Can someone explain what is the difference between calling JavaScript Remoting in two different ways -  One way is mentioned @   Another way is mentioned @
122720
Digging in deeper to Javascript Remoting and I'm a bit confused.  The  starts off by showing how to set up everything and uses code like the following:  function getRemoteAccount() {     var accountName = document.getElementById('acctSearch').value;      // This remoting call will use the page's timeout value     Visualforce.remoting.Manager.invokeAction(         '{!$RemoteAction.AccountRemoter.getAccount}',         accountName,          handleResult     ); }   However, I've also seen examples where Visualforce.remoting.Manager.invokeAction is never called.  They end up looking something like the following:  function getText() {   var text = "";   JSRemotingBasicsController.doGetText(     function(result, event) {       // do something here     }   ); }   I'm wondering what is the point to using Visualforce.remoting.Manager.invokeAction when you can just reference the RemoteAction directly like the second example?  Is there something I'm missing?  Is there a time where the second example doesn't work?
20003
There are two forms of redirection the standard output and standard error into standard output. But which one is better? and why the &amp;&gt; is considered the perfect?  I can't find what is the differences so that many tutorials and even bash manual state that  &amp;&gt; is better!   So Why shall I use &amp;&gt; and not 2&gt;&amp;1  Mainly using bash shell    EDIT: Thanks for commentors   Only >&amp; works in csh or tcsh  In ksh only 2>&amp;1 works.  dash use >file 2>&amp;1 redirection only  Then which one to use to ensure my script is compatible with other systems whatever the used shells are!
20286
I have quickly read over the  documentation.  This kind of example has helped me to understand better, though:   delegate int del(int i); del myDelegate = x =&gt; x * x; int j = myDelegate(5); //j = 25   Still, I don't understand why it's such an innovation. It's just a method that dies when the "method variable" ends, right? Why should I use this instead of a real method?
123777
What is the difference between the three functions and when to use them??
46209
Using instance methods as callbacks for event handlers changes the scope of this from "My instance" to "Whatever just called the callback". So my code looks like this  function MyObject() {   this.doSomething = function() {     ...   }    var self = this   $('#foobar').bind('click', function(){     self.doSomethng()     // this.doSomething() would not work here   }) }   It works, but is that the best way to do it? It looks strange to me.
76488
I have heard/read the term but don't quite understand what it means.  When should I use this technique and how would I use it? Can anyone provide a good code sample?
34377
First this question is related but definitely not the same as this very nice question:    I want to understand something: when I do '&amp;', I'm forking right?  Is it ever useful to do "nohup ... &amp;" or is simply &amp; sufficient?  Could someone show a case where you'd be using '&amp;' and still would want to use 'nohup'?
56480
I have a question for you that stems from my partner doing things a different way than I do.  Is it better to do this :  try {     ... } catch (Exception ex) {     ...     throw; }   or this:  try {     ... } catch (Exception ex) {     ...     throw ex; }   Do they do the same thing? Is one better than the other?
108738
What is the difference between executing a Bash script like A and sourcing a Bash script like B?  A &gt; ./myscript  B &gt; source myscript
8344
I'm working with a bit of html and Javascript code that I've taken over from someone else. The page reloads a table of data (via an asynchronous request) every ten seconds, and then re-builds the table using some DOM code. The code in question looks something like this:  var blah = xmlres.getElementsByTagName('blah'); for(var i = 0; i &lt; blah.length; i++) {     var td = document.createElement('td');     var select = document.createElement('select');     select.setAttribute("...", "...");     select.onchange = function() {         onStatusChanged(select, callid, anotherid);     };     td.appendChild(select); }   When the onchange event is fired for a &lt;select&gt; element however, it seems like the same values are being passed to the onStatusChanged() method for every &lt;select&gt; in the table (I've verified that in each iteration of the loop, callid and anotherid are being given new, distinct values).   I suspect this is occuring because of the nature of how I am setting the event handler, with the select.onchange = function() syntax. If I understand how this is working correctly, this syntax sets a closure for the onchange event to be a function which refers to these two references, which end up having a final value of whatever they are set to on the last iteration of the loop. When the event fires, the value referenced by callid and anotherid is the value set in the last iteration, not the value set at the individual iteration.  Is there a way that I can copy the value of the parameters I am passing to onStatusChanged()?  I've changed the title to better reflect the question and the accepted answer.
65851
Is there a well-supported, common behavior that I can expect if I do something like this in HTML:  &lt;form method="get" action="/somePage.html?param1=foo&amp;param2=foo"&gt;   &lt;input name="param2"&gt;&lt;/input&gt;   &lt;input name="param3"&gt;&lt;/input&gt; &lt;/form&gt;   Seems like this sort of thing is inherently ridiculous, but I've seen it used here and there and I was wondering what on Earth the expected behavior should be.  Are browsers smart enough to tack on "&amp;param2=whatever&amp;param3=whatever" to the action, or do they just throw in a second question mark?  Or what?  Are there cases where this is actually the right way to do things?
7669
What's the difference between JavaScript and Java?
69262
In JavaScript, the "this" operator can refer to different things under different scenarios.   Typically in a method within a JavaScript "object", it refers to the current object.  But when used as a callback, it becomes a reference to the calling object.  I have found that this causes problems in code, because if you use a method within a JavaScript "object" as a callback function you can't tell whether "this" refers to the current "object" or whether "this" refers to the calling object.  Can someone clarify usage and best practices regarding how to get around this problem?     function TestObject() {             TestObject.prototype.firstMethod = function(){                       this.callback();                       YAHOO.util.Connect.asyncRequest(method, uri, callBack);              }              TestObject.prototype.callBack = function(o){               // do something with "this"               //when method is called directly, "this" resolves to the current object               //when invoked by the asyncRequest callback, "this" is not the current object               //what design patterns can make this consistent?               this.secondMethod();             }             TestObject.prototype.secondMethod = function() {              alert('test');             }         }
112471
On my team, we usually do string concatentation like this:  var url = // some dynamically generated URL var sb = new StringBuffer(); sb.append("&lt;a href='").append(url).append("'&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt;");   Obviously the following is much more readable:  var url = // some dynamically generated URL var sb = "&lt;a href='" + url + "'&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt;";   But the JS experts claim that the + operator is less performant than StringBuffer.append(). Is this really true?
86079
I recall there is a difference between some methods/properties called directly on the  class, and the identically named methods/properties on the  property. (Might have been the RowCount/Count property for which I read this.) The difference is one of them disregards , and the other respects/uses it.  In this particular case I'm wondering about the difference between  and . I can imagine one of them actually removes all rows, and the other one just marks them as deleted.  So my question is, is there a difference between the two Clear methods, and if so what is the difference?  (Oh, this is for .NET 1.1 btw, in case the semantics changed from one version to another.)
73912
What are the differences between a  and a  in Java?  Which is more efficient for non-threaded applications?
29117
So I was playing around the other day just to see exactly how mass assignment works in JavaScript.  First I tried this example in the console:  a = b = {}; a.foo = 'bar'; console.log(b.foo);   The result was "bar" being displayed in an alert. That is fair enough, a and b are really just aliases to the same object. Then I thought, how could I make this example simpler.  a = b = 'foo'; a = 'bar'; console.log(b);   That is pretty much the same thing, isn't it? Well this time, it returns foo not bar as I would expect from the behaviour of the first example.  Why does this happen?  N.B. This example could be simplified even more with the following code:    a = {}; b = a; a.foo = 'bar'; console.log(b.foo);  a = 'foo'; b = a; a = 'bar'; console.log(b);     (I suspect that JavaScript treats primitives such as strings and integers differently to hashes. Hashes return a pointer while "core" primitives return a copy of themselves)