Or use the Group class in -more.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Fli7e <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well - i might be a bit late on this but if you fire multiple ajax
> request and want to keep your spinner or whatever indicator be active
> until the last request fired its OK, why don't you just add a kind of
> stack to your calls.
>
> Set a global var and increase it on every ajax call "onStart".
> Decrease the value on each "onComplete". If the value reaches 0,
> remove your Indicators.
>
> By this you have no forever waiting calls, iframes or whatever
> overhead ..
>
> maybe i am totaly wrong but this is how i would do it by what i've
> understand about your problem. Maybe the following non working just
> illustrated code helps to make my thoughts clear:
>
> var AjaxCounter = 0;
> var AjaxIndicator = false;
>
> Request.HTML( ...
>
> onStart: function(){
> AjaxCounter++;
> if( !AjaxIndicator )
> {
> AjaxIndicator = true;
> // add your Indicators
> }
> }
>
> onCompletet: function(){
> AjaxCounter--;
> if( AjaxCounter == 0 )
> {
> AjaxIndicator = false;
> // remove your Indicators
> }
> }
> ...);
>
>
>
> On 13 Jul., 19:03, bootle <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Wow @Jay, that's a bit of a lecture there ;)
> >
> > @Ryan, we've tried and tested the iframe approach you suggested and
> > I've got my answer:
> >
> > Yup, you're right. The reason is speed, loading an iframe causes the
> > main ajax request to take about 30% longer in averege which is a lot
> > (even if it's only 100-200ms) so I gotta shelf the idea, at least
> > until I can get the speed facebook has achieved. Good lesson anyway!
> >
> > Cheers all
> >
> > On Jul 12, 10:23 am, André Fiedler <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > @Jay That´s great! That´s the way i´m doing this, too. ;o)
> >
> > > 2010/7/12 Jay <[email protected]>
> >
> > > > I find my most creative work comes from being restricted from doing
> > > > something the way I'd initially want to do it. When being forced to
> > > > work within confined limits, you can often come up with an elegant
> > > > solution that's cooler and more usable than existing implementations.
> > > > Instead of having wacky IFrames and stuff, what if you would use a
> > > > slightly-less-standard paradigm for user feedback? Start with the
> > > > basics. To preach to the choir, I almost ALWAYS set the cursor
> > > > property if I'm doing time-consuming requests, as Mr. Newton
> > > > suggested. I'm not sure why, but even something as subtle as that
> > > > seems to have a huge effect on the user of the site. If you think you
> > > > need more feedback than that, what if you did a "Loading..." message
> > > > in the style of GMail? Something like that could integrate
> beautifully
> > > > with the design of your site, and would give your app a really novel
> > > > feel.
> >
> > > > But, of course, it always depends what you're going for. If you
> really
> > > > really really need to simulate that browser behavior, IFrames are the
> > > > only way to go. However, I imagine that the extra requests to IFrames
> > > > + extra load on your server + JavaScript overhead would make your
> AJAX
> > > > site load just as slowly (if not more so) than a traditional site,
> > > > which seems to defeat the purpose of AJAX in the first place
> > > > (especially when you consider its usability concerns for the
> outskirts
> > > > of the internet world -- screen readers, old web browsers,
> javascript-
> > > > blocking firewalls and paranoid javascript disablers. Coincidentally,
> > > > the people I find I need to emulate "traditional" methods for to
> avoid
> > > > confusing them are the same people that -- of course -- use screen
> > > > readers, old web browsers, and the like. At which point, I make sure
> > > > the site gracefully degrades, and kill two birds with one stone.
> >
> > > > On Jul 10, 4:28 pm, Ryan Florence <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > :D
> >
> > > > > Momentary lapse of reason...
> >
> > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > > > On Jul 10, 2010, at 10:35 AM, jiggliemon <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > @Ryan
> >
> > > > > > OMG <--- meant to be rude.
> >
> > > > > > -Chase
> >
> > > > > > On Jul 9, 9:37 pm, Aaron Newton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >> <facepalm>
> >
> > > > > >> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Ryan Florence <
> [email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > >>>> For now I'm thinking about a class, similar to Request.HTML
> that
> > > > gets
> > > > > >>>> stuff into an iframe, loads it, then returns the content into
> > > > > >>>> onSuccess and removes the iFrame? Not AJAX, but might work -
> would
> > > > > >>>> that make sense?
> >
> > > > > >>> If I was forced to code it I would have the request be a
> normal
> > > > request
> > > > > >>> and then add onRequest and onComplete events.
> >
> > > > > >>> onRequest I'd create an iframe element with a src pointing to a
> file,
> > > > that,
> > > > > >>> on the server side (assuming php) is just a big long sleep(),
> like
> > > > > >>> sleep(10000000000). That should force the browser into a
> "loading
> > > > state".
> >
> > > > > >>> And then onComplete destroy the iframe element.
> >
> > > > > >>> I love to beat dead horses. A simple indicator by the link or
> over
> > > > the
> > > > > >>> content that's updating is enough ...
>
