Sorry guys! Was just dipping my toe in the water, hence no code...
plus had just come from the Google Maps API newsgroup which has says
"don't post code" in big red letters! ;-)
Here's the code then:
First, added our stack object to "Ajax" itself... just next to
activeRequestCount
=== var Ajax ===
targetStack : {}
=== end ======
. . . then added the flag to "options". It defaults to false for
backward compatibility..
=== Ajax.Base.prototype ====
this.options = {
method: 'post',
asynchronous: true,
contentType: 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded',
encoding: 'UTF-8',
parameters: '',
override: false
}
=== end =====
Ok... this is the bit of code that records the stacking .. it goes in
the Ajax.Updater's initialize just below
"this.setOptions(options)" ...
=== [ Ajax.Updater : initialize ] ===
if ( this.options.override ){
// the target where I'll be inserted.
var targetId = this.container.success.id
if ( !Ajax.targetStack[targetId] ){
// ** the first to this target.
// stack me incase another comes along.
Ajax.targetStack[targetId] = [ this ];
} else {
// ** the n'th item in this stack.
// mark the previous item as overridden ...
Ajax.targetStack[targetId][
Ajax.targetStack[targetId].length -
1 ].overridden = 1;
// ... and add me to the stack.
Ajax.targetStack[targetId].push ( this );
}
}
=== [ end ] ======
.. and then last but not least, in the updateContent function just
wrap some of it with an if..
=== [ updateContent ] =====
if ( !this.overridden ){
/**
* I've included the "if (!this.options.evalScripts)"
* and "if (receiver = $(receiver)) {" statements in here
* but then closed out before the "if (this.success()) {"
* which would seem to need to run, just cos you're masking the
content insert.
*/
}
Ok.. so I don't know how neatly that's going to present so I've posted
a patch to ajax.js here:
http://yetanotheruser.blogspot.com/2007/02/prototype-update-stack.html
... if that's easier..
.. also - it's not been exhaustively tested so I'm not sure if it's
behaving in firefox... :-/
I agree with you guys, being able to control it a bit more would be
fun... or set 'priorities' even... :-)
Re. override = true/false... I've got it false by default at the
moment, as that would seem more compatible?
Re. hashing it : yep, should behave like you want. In my example for
instance we have a main content block in the centre of the page which
displays listings ( this is a recruitment website ) of jobs let's
say.. sometimes they take a while if it's a big list and a slow
connection.
We've also got a little e-poll on the LHS which uses Ajax.Updater() to
give you the stats when you hit an answer.
Set up like this though, you can click a few listings links and it's
all fine - the last one to get clicked is the one the users sees in
the main content block. While they're waiting though, if they answer
the questionnaire that request ( for the answers/graph ) doesn't
interfere with the stack for the main page body...
Anyhow... hope this helps :-) ...
Cheerio,
Jim
On Feb 1, 4:33 pm, Marius Feraru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Colin Mollenhour wrote:
> > For example, override the insertion function with one that checks a
> > counter before calling Element.update manually:
>
> Nifty. Continuing the idea, let's do even more: switch "counter" to
> "updaters", an array (or maybe hash?) containing pending updaters for that
> element. This way they could be manipulated easily, both internally (by
> Ajax.Updater methods) and externally (by any picky user) :)
>
> >> IMHO, there's no need for such an "override" parameter. Better yet,
> >> simply twist Ajax.Updater to behave like this.
> > I'm not so sure.. Say your insertion is something besides Element.update.
> > If it is Insertion.Bottom then you may not want any insertions
> > overridden.
>
> That's exactly what I was proposing (it there's an "insertion" provided,
> then don't bother about replacing old requests). But I can see where you're
> going...
>
> > Rather than having Prototype test which insertion you're using, the
> > override parameter may be a simpler and cleaner solution. Let the
> > programmer decide!
>
> Good enough, so an "override" with "false" as default would be better. :))
>
> - --
> Marius Feraru
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iD8DBQFFwhZttZHp/AYZiNkRArLvAKDehUV0o0Or4ifimG58PRfKwT7MIwCfYXiy
> nVEMkZq3UdZlK6XSWuC2KuU=
> =gpah
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
