Chris Domigan wrote:
>
> Synchronous ajax calls freeze the entire *browser* until completed, not
> just
> the current script, whereas asynchronous calls do not. Google "ajax
> synchronous" for better info on why this is not desirable behaviour.
>
It could be, that I've been using "too much" Fi
Here's a great blog post from Doug Crockford, one of the gods of Javascript
on the subject:
Many people prefer to use it synchronously. When used this way, the
JavaScript engine is blocked until the interaction with the server is
complete. Because it blocks, the flow of control looks a lot l
On 07/12/06, kazaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm aware of this, but there can be situations where script can not be
allowed to continue, before certain "stuff" has been done for sure.
Synchronous ajax calls freeze the entire *browser* until completed, not just
the current script, whereas a
I'm aware of this, but there can be situations where script can not be
allowed to continue, before certain "stuff" has been done for sure.
Klaus Hartl-3 wrote:
>
> Synchronous loading isn't the wisest thing to
> choose. If for instance the request needs a long time due to network
> problems o
Chris Domigan wrote:
>
> Having your scripts broken down into several functions isn't at all an
> ugly
> way to do things. IMHO everything should be in a function except for
> globals. Makes program control a lot easier :)
>
See following 3 different ways to do the same thing. When referring t
Chris Domigan schrieb:
> Having your scripts broken down into several functions isn't at all an
> ugly way to do things. IMHO everything should be in a function except
> for globals. Makes program control a lot easier :)
And in addition to this: Synchronous loading isn't the wisest thing to
cho
Having your scripts broken down into several functions isn't at all an ugly
way to do things. IMHO everything should be in a function except for
globals. Makes program control a lot easier :)
___
jQuery mailing list
discuss@jquery.com
http://jquery.com/d
Ok, I'm choosing that path while waiting for jQuery 1.1. Works fine. It's not
so critical issue, but the resulting code looks.. well, silly.
Chris Domigan wrote:
>
> Synchronous loading is proposed for jQuery 1.1. But I'm sure callbacks
> would
> be able to do what you need...
>
> Couldn't you
Synchronous loading is proposed for jQuery 1.1. But I'm sure callbacks would
be able to do what you need...
Couldn't you just do:
createSeed(restOfScript);
function restOfScript() {
...
}
Then the rest of the script would run after the ajax request has returned.
Chris
On 06/12/06, kazaar <[E
Thank you for quick answers. However, problem still exists. Latter
alert-function would still fail, because variables wouldn't be set yet at
that moment (I will need those variables later in another call to server).
Problem falls back to asyncronous loading. Isn't there an easy way to use
syncrono
Like Blair says, you need to use a callback.
I'd do something like this:
var seed_id;
var seed;
function createSeed(callback) {
$.post('login/login.php',{action:'createseed'}, function(data) {
results = data.split('|');
seed_id = results[0];
seed = results[1];
if (callback) c
You would need to put the alerts inside the post callback as well. The
request response is probably coming back AFTER all of the JS has been
processed on page load.
Blair
On 12/5/06, kazaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How should I change the following, so those 2 global variables would be
fill
How should I change the following, so those 2 global variables would be
filled with information returned by server? Code below doesn't do it. Could
this have something to do with asyncronous loading or something?
var seed_id;
var seed;
function createSeed() {
$.post('login/login.php',{acti
13 matches
Mail list logo
