Hi Walter and david,
thanks for your input.
@Walter: Maybe I gave a wrong impression. I am already doing it like
you suggested. I go even further: the current status of the sorted
list will only be saved when the user clicks a button "I am done
sorting, save this". In my case it wouldn't be good to save the sort
order via ajax. The only thing what I need to to while sorting the
list is to change value, name and options of an additional select box
that is included in each sortable <li>.
I figured out how to change these select-boxes with a better
performance. First of all and most importantly only these select boxes
are changed that needs to be changed. The second mistake was that I
always created a new select box instead of just altering the old one.
This also helped a lot.
I found out that Sortable.create also has problems with lists
containing 500 elements. I turned off Sortable when lists that big
occur.
On 28 Mai, 15:29, Walter Lee Davis <wa...@wdstudio.com> wrote:
> I think you need to take a step back and think about what you're doing
> here. If you use Sortable to re-order a list, that list will stay
> ordered (in the visitor's view) precisely as they have dragged it.
> There is no need to re-populate the visitor's list with the new order,
> because the order is set there already. (Which is why it's so fast --
> you're not actually doing anything dramatic, just changing the order
> of existing elements.)
>
> Each time you change a Sortable, the onUpdate function (if present) is
> fired. Use that to send an Ajax request back to the server and update
> the database, but don't actually pull anything else back from the
> server. Keep the current view of the page and the database "loosely
> coupled" like this and you will realize enormous performance gains.
>
> If you follow this design pattern, then you will have the best of both
> worlds -- high performance AND database-backed state. At any point
> (assuming your onUpdate-driven POST goes through quickly enough)
> reloading the page should show you the very same list in the very same
> order as the drag-resorted-but-not-reloaded view you were just looking
> at.
>
> Walter
>
> On May 28, 2009, at 6:34 AM, david wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi Cyrus,
>
> > I think you should try a simple $('element').innerHTML='the new
> > value'; for each element to update
> > Compared to js solution, it's quicker.
>
> > Of course it depend to what you'll need to insert or change.
>
> > --
> > david
>
> > On 28 mai, 11:52, Cyrus <arianglan...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi,
>
> >> I am using Sortable to sort potentially long lists of 100+ elements.
>
> >> Sortable itselfs works fast. Each list item contains a select-box
> >> with
> >> its position. We want to keep that select box to have a non-js
> >> fallback to sort the list.
>
> >> After each drag&drop the whole list has to be updated. I have to
> >> change value, name and options of each select box.
>
> >> I am doing this by creating new html-code and using Element.replace()
> >> to exchange the html.
>
> >> This is unfortunately very slow. I also tried to use insert() and
> >> then
> >> remove() but it doesn't really work faster.
>
> >> Any suggestions?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
