Oh,
One additional comment ...
If I get clever and try to wait in a while loop for AjaxRequest to set
a flag that it has completed, the browser complains that some script
is attempting to make the browser to run slow, do you want to let it
run? IE7.
So no, I can't create a slick wait loop li
Hi,
Rather than thinking of an Ajax request as a function call, think of
it as a message you send out. Send it, then get on with other things,
or just wait (where waiting is not a busy-wait where the user can't do
anything). When you get a reply, deal with the reply. In this case,
replies are
On Feb 27, 6:21 am, "T.J. Crowder" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Rather than thinking of an Ajax request as a function call, think of
> it as a message you send out. Send it, then get on with other things,
> or just wait (where waiting is not a busy-wait where the user can't do
> anything). When you get a
> T.J., while I absolutely agree with what you have said, I think you're
> missing part of BearState's question:
Thanks, Colin. On first read, I thought he meant some knucklehead
*programmers* might think it was a bug *in Prototype*. But I think
you're right.
And yes, simply displaying somethi
Thanks for the feedback,
I appreciate it.True, it would be nice to have a progress
indicator. But I also said that the delay was not long, but long
enough to be of consequence. Therefore, the progress indicator is not
an issue.
The issue is that the code is a modular response to a user cl
Hi,
> No, the only real solution here, is to split the module at the point
> of the Ajax.Request() call...Then, call the
> remainder wrapped in a setTimeout().
Why not in the onSuccess of the Ajax.Request? That's what it's there
for... You'll never get the timing right 100% of the time with
s
TJ, I think BearState is just missing the async nature of ajax.
Best,
Tobie
On Feb 27, 11:17 pm, "T.J. Crowder" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > No, the only real solution here, is to split the module at the point
> > of the Ajax.Request() call...Then, call the
> > remainder wrapped in a setTimeout().
>
>
> Why not in the onSuccess of the Ajax.Request? That's what it's there
> for... You'll never get the timing right 100% of the time with
> setTimeout.
I guess BearState have a problem with situation like this for example:
- you press submit in the form which call some function with ajax
request
2009/2/28 Tobie Langel :
>
> TJ, I think BearState is just missing the async nature of ajax.
>
> Best,
>
> Tobie
>
> On Feb 27, 11:17 pm, "T.J. Crowder" wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> > No, the only real solution here, is to split the module at the point
>> > of the Ajax.Request() call...Then, call the
>>
Hi,
> It does mean that if you have code further down the list of things to
> do which is reliant on the result of the request, then it will have to
> wait as well.
>
> So, that code would have to be part of the onSuccess too.
> Hope this is understandable.
I'm new to Ajax as well but I understa
Hi,
> How can I make this to DO NOT submit the form before ajax response
> will come?
There are a couple of ways you can do this.
1. Don't let them submit until the field is validated.
When the user changes the field, as soon as they leave it (or even as
soon as they change it) disable the sub
Hi,
Thanks for your reply.
> There are a couple of ways you can do this.
>
> 1. Don't let them submit until the field is validated.
:
The point is I wanted to change my validation from dynamic (when
user type or changes the fields) to on submit only :)
> 2. Do the submit via XHR rather
By the way if I don't find any other solution soon I'll use
http://prototypejs.org/api/form/request probably to send entire form
and return some result.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prototype & scr
> So my question is still open - is there any way to check something
> with ajax request on submit and submit form when you have true/false
> response?
Yes. Use Event#stop to prevent default submit action. Fire an ajax
request that does the validation. Show a "validating" indicator, upon
receivi
Hi,
> The point is I wanted to change my validation from dynamic (when
> user type or changes the fields) to on submit only :)
:-) !
> Ok, I was thinking about this solution and using From.serialize but I
> didn't want to my site to much - just simply change one thing -
Option #2 can be a sm
Hi,
> Yes. Use Event#stop to prevent default submit action. Fire an ajax
> request that does the validation. Show a "validating" indicator, upon
> receiving the request back, just use $('my_form_id').submit() to
> submit the form.
Thanks for hint :)
I was testing Event.stop but somehow I was th
> Option #2 can be a smallish change, you don't need all the bells and
> whistles. :-) A very rough untested cut:http://pastie.org/403783
Thanks T.J.
Your idea is similar to the one described above by Tobie. I've just
missed the point that I can stop events earlier and add submit my form
inside
Thanks for the advice folks,
Using onSuccess is the ticket.
BearState
We live, we learn ( we get over the flu! )
On Mar 1, 7:21 am, Quleczka wrote:
> > Option #2 can be a smallish change, you don't need all the bells and
> > whistles. :-) A very rough untested cut:http://pastie.org/403783
>
Woops!
Take that back. It is NOT working right using onSuccess instead of
setTimeout() over the split part of the module. Thought it was, but
it was not. After having a hell of a time trying to dynamically plug
the InPlaceEditor, I found out that onSuccess has little to do with
successfully
On 1 Mar, 22:38, BearState wrote:
>I found out that onSuccess has little to do with
> successfully returning anything from the script.
What do you exactly mean by this?
Quleczka
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Go
Yes Thanks
On Feb 27, 10:13 am, BearState wrote:
> Hi,
>
> OK, so Mr. Noob has made a lot of progress, but has found that when
> he makes anAjax.Request(), the response is not set into the
> javascript variables until after a certain amount of time, which
> though small, is significant.
>
>
onSuccess means about the same thing as a 200 header from the server.
"Yes", it says, "the content is here where you asked for it, and I've
sent it along your way. Hope you get it all eventually." onComplete,
on the other hand, means "Here's your content; I've verified that you
got all of
Walter, I don't think that's correct.
The onSuccess callback is called when the XHR request has been fully
completed (all data received), not when data receipt begins (XHR
readyState 4, not XHR readyState 3). It's called only for successful
requests (200 <= HTTP response code < 300), and only if
I've reviewed the source, and I agree--I'm wrong and TJ's right here.
Walter
On Apr 13, 2009, at 10:27 AM, T.J. Crowder wrote:
> Walter, I don't think that's correct.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group
24 matches
Mail list logo
