I'm not using the dom:loaded event and I understand that this is
causing my problem here. I'll have to re-implement click handlers for
actions.But this will take some time in this case. Is there any way to
trigger a function by using dom:loading in a if condidional
statement...like this..

if dom:loaded
 do this
if not
 wait until dom:loaded and then do this.

On Dec 4, 10:42 am, "T.J. Crowder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > you're right, data doesn't get merged by using the updater. my problem
> > is that the data get merged in a div while a user clicks and activates
> > an update during page load, if so data get merged.
>
> That's interesting.  I wonder why that happens.  So it's only during
> page load.
>
> > how can I fix this quick without rewriting a lot of scripts
>
> That's entirely up to you, there are too many options to get into in
> this kind of a discussion.  In brief, though, since you're seeing this
> happen, you're going to have to prevent those updates from getting
> initiated before the DOM is loaded.  Lots of other things aren't going
> to work properly before the DOM is loaded, so even if it's a fair bit
> of work, it'll pay off in the long run.  Now, it may be that you don't
> hook up any UI event handlers until dom:loaded is fired, although that
> could cause click frustration for your users, or you could have your
> handlers check whether the DOM is loaded and add themselves to a queue
> of functions that will get executed by a dom:loaded handler, etc.
>
> FWIW,
> --
> T.J. Crowder
> tj / crowder software / com
>
> On Dec 2, 1:35 pm, Stucture_Ulf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > you're right, data doesn't get merged by using the updater. my problem
> > is that the data get merged in a div while a user clicks and activates
> > an update during page load, if so data get merged.
>
> > how can I fix this quick without rewriting a lot of scripts ... I'm
> > not using on dom:loaded...so I'm looking for a way to implement this
> > in the function below. any hint would be helpful.
>
> > function update(id,url) {
> >   if($(id)) {
> >     new Ajax.Updater(id,url,{
> >            asynchronous:true,
> >            evalScripts:true,
> >            onFailure: function(obj) {$(id).update
> > ('<center><strong>error...<strong></center>');   }
> >    });
> >   }
>
> > }
>
> > On Dec 1, 3:09 pm, "T.J. Crowder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > so what I'm looking for is a way to wait or halt the second request
> > > > until the first one is finished...
>
> > > Lots of ways to do that.  You could maintain a queue, etc.  Prototype
> > > maintains a count of active Ajax requests in Ajax.activeRequestCount
> > > [1], you could query that before launching the second request.
>
> > > [1]http://www.prototypejs.org/api/ajax/responders
>
> > > But what I'm not getting is the merging:  Ajax.Updater *updates*, it
> > > doesn't merge, unless you specify an insertion.
> > > --
> > > T.J. Crowder
> > > tj / crowder software / com
>
> > > On Dec 1, 2:01 pm, Stucture_Ulf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > the problem here is that if i run a second updater, targeted on the
> > > > same div as the first one and before the first one is complete...the
> > > > result of the second gets on top of the first request. i do not want
> > > > to merge the data, only display the latest updater.
>
> > > > so what I'm looking for is a way to wait or halt the second request
> > > > until the first one is finished or kill the first one when the second
> > > > gets activated.
>
> > > > On Nov 30, 11:33 pm, "T.J. Crowder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Hi,
>
> > > > > Not immediately seeing a problem, can you create a complete page that
> > > > > demonstrates what you're seeing?
> > > > > --
> > > > > T.J. Crowder
> > > > > tj / crowder softare / com
>
> > > > > On Nov 30, 8:07 pm, Stucture_Ulf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > thanks for your answer. here is a short code snippet i'm using. i do
> > > > > > not want to place the second call on top or under the first 
> > > > > > content, i
> > > > > > just want to make sure the second request stop the first one so that
> > > > > > only the content from the second updater get's displayed.
>
> > > > > > function update(id,url) {
> > > > > >   if($(id)) {
> > > > > >     new Ajax.Updater(id,url,{
> > > > > >            asynchronous:true,
> > > > > >            evalScripts:true,
> > > > > >            onFailure: function(obj) {$(id).update
> > > > > > ('<center><strong>error...<strong></center>');   }
> > > > > >    });
> > > > > >   }
>
> > > > > > }
>
> > > > > > On Nov 30, 10:47 am, "T.J. Crowder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Hi,
>
> > > > > > > I assume you're not using the "insertion" option on your 
> > > > > > > Ajax.Updater
> > > > > > > calls[1]?  If so, there's your answer.  If not, can you put 
> > > > > > > together a
> > > > > > > small, self-contained example that demonstrates the prblem?
>
> > > > > > > [1]http://www.prototypejs.org/api/ajax/updater
>
> > > > > > > HTH,
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > T.J. Crowder
> > > > > > > tj / crowder software / com
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 27, 11:10 am, Stucture_Ulf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > hi all!
>
> > > > > > > > i have a problem with Ajax.updater.
>
> > > > > > > > When i run the Ajax.updater in one div and then if a user 
> > > > > > > > clicks on
> > > > > > > > link and activates another Ajax.updater in the same div before 
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > first one is finished the data get merged in the same div. The 
> > > > > > > > top is
> > > > > > > > showing the new content, underneath is showing the data that 
> > > > > > > > was not
> > > > > > > > yet loaded from the first call.
>
> > > > > > > > how can I fix this? can i stop/kill the first updater before 
> > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > the second one? or should i wait until the first is finished 
> > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > triggering the next one...and how do I do that?
>
> > > > > > > > grateful for help and advice
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Prototype & script.aculo.us" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to