Alas I would have done that would it have been an option for the way the navigation and loading times need to work. I've just found a solution using the dynamic drive ajax script instead of mootools. It does the same job but runs the fetched inline javascript without complaints. Finally :) Thanks Thierry.
On Apr 9, 12:41 pm, Thierry bela nanga <[email protected]> wrote: > ok, > I suggest you load the gallery directly in your page, since it work, i don't > want to make you confused anymore. > > you can also use tools like firebug to help you debug your js. > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Manohman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm not sure if I can explain my problem any further because when you > > wrote that 'the error comes from the script eval'ed by mootools' I > > thought I'd already covered that when I wrote > > > '- I am aware - due to there being no problems when I remove the > > javascript from the retrieved content html - that it is the executed > > javascript in the retrieved html that is causing the errors. > > Unfortunately the gallery needs the javascript there. ' > > > I left out the point that the script was being evaluated by mootools, > > but this was a given. So I'm not sure how to progress when you suggest > > an idea that sounds like something I'd already covered. I'm not > > particularly wonderful at javascript though so I imagine it's my lack > > of experience that's causing me the confusion moreso than your advice. > > I know it's always difficult when someone with experience deals with > > someone relatively unexperienced so thanks again for all your > > patience. I don't want to run you in circles so I should probably > > leave the problem here and look for alternative solutions. Thanks > > Thierry. I'll also try the try/catch in the script tag again, though I > > am as confused as ever as to why I was suggested to try it, then told > > it wasn't suitable because the response was html, and now to try it > > again (that's how my confused head interpreted what you said). Perhaps > > you meant try a try/catch that has different code to your eval > > (respone) from earlier. I'll give that a go. > > > On Apr 9, 10:19 am, Thierry bela nanga <[email protected]> wrote: > > > my apologizes if you are confused, > > > I didn't looked carefully at your code the first time, > > > > if I suggested you eval'ed the response it is because i taught it was js. > > > > and i'm still telling you, the error comes from the script eval'ed by > > > mootools. first check all the required js are loaded, and all vars are > > > defined before you use them. > > > > you can use try/catch in the script tag in order to check where the error > > > occurs. > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Manohman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > And just to be clearer when I said: > > > > > " Ultimately, my confusion lies in the fact that the javascript > > > > executes > > > > perfectly and the gallery works if all the html is on one page but if > > > > a part of the html is retrieved by ajax (and it is the exact same > > > > javascript code on the retrieved html page), it refuses to work with > > > > evalScripts set to true. I cannot understand why. " > > > > > I'm aware that the only difference between the two situations is that > > > > mootools request is being used in the second scenario to fetch the > > > > code, so the problem must be with that. However, mootools request is > > > > intended to fetch html and execute javascript, including inline > > > > javascript contained in html. Therefore I don't understand the errors > > > > that occur, which seem to boil down to a conflict between mootools > > > > request and the jdgallery.js code. > > > > > On Apr 8, 8:51 pm, Manohman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I think we are misunderstanding eachother. Apologies as I don't mean > > > > > to test your patience, you've been very helpful. > > > > > > To confirm what I understand: > > > > > > - I am aware of mootools trying to execute any javascript in <script> > > > > > tags on the retrieved content when evalScripts is true. I set > > > > > evalScripts to true deliberately to make this happen as the gallery > > > > > recommends an inline javascript just before where a jdgallery is > > > > > placed. > > > > > - I am aware - due to there being no problems when I remove the > > > > > javascript from the retrieved content html - that it is the executed > > > > > javascript in the retrieved html that is causing the errors. > > > > > Unfortunately the gallery needs the javascript there. > > > > > > - I still do not understand your use of the word 'should'. To me this > > > > > suggests that something is not in place and should be in place. As > > far > > > > > as I aware, the code that you said I should use ('I think your code > > > > > should be...') is what I already have. Or else you're confirming that > > > > > that piece of the code looks accurate and should remain? > > > > > > - I also do not understand why you now say I have no reason to eval > > > > > the response when an earlier piece of code you suggested I try had > > eval > > > > > (response)? > > > > > > Ultimately, my confusion lies in the fact that the javascript > > executes > > > > > perfectly and the gallery works if all the html is on one page but if > > > > > a part of the html is retrieved by ajax (and it is the exact same > > > > > javascript code on the retrieved html page), it refuses to work with > > > > > evalScripts set to true. I cannot understand why. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > On Apr 8, 7:42 pm, Thierry bela nanga <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > what i said is, > > > > > > you have no reason to eval the response since it is not javascript. > > the > > > > eval > > > > > > in onComplete is not necessary. > > > > > > > but since you set evalScripts to true, mootools will try to > > execute > > > > scripts > > > > > > in the response (I mean the content on any <script> tag). > > > > > > > this should be the reason why you have errors. > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Manohman <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Apologies, I thought I'd listed every angle I've tested but I > > forgot > > > > > > > to mention one. I ran the page and requested the content > > successfully > > > > > > > when the javascript on the content page was removed. I had > > already > > > > > > > narrowed it down to that but didn't word that correctly. > > > > > > > > I also noticed that > > > > > > > > - the javascript runs perfectly if it's on the parent page and > > not > > > > > > > requested as content. > > > > > > > - some other javascripts run fine on the requested content when > > > > > > > testing, meaning the evalscripts is doing its job > > > > > > > - the mootools request and jdgallery both run from mootools so I > > > > > > > thought I'd be easing conflicts by using this combination. > > > > > > > > 'I think your code should be > > > > > > > onComplete: function(response) { $('page7content').set('html', > > > > > > > response); } > > > > > > > since reponse should be in html, ' > > > > > > > > If I'm not misinterpreting what you mean, I believe that's the > > way > > > > the > > > > > > > code is already and I can't see a change? > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 5:21 pm, Thierry bela nanga <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I see, > > > > > > > > > I think your code should be > > > > > > > > > onComplete: function(response) { $('page7content').set('html', > > > > response); > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > since reponse should be in html, > > > > > > > > > you have set > > > > > > > > > evalScripts to true, this means mootools will run any > > javascript > > > > in the > > > > > > > > response, and what I say is that the error message you have > > come > > > > from the > > > > > > > js > > > > > > > > in the response. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Manohman < > > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Sure you can, is there something I have to paste? I'm unsure > > > > because I > > > > > > > > > couldn't catch it with your code. > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 4:41 pm, Thierry bela nanga <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Ooops, sorry > > > > > > > > > > > can I take a look at the response ? > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Manohman < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again Thierry, I appreciate the help. I'm not the > > best > > > > at > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > (hence why I'm probably stuck in the first place) but > > it's > > > > > > > returning a > > > > > > > > > > > 'response not defined' when I insert the code. I imagine > > I > > > > might > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > put it in the wrong place but I tried to put it where I > > > > thought it > > > > > > > > > > > might catch the response. > > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.copypastecode.com/codes/view/4623 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 4:01 pm, Thierry bela nanga <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > the problem probably come from the eval, > > > > > > > > > > > > you can test with a try/catch to see where is the > > problem > > > > > > > > > > > > > try { > > > > > > > > > > > > > eval(reponse); > > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > catch(e) { > > > > > > > > > > > > > alert([e.message, e.fileName, > > e.lineNumber].join('\n')); > > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Manohman < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Thierry. I can't see a problem with it so far. > > > > jdGallery > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > already running on the parent page and has a seperate > > > > gallery > > > > > > > > > running > > > > > > > > > > > > > successfully. It's also been set up correctly to > > allow 2 > > > > > > > distinct > > > > > > > > > > > > > jdgallerys to run on the same page. Even though > > > > jd.gallery.js > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > already running on the parent page, I tried pasting > > in > > > > the code > > > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > > > > > > script tags on the requested content page to allow > > > > evalscript > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > run > > > > > > > > > > > > > through it aswell, which made no difference. I didn't > > > > think it > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > > if it's already running before the content's > > requested. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is the content that's being requested: > > ... > > read more »
