Maninder, Singh wrote: > Your solution works perfect for me (from the first round of testing that I > have done).
I'm glad to hear that. > There is just one small issue - > > Currently, I have made changes to my prototype file. > But, this means that tomorrow if new version of prototype comes > out, it's going to be a pain maintaining it. I've taken a very strong position on this issue in the past; offering code out-of-tree is creating maintenance burdens for the people who adopt it. I am, however, making every effort (specifically, I've filed a bug report with a patch ready to review) to get this code included into Prototype proper. It's your decision on whether you choose to adopt it or to come up with an alternative solution. You asked for a patch and I provided. :) > What do you suggest - should we extend and add these lines (which > would mean duplicating a lot and still no guarantee of not making > changes in the future)? Personally, I feel that patching prototype.js for a change like this (it's not a fringe change; it makes changes to core parts of Ajax.Request) is the best approach. Ryan suggested that maybe it could be reworked as a separate include. You two are welcome to try. Please post your solutions if you choose to pursue it. > I wish Sam would incorporate this. In the FIVE MONTHS that this patch has been available, it's not received a single comment from Sam or other developers / users. If you'd like to see it included, then I'd suggest you add a "me too"/"tested" comment to the bug report. That is, once dev.rubyonrails.org is back on-line. Todd Ross _______________________________________________ Rails-spinoffs mailing list Rails-spinoffs@lists.rubyonrails.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-spinoffs
