ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

How do I store an array in localStorage? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here: How to store objects in HTML5 localStorage (24 answers) Closed 9 years ago.

If I didn't need localStorage, my code would look like this:

var names=new Array(); 
names[0]=prompt("New member name?");

This works. However, I need to store this variable in localStorage and it's proving quite stubborn. I've tried:

var localStorage[names] = new Array();
localStorage.names[0] = prompt("New member name?");

Where am I going wrong?

I have posted up a complete solution for maintaining arrays in localStorage or sessionStorage at the thread this was closed as a duplicate of, because nether thread really answers the question originally posed by Dave: stackoverflow.com/a/23516713/2208713. Hope it helps some people.
Easy way to handle that kind of condition you can use opendb library very use full to deal with array, object. You can follow this link github.com/pankajbisht/openDB

i
imprfekt

localStorage only supports strings. Use JSON.stringify() and JSON.parse().

var names = [];
names[0] = prompt("New member name?");
localStorage.setItem("names", JSON.stringify(names));

//...
var storedNames = JSON.parse(localStorage.getItem("names"));

You can also use direct access to set/get item:

localstorage.names = JSON.stringify(names);
var storedNames = JSON.parse(localStorage.names);

JSON is not supported in IE7 and earlier.
@SaifBechan Don't worry about IE 6/7, we are talking about localStorage
I would test whether localStorage['names'] returns a value before parsing it or an error will be thrown.
@JonathanTonge, you could do something like JSON.parse(localStorage["names"] || null) if you wanted.
@SaifBechan if(typeof JSON == "undefined") { alert("Upgrade your browser."); }
S
Sebastian

The localStorage and sessionStorage can only handle strings. You can extend the default storage-objects to handle arrays and objects. Just include this script and use the new methods:

Storage.prototype.setObj = function(key, obj) {
    return this.setItem(key, JSON.stringify(obj))
}
Storage.prototype.getObj = function(key) {
    return JSON.parse(this.getItem(key))
}

Use localStorage.setObj(key, value) to save an array or object and localStorage.getObj(key) to retrieve it. The same methods work with the sessionStorage object.

If you just use the new methods to access the storage, every value will be converted to a JSON-string before saving and parsed before it is returned by the getter.


if you needed all of them how would you retrieve them?
The storage objects provide the property "length" to determine the count of saved objects and the method "key(int index)" to get the current key. So you can try: for (var i = 0; i < localStorage.length; i++) console.log( localStorage.key(i) +" has value " + localStorage[localStorage.key(i)] )
@Sebastian using localStorage.length could be wrong in some cases if the website is also localStorage to store something.
You may prefix your module specific values and delete everything with that prefix while iterating all elements of localStorage.
I used the same approch in my solution, which provides a minimalistic interface to how localStorage should work :) github.com/zevero/simpleWebstorage
M
Matt

Use JSON.stringify() and JSON.parse() as suggested by no! This prevents the maybe rare but possible problem of a member name which includes the delimiter (e.g. member name three|||bars).


Can you show us a better alternative?
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post.
@ChiefTwoPencils have you read comments before flagging?
@J0HN: yes I did. Since when is a members reputation good reason to break the rules? In fact, doesn't the auto-messaging on recommended deletions specifically mention not posting commentary as answers and suggests the poster wait until they have enough reputation to comment and up-vote until then? Poster says it's not an answer; what more evidence needs to exist?
@ChiefTwoPencils: Some historical context: When I posted this comment the accepted answer proposed doing a join and split with "|||" by Ian (Note: this answer no longer exists). Because I considered this answer actually harmful I posted my answer. Today my non-answer is no longer necessary (the correct answer is accepted and has a healthy dose of upvotes). I'm not too familiar with the guidelines: Is it ok/recommended to delete my "answer"?
j
jonsca

Just created this:

https://gist.github.com/3854049

//Setter
Storage.setObj('users.albums.sexPistols',"blah");
Storage.setObj('users.albums.sexPistols',{ sid : "My Way", nancy : "Bitch" });
Storage.setObj('users.albums.sexPistols.sid',"Other songs");

//Getters
Storage.getObj('users');
Storage.getObj('users.albums');
Storage.getObj('users.albums.sexPistols');
Storage.getObj('users.albums.sexPistols.sid');
Storage.getObj('users.albums.sexPistols.nancy');

This is the sort of thing I was looking for, except it would walk the keys of the provided object and save the (single) linked value in each. Much obliged for the inspire.
L
Lassi Kinnunen

The JSON approach works, on ie 7 you need json2.js, with it it works perfectly and despite the one comment saying otherwise there is localStorage on it. it really seems like the best solution with the least hassle. Of course one could write scripts to do essentially the same thing as json2 does but there is little point in that.

at least with the following version string there is localStorage, but as said you need to include json2.js because that isn't included by the browser itself: 4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/5.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; BRI/2; NP06; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; Zune 4.7) (I would have made this a comment on the reply, but can't).


Z
Znarkus

Another solution would be to write a wrapper that store the array like this:

localStorage.setItem('names_length', names.length);
localStorage.setItem('names_0', names[0]);
localStorage.setItem('names_1', names[1]);
localStorage.setItem('names_' + n, names[n]);

Removes the overhead of converting to JSON, but would be annoying if you need to remove elements, as you would have to re-index the array :)


Kills the performance gain of not JSONifying.
Instead of names_length use names_keys and you don't need to re-index! This would also allow you to use string keys. Of course this makes only sense if the array elements are kind of hugh.
@PiTheNumber If names_keys contains an array of indices, isn't that a chicken/egg situation?
@Znarkus As I said, this makes only sense for hugh array elements. If you have for example 100KB per element it would be better to use a small entry with keys.
@PiTheNumber What is hugh?