On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Ian Smith-Heisters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Agreed--it's hardly a revolutionary change. The case I needed it for
> was a self-updating div:
If the backend was to serve fragments of HTML, I would make them not include
their container ("div#foo" in this case) so that I can use Ajax.Updater
instead of Replacer. Why?
1. if I had references to "foo", I don't lose them;
2. if I had event handlers attached to "foo", I never have to re-add
them;
3. I *think* that #update may be faster than #replace;
4. I am free to take HTML returned from Ajax and put it in another
kind of container, it doesn't have to be "div#foo".
So that's why I think update is superior to replace. Thank you for sharing
this code with us, but--because of these reasons--I think that Ajax.Replacer
shouldn't be encouraged. That is why it won't be in core (*in my opinion*).
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prototype: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
