thanks jpmcc! I was pondering that at the end of the day Friday.... what if we just remove() the entire UL?
Seems like an extra step, but if it works that's great news. rolf On May 4, 1:11 pm, jpmcc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've just been battling with the very same problem. I tried emptying > out the <ul> element too, but found the duplicated divs with the side > effect that sub branches would not open even though valid data had > been retrieved using the async extension (and the data was sitting in > the tree but hidden). > > I decided to take it one step further and I completely removed the > <ul> element during the refresh then re-added it in the same location > with the same starting markup as when the page originally loaded. > This cleared the problem for me. The treeview now properly reloads. > > Hope that helps. > J. > > On May 1, 6:59 pm, rolfsf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Our tree will potentially change within the time that someone is using > > it. In fact, the user will be creating and saving new nodes; Other > > users will be creating and saving new nodes. Both users need to be > > able to refresh the tree to see nodes added by themselves and others. > > > Theasynctree starts as an empty <ul></ul>. We want to return to that > > initial state when we click a refresh button. A completely clean > > slate, then reload with the fresh data as if we had just opened it for > > the first time. > > > On May 1, 10:40 am, ripple <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm not sure why you write about removing the contents in a <ul></ul>? > > > At what point would that beneficial? Your working with the ajax tree, but > > > how much ajax interaction are using? Only at onload time?
