[Proto-Scripty] Re: optgroup IE 8-
Sometimes IE refuses to insert options created with new Element() or innerHTML into SELECT or OPTGROUP. Approach with new Option() is more reliable (at least for me) while still cross-browser. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Prototype script.aculo.us group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/prototype-scriptaculous/-/PSWhYOoXsQIJ. 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] Will Ajax support ontimeot event on XMLHttpRequest in IE8?
IE8 supports an even ontimeout on XMLHttpRequest How can I manually add support To Ajax object not waiting new version of prototype.js? -- 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: Prototype's evolution
Well written. As an opensource developer (aside from my day job), I am aware of the danger of caring too much about what the user thinks. I am also aware of the potential dangers of forking a project. What I want is some sort of answer from the Prototype devs on how they want the community to pitch in. Do they want us to develop our own plugin websites, or do they want us to create an interface for their main site? Do they want to develop it? Do they want us to develop a comprehensive library as an extension of Prototype or as part of Prototype? Will they ever official endorse such efforts (assuming certain obvious caveats)? Unfortunately, it seems that the devs don't care to provide any feedback on any of these issues. I am not expecting anything more from the devs, but as a matter of courtesy I would like them to explain how they would like us to get involved instead of users just doing their own thing. Also, the answer of submit a patch for consideration doesn't really cut it in this case, because I've personally seen patches never get acknowledged, let alone get added. I've yet to see a patch get added. Users aren't going to waste their time writing and cleaning up code, if there's not at least a good chance of their patch being considered. In short PrototypeJS needs to address these questions before the project either falls into disuse or the users take matters into their own hands and strike out willy-nilly and fully fork the project. On Aug 17, 8:04 am, Phil Petree phil.pet...@gmail.com wrote: This is the same old discussion that's been going on for months and I wonder if it will ever get resolved to the satisfaction of those of us who use the tool to enhance our sites. From what I can tell, there seems to be an uber-geek philosophy of make it better and they will come and, to a degree that's correct. The problem is, history is filled with technically superior products that ultimately failed because of poor marketing and/or not listening to their users (betamax vs vhs and myspace vs facebook for two glowing examples). My fear is that prototype will ultimately face the same fate... be a technically superior product with a few guys pitching in and carrying the weight (anyone who follows this feed knows who the guys are who always pitch in with an answer) while marketing, support, easy access to developed libs and all the other goodies go ignored which causes adoption of the product to dwindle because these things exist on another platform. Why is this important? I have a buddy that has a very successful site written in cold fusion, he developed the site just to familiarize himself with the language. Turns out, the site took off, he quit is day job, ran the site, and recently got a contract for heaps and tons of $$$ for the site. The catch? He has to rewrite the site in either .php or .net because the buyer won't take it as a CF site. Does anyone want to end up with a site that, when its time to sell, will be told, that's all great but we're a jquery shop so you have to get rid of prototype... nobody uses that anymore! From a product standpoint, I'm sure the developers have their hands full and they do a really great job delivering a product that, for the most part, takes us away from browser level coding in a reliable and consistent manner. Personally, I am extremely appreciative of their efforts and I hope they keep up the good work! We all know what the but is... But I do think they need to set some community direction and allow the product to grow. On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:11 AM, shellster shellsterd...@gmail.com wrote: I'm seriously considering building my own site to start adding things like community documentation, additions to prototype, and plug-ins. While the Prototype Dev's certainly don't owe me anything, I've been pretty disappointed in there response time to user requests and even submitted patches. I think if someone were to essentially fork the project (me), but still give prototype all the credit it deserves, it might be the best thing for the community. If I could generate enough community buzz, and add a bunch of well written features to prototype, perhaps then, the devs would start pulling some of the changes back into prototype's core. On Aug 13, 4:43 pm, Cantrelle Vincent vcantre...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I'm happy to see that the topic is not dead and that some ideas are coming out ... (too much work sometimes) @Sander: maybe I'm missing something (sorry in this case), but do you have finally any answer (from Prototype's side) concerning your email your decribed on th 20 Jul ? Regards Vinc. -- 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
Re: [Proto-Scripty] Re: Prototype's evolution
I believe this is the 3rd time this subject has been brought up in the past year and, to my knowledge, devs have made no comment nor provided any direction so, as they say, no answer is an answer! On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:20 PM, shellster shellsterd...@gmail.com wrote: Well written. As an opensource developer (aside from my day job), I am aware of the danger of caring too much about what the user thinks. I am also aware of the potential dangers of forking a project. What I want is some sort of answer from the Prototype devs on how they want the community to pitch in. Do they want us to develop our own plugin websites, or do they want us to create an interface for their main site? Do they want to develop it? Do they want us to develop a comprehensive library as an extension of Prototype or as part of Prototype? Will they ever official endorse such efforts (assuming certain obvious caveats)? Unfortunately, it seems that the devs don't care to provide any feedback on any of these issues. I am not expecting anything more from the devs, but as a matter of courtesy I would like them to explain how they would like us to get involved instead of users just doing their own thing. Also, the answer of submit a patch for consideration doesn't really cut it in this case, because I've personally seen patches never get acknowledged, let alone get added. I've yet to see a patch get added. Users aren't going to waste their time writing and cleaning up code, if there's not at least a good chance of their patch being considered. In short PrototypeJS needs to address these questions before the project either falls into disuse or the users take matters into their own hands and strike out willy-nilly and fully fork the project. On Aug 17, 8:04 am, Phil Petree phil.pet...@gmail.com wrote: This is the same old discussion that's been going on for months and I wonder if it will ever get resolved to the satisfaction of those of us who use the tool to enhance our sites. From what I can tell, there seems to be an uber-geek philosophy of make it better and they will come and, to a degree that's correct. The problem is, history is filled with technically superior products that ultimately failed because of poor marketing and/or not listening to their users (betamax vs vhs and myspace vs facebook for two glowing examples). My fear is that prototype will ultimately face the same fate... be a technically superior product with a few guys pitching in and carrying the weight (anyone who follows this feed knows who the guys are who always pitch in with an answer) while marketing, support, easy access to developed libs and all the other goodies go ignored which causes adoption of the product to dwindle because these things exist on another platform. Why is this important? I have a buddy that has a very successful site written in cold fusion, he developed the site just to familiarize himself with the language. Turns out, the site took off, he quit is day job, ran the site, and recently got a contract for heaps and tons of $$$ for the site. The catch? He has to rewrite the site in either .php or .net because the buyer won't take it as a CF site. Does anyone want to end up with a site that, when its time to sell, will be told, that's all great but we're a jquery shop so you have to get rid of prototype... nobody uses that anymore! From a product standpoint, I'm sure the developers have their hands full and they do a really great job delivering a product that, for the most part, takes us away from browser level coding in a reliable and consistent manner. Personally, I am extremely appreciative of their efforts and I hope they keep up the good work! We all know what the but is... But I do think they need to set some community direction and allow the product to grow. On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:11 AM, shellster shellsterd...@gmail.com wrote: I'm seriously considering building my own site to start adding things like community documentation, additions to prototype, and plug-ins. While the Prototype Dev's certainly don't owe me anything, I've been pretty disappointed in there response time to user requests and even submitted patches. I think if someone were to essentially fork the project (me), but still give prototype all the credit it deserves, it might be the best thing for the community. If I could generate enough community buzz, and add a bunch of well written features to prototype, perhaps then, the devs would start pulling some of the changes back into prototype's core. On Aug 13, 4:43 pm, Cantrelle Vincent vcantre...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I'm happy to see that the topic is not dead and that some ideas are coming out ... (too much work sometimes) @Sander: maybe I'm missing something (sorry in this case), but do you have finally any
Re: [Proto-Scripty] Re: Prototype's evolution
that's very good point, Phil. I've been reluctant to say anything on this, but maybe another voice will take a step closer to an action. Recently Prototype lost one of its largest clients -- Magento. Starting with v2.0 Magento will be using jQuery. This is a big blow to the framework, imo (I've been doing steady Magento work for the past 2.5 years) and nearly every single frontend person I have worked with has made jQuery into working in Magento to get the animation effects that they want, etc. It seems that everyone wants something more from this framework -- forking is *always* an option -- look at Kohana -- started as a fork of Code Igniter because CI didn't have things some people wanted. Now look at FuelPHP -- a fresh new php5.3 based framework based on CI, Kohana with a dash of RoR thrown in. If there are people with the knowledge and the desire and the experience to say fork-it and go, I say more power to you -- just make sure you map it out and plan strategically, and where ever possible make it somewhat backwards compatible. Also, if you could get away from that whole $ magic function (say put it inside a wrapper?) -- that would make a LOT of frontend devs happy and dump a lot of confusion and headaches for some people. Of course just 2 cents from someone who really sucks at JS and is beyond inactive in the community, so feel free to ignore me. On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Phil Petree phil.pet...@gmail.com wrote: I believe this is the 3rd time this subject has been brought up in the past year and, to my knowledge, devs have made no comment nor provided any direction so, as they say, no answer is an answer! On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:20 PM, shellster shellsterd...@gmail.comwrote: Well written. As an opensource developer (aside from my day job), I am aware of the danger of caring too much about what the user thinks. I am also aware of the potential dangers of forking a project. What I want is some sort of answer from the Prototype devs on how they want the community to pitch in. Do they want us to develop our own plugin websites, or do they want us to create an interface for their main site? Do they want to develop it? Do they want us to develop a comprehensive library as an extension of Prototype or as part of Prototype? Will they ever official endorse such efforts (assuming certain obvious caveats)? Unfortunately, it seems that the devs don't care to provide any feedback on any of these issues. I am not expecting anything more from the devs, but as a matter of courtesy I would like them to explain how they would like us to get involved instead of users just doing their own thing. Also, the answer of submit a patch for consideration doesn't really cut it in this case, because I've personally seen patches never get acknowledged, let alone get added. I've yet to see a patch get added. Users aren't going to waste their time writing and cleaning up code, if there's not at least a good chance of their patch being considered. In short PrototypeJS needs to address these questions before the project either falls into disuse or the users take matters into their own hands and strike out willy-nilly and fully fork the project. On Aug 17, 8:04 am, Phil Petree phil.pet...@gmail.com wrote: This is the same old discussion that's been going on for months and I wonder if it will ever get resolved to the satisfaction of those of us who use the tool to enhance our sites. From what I can tell, there seems to be an uber-geek philosophy of make it better and they will come and, to a degree that's correct. The problem is, history is filled with technically superior products that ultimately failed because of poor marketing and/or not listening to their users (betamax vs vhs and myspace vs facebook for two glowing examples). My fear is that prototype will ultimately face the same fate... be a technically superior product with a few guys pitching in and carrying the weight (anyone who follows this feed knows who the guys are who always pitch in with an answer) while marketing, support, easy access to developed libs and all the other goodies go ignored which causes adoption of the product to dwindle because these things exist on another platform. Why is this important? I have a buddy that has a very successful site written in cold fusion, he developed the site just to familiarize himself with the language. Turns out, the site took off, he quit is day job, ran the site, and recently got a contract for heaps and tons of $$$ for the site. The catch? He has to rewrite the site in either .php or .net because the buyer won't take it as a CF site. Does anyone want to end up with a site that, when its time to sell, will be told, that's all great but we're a jquery shop so you have to get rid of prototype... nobody uses that anymore! From a product standpoint, I'm sure the developers have
[Proto-Scripty] CSV to Json
Any tips for converting CSV to Json? I have CSV, row deliminted \n, and
fields delimited with typical comma. There is a known/exisiting object type
for each field. Something like:
{'fields': [{'field':'fname', 'col':2}, {'field':'ssn', 'col':5}]}
So I have that to work from, and will populate a Json result like this:
[{'data':{'fname':value}, {'ssn':value}},{'data':{'fname':value},
{'ssn':value}}]
I feel like I am doing it the long way when I:
// split csv string by \n to new line array
// for every item in new line split string
// split item by , to field array
// for every item in field array
// create object to add to new data array
Any ideas would help.
Thanks,
Karl..
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Prototype script.aculo.us group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/prototype-scriptaculous/-/XmKNhm0qQ7oJ.
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.
