Thanks Geoff - setting all buttons to a disabled state when clicked sounds a very good idea and would certainly solve our current problem of the Change Status button being pressed twice. Sorry I think I confused things by referring to previous problems - I just meant that we are now on version 6 in which similar problems have been fixed, but that there is still an issue with rules disappearing in a new situation. We are not planning to change core to fix it so will contact you re disabling buttons. Annette
On 27 September 2012 02:57, Geoff Bowers <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27 September 2012 00:59, Annette21 <[email protected]> wrote: > > We have an html page that contains a lot of rules. > > We also have very busy web administrators who occasionally click the > Change > > Status button twice in error when approving the page. (It is not obvious > > that is has already been clicked). > > This causes all the rules from the page to disappear. (We can replicate > this > > problem on our test system) > > A universal improvement I'd like to see in the system is for submit > buttons to change to a disabled state onSubmit (to prevent double > clicking) and for the button label to change (to give a clear > indication to users that something is happening). For example, "Save" > on click might change to disabled and read "Saving...". > > If RGU would be interested in working with us on such a change drop me a > note. > > > We are running version 6 of Farcry in which fixes have been put in place > to > > prevent rules disappearing when pages are approved. > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB&fromgroups#!searchin/farcry-dev/page$20version$20rules/farcry-dev/wszMJJjqrmo/SVAgkMzad5wJ > > > > Is there anything we can do to prevent this additional problem - or > should I > > request a further change to core to lock down the change status process > to > > prevent it starting again until it has finished? > > I would *strongly* recommend against "modding" core. Maintaining Core > changes (or "fixes") on your server should be a very rare exception, > and every effort should be made to get back in synch with the core > code base. > > I believe the container issue that you describe is already addressed > in the code base you are running. ie I think you are patching > something that was fixed several versions ago. > > If your patch is an improvement on the existing framework, please > submit the change to the community so that we can all share in the > benefits and improve the code base overall. > > Core is specifically designed to be extended -- it's one of the > platforms greatest strengths. It is rare that developers should need > to make a change directly in core than cannot be made in the project > or a plugin that is separate to core. If you have such a scenario let > us know what it is, and we'll see what can be done to improve the > framework. > > All the best, > > -- geoff bowers > Director > Daemon Internet Consultants > Sydney, Australia > p. +612 8090 9386 > skype. gb.daemon > w. http://www.daemon.com.au/ > e. [email protected] > > -- > You received this message cos you are subscribed to "farcry-dev" Google > group. > To post, email: [email protected] > To unsubscribe, email: [email protected] > For more options: http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev > -------------------------------- > Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/farcry > > > -- You received this message cos you are subscribed to "farcry-dev" Google group. To post, email: [email protected] To unsubscribe, email: [email protected] For more options: http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev -------------------------------- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/farcry
