On 11/29/06, josh robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The patch adds an optional parameter to the javascript functions > allowing you to use Ajax.Updater (to update an element with the > results of the call automatically) rather than Ajax.Request.
Please, attach patches to the original issue: http://support.castleproject.org/browse/MR-144 . But I still haven't liked the proposed solution. I'll look for a better solution during this weekend: I don't want to call asyncrhonous, non-updating actions this way: proxy.someAction(param1, param2, null, function(t) { ... }); I was thinking on something like: // calls Ajax.Updater proxy.someAction(param1, param2, { update: $('div'), async: false, onComplete: ... }); // calls Ajax.Request proxy.someAction(param1, param2, function(t) { ... }); // asyncronous val = proxy.someAction(param1, param2); // synchronous -- Fábio David Batista [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://nerd-o-matic.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ CastleProject-users mailing list CastleProject-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/castleproject-users
