[Proto-Scripty] Re: A question about submitting multiple parameters using Ajax.Updater
parameters : {
variable_1: 'Somevar',
variable_2: 'Some Other Var',
variable_3: 'Some third var'
}
is that what you mean ?
Alex Mcauley
http://www.thevacancymarket.com
- Original Message -
From: kashyap ckkash...@gmail.com
To: Prototype script.aculo.us prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:49 AM
Subject: [Proto-Scripty] A question about submitting multiple parameters
using Ajax.Updater
Hi,
How can I use Ajax.Updater to send parameters from HTML - param1 and
param2 the values of which are not in a form as such using
Ajax.Updater in a manner such that on the server side, I use the
model's update_attributes method.
new Ajax.Updater(
'#{options[:update_html_id]}',
'#{options[:update_url]}'+id,
{asynchronous:true, evalScripts:true,
parameters:'authenticity_token=' +
encodeURIComponent('Hl7TS7DG2dM0zmGAO09HMU8rKTNJwto37APahAPK9vA=') }
)
How can I modify the Updater above to generate the data below so that
I can use model.udate_attributes(params[:some_model])
{ authenticity_token=Hl7TS7DG2dM0zmGAO09HMU8rKTNJwto37APahAPK9vA=,
some_model={param1=value1,
param2=value2},
id=100}
--
Regards,
Kashyap
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: A question about submitting multiple parameters using Ajax.Updater
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Alex McAuley
webmas...@thecarmarketplace.com wrote:
parameters : {
variable_1: 'Somevar',
variable_2: 'Some Other Var',
variable_3: 'Some third var'
}
is that what you mean ?
Almost - except
parameters : {
variable_1: 'Somevar',
variable_2: {
a: 'hash members',
b: 'of',
c: 'variable 2'
},
variable_3: 'Some third var'
}
A nested hash basically.
Regards,
Kashyap
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: A question about submitting multiple parameters using Ajax.Updater
you will probably need to set variable 2 as a json object and decode it on
the server.
I have sent json objects like this before to the server and decoded them
back to an array once they arrive.
for example...
var data={};
for(i=0; i=10;++i) {
data[i]=i;
}
var params=Object.toJSON(data);
var request=new Ajax.Request(...
parameters : {
variable_1 : 'Hi i am variable one',
variable_2 : params // The json object
}
...
HTH
Alex Mcauley
http://www.thevacancymarket.com
- Original Message -
From: C K Kashyap ckkash...@gmail.com
To: prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 9:17 AM
Subject: [Proto-Scripty] Re: A question about submitting multiple parameters
using Ajax.Updater
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Alex McAuley
webmas...@thecarmarketplace.com wrote:
parameters : {
variable_1: 'Somevar',
variable_2: 'Some Other Var',
variable_3: 'Some third var'
}
is that what you mean ?
Almost - except
parameters : {
variable_1: 'Somevar',
variable_2: {
a: 'hash members',
b: 'of',
c: 'variable 2'
},
variable_3: 'Some third var'
}
A nested hash basically.
Regards,
Kashyap
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Tying an Element and a custom class together
Hi,
While I agree with T.J. arguments, there are cases when it is nice to
have this behavior (DOM element and Plain object in the same
object). On of those case is, for example when you're creating a new
control class.
The way I do it is:
- building the DOM element in the class's constructor (and keeping it
in an attribute) (*)
- implement the toElement() method in the class (to return this DOM
element) (*)
The second step allows you to provide your class instance to any
prototype method instead of a DOM element.
A small example: http://jsbin.com/omaza
Ops: Previous sentence was wrong... After trying to write the
example, and checking in the source, it seems that you can only use
this kind of object as a DOM element in a handfull of prototype's
methods (insert, update and replace)...
Is it any reason why this behavior is not implemented in $() (this
would actually allow to use a custom class everywhere where a DOM
element is needed, and just add one line of code).
Eric
(*) This was the simplest way to explain the process, but you may
prefer dynamically create the DOM element on the first call of
toElement() for better efficiency.
On Sep 10, 10:56 am, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
Hi Andrea,
FWIW, I'd say the best practice is: Don't do that, it conflates the
model with the view *and* the controller. :-) (MVC is not by any
means the only game in town, but the terminology is useful for
questions like this.) If you ever want to present the business object
in two different ways in two different panels (in a list, for
instance, and in a details pane that shows the details of the
highlighted object in the list), you can't, or rather the code gets
ugly fast.
Instead, I'd suggest keeping the business object separate from the
element and using a has a rather than an is a relationship. You
can do that by storing the business object ID on the element in some
way (data-key is the attribute I usually use for this, and fits with
the proposed HTML5 data attributes standard), either directly or via a
small controller.
The business object should never update the element directly, and so
it doesn't need to know about it. Instead, it should raise events
that controllers can respond to by updating the elements they
control. When I say fire event, I'm not necessarily talking
browserspeak (I wouldn't use browser events for this), just a minimal
implementation of the Observer pattern (as a mixin or similar you can
use for lots of different objects).
FWIW, and apologies if I went OT, but I hope I didn't,
--
T.J. Crowder
tj / crowder software / comwww.crowdersoftware.com
On Sep 9, 3:02 pm, Andrea Campi andrea.ca...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
in my application I need JS objects to represent some business
objects, which are represented on the page by an Element.
I would like to be able to tie the two together in such a way that I
can use them interchangeably.
This sounds like it should be a common pattern, so I was wondering
what the best practices are.
Example:
var Foo = Class.create({
initialize: function(parent) {
var element = Object.extend(new Element(div, { 'class': 'foo',
'id': 'myFoo' }), this);
parent.insert(element);
},
bar: function() {
}
// more methods
};
Thanks to Object.extend I can easily call: $('myFoo').bar()
But I cannot do the opposite, for instance:
var foo = new Foo();
foo.childElements();
Note that it would just work if I could return 'element' (which now
behaves like Foo).
However, I've readhttp://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/11481andit has
reasonable objections to letting the constructor return a value.
So, what gives? Any suggestion?
TIA,
Andrea
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Tying an Element and a custom class together
The has a relationship is the only way to go for sure.
You could create an ElementProxy class that inherits all the Element
methods but just keeps a reference to the actual DOM reference
internally. All of the Element.Methods are parameterized so I'm sure
there'd be an easy way to delegate the reference. As long as the
ElementProxy class implements all the regular methods then core
prototype processes wouldn't know the difference between the two.
--
http://positionabsolute.net
On Oct 16, 12:02 pm, Eric lefauv...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
While I agree with T.J. arguments, there are cases when it is nice to
have this behavior (DOM element and Plain object in the same
object). On of those case is, for example when you're creating a new
control class.
The way I do it is:
- building the DOM element in the class's constructor (and keeping it
in an attribute) (*)
- implement the toElement() method in the class (to return this DOM
element) (*)
The second step allows you to provide your class instance to any
prototype method instead of a DOM element.
A small example:http://jsbin.com/omaza
Ops: Previous sentence was wrong... After trying to write the
example, and checking in the source, it seems that you can only use
this kind of object as a DOM element in a handfull of prototype's
methods (insert, update and replace)...
Is it any reason why this behavior is not implemented in $() (this
would actually allow to use a custom class everywhere where a DOM
element is needed, and just add one line of code).
Eric
(*) This was the simplest way to explain the process, but you may
prefer dynamically create the DOM element on the first call of
toElement() for better efficiency.
On Sep 10, 10:56 am, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
Hi Andrea,
FWIW, I'd say the best practice is: Don't do that, it conflates the
model with the view *and* the controller. :-) (MVC is not by any
means the only game in town, but the terminology is useful for
questions like this.) If you ever want to present the business object
in two different ways in two different panels (in a list, for
instance, and in a details pane that shows the details of the
highlighted object in the list), you can't, or rather the code gets
ugly fast.
Instead, I'd suggest keeping the business object separate from the
element and using a has a rather than an is a relationship. You
can do that by storing the business object ID on the element in some
way (data-key is the attribute I usually use for this, and fits with
the proposed HTML5 data attributes standard), either directly or via a
small controller.
The business object should never update the element directly, and so
it doesn't need to know about it. Instead, it should raise events
that controllers can respond to by updating the elements they
control. When I say fire event, I'm not necessarily talking
browserspeak (I wouldn't use browser events for this), just a minimal
implementation of the Observer pattern (as a mixin or similar you can
use for lots of different objects).
FWIW, and apologies if I went OT, but I hope I didn't,
--
T.J. Crowder
tj / crowder software / comwww.crowdersoftware.com
On Sep 9, 3:02 pm, Andrea Campi andrea.ca...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
in my application I need JS objects to represent some business
objects, which are represented on the page by an Element.
I would like to be able to tie the two together in such a way that I
can use them interchangeably.
This sounds like it should be a common pattern, so I was wondering
what the best practices are.
Example:
var Foo = Class.create({
initialize: function(parent) {
var element = Object.extend(new Element(div, { 'class': 'foo',
'id': 'myFoo' }), this);
parent.insert(element);
},
bar: function() {
}
// more methods
};
Thanks to Object.extend I can easily call: $('myFoo').bar()
But I cannot do the opposite, for instance:
var foo = new Foo();
foo.childElements();
Note that it would just work if I could return 'element' (which now
behaves like Foo).
However, I've readhttp://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/11481andithas
reasonable objections to letting the constructor return a value.
So, what gives? Any suggestion?
TIA,
Andrea
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Magento....
anyone out there do any work with Magento? It uses Prototype/Scriptaculous.
I'm trying to implement a simple vertical accordion menu but just can't seem
to get it to work.
using default varien/accordion.js (afeared that I am doing something
stupidly obvious wrong)
and this code:
[code]
script type=text/javascript src=?php echo
$this-getJsUrl('varien/accordion.js') ?/script
ol id=left_menu_nav class=left_nav
li id=best-sellers_menu class=section
div class=head
h3a href=# class=a-itemBest Sellers/a/h3
/div
div id=
asdfasdfbr /asdfasdf
/div
/li
li id=new-arrivals_menu class=section
div class=head
h3a href=# class=a-itemNew Arrivals/a/h3
/div
div id=
asdfasdfbr /asdfasdf
/div
/li
/ol
[/code]
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks!
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Magento....
Hi,
try to change *class=section* to *class=section allow.*
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Brian Williams brianw1...@gmail.comwrote:
anyone out there do any work with Magento? It uses
Prototype/Scriptaculous.
I'm trying to implement a simple vertical accordion menu but just can't
seem to get it to work.
using default varien/accordion.js (afeared that I am doing something
stupidly obvious wrong)
and this code:
[code]
script type=text/javascript src=?php echo
$this-getJsUrl('varien/accordion.js') ?/script
ol id=left_menu_nav class=left_nav
li id=best-sellers_menu class=section
div class=head
h3a href=# class=a-itemBest Sellers/a/h3
/div
div id=
asdfasdfbr /asdfasdf
/div
/li
li id=new-arrivals_menu class=section
div class=head
h3a href=# class=a-itemNew Arrivals/a/h3
/div
div id=
asdfasdfbr /asdfasdf
/div
/li
/ol
[/code]
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks!
--
Pagarbiai,
Julius Šėporaitis
Blogeris @ http://www.seporaitis.net/
Narys ir organizatorius @ http://www.jjgklubas.lt/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Prototype script.aculo.us group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Magento....
Thanks for the tip, it wasn't all that was required but I did manage to get
it working.
Final working code as follows:
ol id=left_menu_nav class=left_nav
li id=best-sellers_menu class=section allow
div class=headh3a href=# class=img
src=?=$this-getSkinUrl('images/bestsellerslinkleft.png');? alt=Best
Sellers //a/h3/div
div id= class=a-item style=display:none;
asdfbr /asdf
/div
/li
/ol
Thanks again
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Julius Seporaitis jul...@seporaitis.netwrote:
Hi,
try to change *class=section* to *class=section allow.*
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Brian Williams brianw1...@gmail.comwrote:
anyone out there do any work with Magento? It uses
Prototype/Scriptaculous.
I'm trying to implement a simple vertical accordion menu but just can't
seem to get it to work.
using default varien/accordion.js (afeared that I am doing something
stupidly obvious wrong)
and this code:
[code]
script type=text/javascript src=?php echo
$this-getJsUrl('varien/accordion.js') ?/script
ol id=left_menu_nav class=left_nav
li id=best-sellers_menu class=section
div class=head
h3a href=# class=a-itemBest Sellers/a/h3
/div
div id=
asdfasdfbr /asdfasdf
/div
/li
li id=new-arrivals_menu class=section
div class=head
h3a href=# class=a-itemNew Arrivals/a/h3
/div
div id=
asdfasdfbr /asdfasdf
/div
/li
/ol
[/code]
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks!
--
Pagarbiai,
Julius Šėporaitis
Blogeris @ http://www.seporaitis.net/
Narys ir organizatorius @ http://www.jjgklubas.lt/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Tying an Element and a custom class together
Quick and dirty, im sure there are errors but conceptually this would
be my approach...
var ElementProxy = Class.create({
initialize : function(ele){
this.element = $(ele);
this.nodeType = this.element.nodeType;
this.tagName = this.element.tagName;
this.delegateMethods();
},
delegateMethods : function(){
var methods = Element.Methods;
for(var method in methods){
var __method = methods[method];
if (Object.isFunction(__method)
!(__method in this))
this.assignMethod(method,
__method);
}
},
assignMethod : function(method, __method){
this[method] = function(){ return
__method.apply(this.element,
[this.element].concat($A(arguments))); };
}
});
--
http://positionabsolute.net
On Oct 16, 3:01 pm, Matt Foster mattfoste...@gmail.com wrote:
The has a relationship is the only way to go for sure.
You could create an ElementProxy class that inherits all the Element
methods but just keeps a reference to the actual DOM reference
internally. All of the Element.Methods are parameterized so I'm sure
there'd be an easy way to delegate the reference. As long as the
ElementProxy class implements all the regular methods then core
prototype processes wouldn't know the difference between the two.
--
http://positionabsolute.net
On Oct 16, 12:02 pm, Eric lefauv...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
While I agree with T.J. arguments, there are cases when it is nice to
have this behavior (DOM element and Plain object in the same
object). On of those case is, for example when you're creating a new
control class.
The way I do it is:
- building the DOM element in the class's constructor (and keeping it
in an attribute) (*)
- implement the toElement() method in the class (to return this DOM
element) (*)
The second step allows you to provide your class instance to any
prototype method instead of a DOM element.
A small example:http://jsbin.com/omaza
Ops: Previous sentence was wrong... After trying to write the
example, and checking in the source, it seems that you can only use
this kind of object as a DOM element in a handfull of prototype's
methods (insert, update and replace)...
Is it any reason why this behavior is not implemented in $() (this
would actually allow to use a custom class everywhere where a DOM
element is needed, and just add one line of code).
Eric
(*) This was the simplest way to explain the process, but you may
prefer dynamically create the DOM element on the first call of
toElement() for better efficiency.
On Sep 10, 10:56 am, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
Hi Andrea,
FWIW, I'd say the best practice is: Don't do that, it conflates the
model with the view *and* the controller. :-) (MVC is not by any
means the only game in town, but the terminology is useful for
questions like this.) If you ever want to present the business object
in two different ways in two different panels (in a list, for
instance, and in a details pane that shows the details of the
highlighted object in the list), you can't, or rather the code gets
ugly fast.
Instead, I'd suggest keeping the business object separate from the
element and using a has a rather than an is a relationship. You
can do that by storing the business object ID on the element in some
way (data-key is the attribute I usually use for this, and fits with
the proposed HTML5 data attributes standard), either directly or via a
small controller.
The business object should never update the element directly, and so
it doesn't need to know about it. Instead, it should raise events
that controllers can respond to by updating the elements they
control. When I say fire event, I'm not necessarily talking
browserspeak (I wouldn't use browser events for this), just a minimal
implementation of the Observer pattern (as a mixin or similar you can
use for lots of different objects).
FWIW, and apologies if I went OT, but I hope I didn't,
--
T.J. Crowder
tj / crowder software / comwww.crowdersoftware.com
On Sep 9, 3:02 pm, Andrea Campi andrea.ca...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
in my application I need JS objects to represent some business
objects, which are represented on the page by an Element.
I would like to be able to tie the two together in such a way that I
can use them interchangeably.
This sounds like it should be a common pattern, so I was wondering
what the
