I have a HTML list of about 500 items and a "filter" box above it. I started by using jQuery to filter the list when I typed a letter (timing code added later): $('#filter').keyup( function() { var jqStart = (new Date).getTime(); var search = $(this).val().toLowerCase(); var $list = $('ul.ablist > li'); $list.each( function() { if ( $(this).text().toLowerCase().indexOf(search) === -1 ) $(this).hide(); else $(this).show(); } ); console.log('Time: ' + ((new Date).getTime() - jqStart)); } ); However, there was a couple of seconds delay after typing each letter (particularly the first letter). So I thought it may be slightly quicker if I used plain Javascript (I read recently that jQuery's each function is particularly slow). Here's my JS equivalent: document.getElementById('filter').addEventListener( 'keyup', function () { var jsStart = (new Date).getTime()...
StackTraceElement[] stackTraceElements = Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace()
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Javadocs:
The last element of the array represents the bottom of the stack, which is the least recent method invocation in the sequence.
A StackTraceElement has getClassName(), getFileName(), getLineNumber() and getMethodName().
You will have to experiment to determine which index you want (probably stackTraceElements[1] or [2]).
Sounds like you're trying to avoid passing a reference to this into the method. Passing this is way better than finding the caller through the current stack trace. Refactoring to a more OO design is even better. You shouldn't need to know the caller. Pass a callback object if necessary.
ReplyDelete