interval equivalent up in 2 days.
Tails
04-02-2003, 09:53 PM
Here they are:
http://XFox_Prower.tripod.com/timeout.htm
http://XFox_Prower.tripod.com/interval.htm

Someone tell me which is faster? The source of them is quite messy, but I hope someone with a somewhat slow machine can see some differences and give me advice.
Graeme Hackston
04-02-2003, 10:14 PM
IE6, Moz 1.3, cable.

Speed was a bit faster in Moz than IE but no difference between interval and timeout in either.

Smoothness was of course better in Moz. Ie has that jumpy thing it does with timed visual effects. It's not that noticeable unless you're looking for it.

From best to worst in smoothness

Moz interval
Moz timeout
IE interval
IE timeout

interval seems better overall. I've done similar comparisons and timeout was better. I guess it depends on the situation.

You might gets something useful from this

http://www.webreference.com/dhtml/column28/part-1.html
Tails
04-02-2003, 10:24 PM
It is odd how some situations call for the different use of setTimeout and setInterval. For the interval page, I had one interval monitor a long IF statement and once it is met (once all images met their peak width specified), the interval was to clear the other intervals and then clear itself. I tested it with an alert() and it successfully committed suicide lol ^_^.
liorean
04-02-2003, 11:17 PM
setTimeout is a CPU and memory hog - and it's leaking in all IE versions so far.
Tails
04-02-2003, 11:21 PM
Is that true? I thought setInterval would be the leak hog. Afterall, it has that TSR activity to monitor something. And if you don't clear the interval, how do we know it ended and didn't cause a leak? Is there a good free program to reclaim memory leaks btw?
liorean
04-02-2003, 11:36 PM
Oh, but fact is, setInterval is designed in such a way to NOT be a leaky interface (in fact, it was introduced just because of the leakage problems in setTimeout). It WILL be destroyed by clearInterval or destruction of the global object, along with the string and the number passed to it. That was not always the case with setTimeout. Ie's integration into Windows didn't make things better, either.