Hi,
> ...onFailure functions with the transport parameter... I had no idea that
> 'transport' would be passed regardless...
I have to admit that I don't follow you there. I did use the name
'response' rather than 'transport' in my examples ("transport" in some
Prototype examples is a 1.5 and earlier thing, te parameter passed in
1.6 and onward is an Ajax.Response instance), but that's just a name,
it's the same parameter regardless.
In any case, if it's working, great!
-- T.J. :-)
On Aug 10, 7:27 pm, Phil Petree <[email protected]> wrote:
> T.J.,
>
> Thanks for that... my confusion came in trying to declare the onSuccess or
> onFailure functions with the transport parameter... I had no idea that
> 'transport' would be passed regardless... once that was cleared up, it seems
> to be working fine!
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:23 AM, T.J. Crowder <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > You seem to be using Ajax.Updater when you should be using
> > Ajax.Request, but that may be off-topic as it's true for both of your
> > examples; perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're doing. Ajax.Updater
> > does an Ajax request and updates a target element with the response.
> > But your code is using onSuccess to update _other_ things based on an
> > XML response, which looks more like the kind of thing you'd use
> > Ajax.Request for.
>
> > Again, all of which may be off topic.
>
> > In terms of moving from an anonymous function to a named one, what
> > you've done should work although you're actually working harder than
> > you have to. Taking a simplified example, this version using an inline
> > anonymous function:
>
> > new Ajax.Request('someurl', {
> > parameters: {"what": "ever"},
> > onSuccess: function(response) {
> > // Do something with 'response'
> > }
> > });
>
> > ...is functionally equivalent to this example using a named function
> > (with only one small difference, a new symbol -- the function's name
> > -- is defined):
>
> > function handleSuccess(response) {
> > // Do something with 'response'
> > }
>
> > new Ajax.Request('someurl', {
> > parameters: {"what": "ever"},
> > onSuccess: handleSuccess
> > });
>
> > Note how that differs from what you did; the above just uses a
> > reference to the function directly. What you did:
>
> > new Ajax.Request('someurl', {
> > parameters: {"what": "ever"},
> > onSuccess: function(response) {
> > handleSuccess(response);
> > }
> > });
>
> > ...should work just fine, but introduces an unnecessary function
> > definition and call.
>
> > Since what you did, from the quoted code, should have worked, not sure
> > how much the above is going to help. Here's a live example of doing
> > requests with a separate function for the success handler, perhaps
> > it'll help:
> >http://jsbin.com/uwofi4
>
> > This how-to on the unofficial wiki may be useful as well:
> >http://proto-scripty.wikidot.com/prototype:how-to-bulletproof-ajax-re...
>
> > HTH,
> > --
> > T.J. Crowder
> > Independent Software Consultant
> > tj / crowder software / com
> >www.crowdersoftware.com
>
> > On Aug 6, 8:44 pm, ppetree <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I've started with the samples included with prototype.js which has the
> > > following code in the fillin example (a portion of which I want to
> > > isolate into its own function).
>
> > > The original code looks like this ([COLOR="red"]red[/COLOR] is what I
> > > want to isolate):[CODE]
> > > function dofill( ) {
> > > new Ajax.Updater( 'result', 'getdata.php', { method: 'post',
> > > parameters: $('myform').serialize(),
> > > onSuccess: [COLOR="Red"]function( transport ) {
> > > $('elFirst').value =
> > > transport.responseXML.getElementsByTagName('first')
> > > [0].firstChild.nodeValue;
> > > $('elLast').value =
> > > transport.responseXML.getElementsByTagName('last')
> > > [0].firstChild.nodeValue;
> > > $('elEmail').value =
> > > transport.responseXML.getElementsByTagName('email')
> > > [0].firstChild.nodeValue;
> > > }[/COLOR] } );}
>
> > > [/CODE]
>
> > > What I created was this:[CODE]
> > > function fill_in(transport) {
> > > $('elFirst').value =
> > > transport.responseXML.getElementsByTagName('first')
> > > [0].firstChild.nodeValue;
> > > $('elLast').value =
> > > transport.responseXML.getElementsByTagName('last')
> > > [0].firstChild.nodeValue;
> > > $('elEmail').value =
> > > transport.responseXML.getElementsByTagName('email')
> > > [0].firstChild.nodeValue;}
>
> > > function dofill() {
> > > new Ajax.Updater( 'result', 'getdata.php', { method: 'post',
> > > parameters: $('myform').serialize(),
> > > onSuccess: function ( transport ){
> > > fill_in(transport);
> > > } } );}
>
> > > [/CODE]
>
> > > I cant seem to get this to work... but I'm not getting any errors
> > > either. The idea is to make the fill_in() independent so that it can
> > > be easily changed and updated and this allows the dofill() to be stuck
> > > in a .js file.
>
> > > I dont understand why transport wont just pass as a variable. How do
> > > I do this?
>
> > > Thanks,
>
> > > Pete
>
> > --
> > 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
> > [email protected].
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > [email protected]<prototype-scriptaculou
> > s%[email protected]>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en.
--
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 [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-scriptaculous?hl=en.
