Just out of curiosity... how this is better than having a wrapper
element and using Ajax.Updater instead?
To me, it seems like replacing :
var str = "foo " + "bar";
with :
var str = cat( "foo ", "bar" );
function cat(a, b) {
return a + b;
}
Unless you really have to process your response in a specific way that
Ajax.Updater doesn't do, it is, IMHO, that it adds duplicate code to
the core. If I am mistaking, please help me see the light here.
yanick
On Apr 27, 4:51 pm, "I. E. Smith-Heisters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I saw in the archives that someone was looking for an Ajax.Replacer
> class:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core/browse_frm/thread/a2fed...
>
> I found that the implementation suggested didn't work correctly with
> 1.6.0.1, so I just wanted to share my new implementation:
>
> Ajax.Replacer = Class.create(Ajax.Updater, {
> updateContent: function(responseText) {
> var receiver = this.container[this.success() ? 'success' :
> 'failure'],
> options = this.options;
>
> if (!options.evalScripts) responseText =
> responseText.stripScripts();
> if (receiver = $(receiver)) receiver.replace(responseText);
> }
>
> });
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prototype: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
