onSuccess means about the same thing as a 200 header from the server.
Yes, it says, the content is here where you asked for it, and I've
sent it along your way. Hope you get it all eventually. onComplete,
on the other hand, means Here's your content; I've verified that you
got all of it,
Walter, I don't think that's correct.
The onSuccess callback is called when the XHR request has been fully
completed (all data received), not when data receipt begins (XHR
readyState 4, not XHR readyState 3). It's called only for successful
requests (200 = HTTP response code 300), and only if
I've reviewed the source, and I agree--I'm wrong and TJ's right here.
Walter
On Apr 13, 2009, at 10:27 AM, T.J. Crowder wrote:
Walter, I don't think that's correct.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Yes Thanks
On Feb 27, 10:13 am, BearState wixelb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi,
OK, so Mr. Noob has made a lot of progress, but has found that when
he makes anAjax.Request(), the response is not set into the
javascript variables until after a certain amount of time, which
though small, is
Hi,
It does mean that if you have code further down the list of things to
do which is reliant on the result of the request, then it will have to
wait as well.
So, that code would have to be part of the onSuccess too.
Hope this is understandable.
I'm new to Ajax as well but I understand
Hi,
How can I make this to DO NOT submit the form before ajax response
will come?
There are a couple of ways you can do this.
1. Don't let them submit until the field is validated.
When the user changes the field, as soon as they leave it (or even as
soon as they change it) disable the
Hi,
Thanks for your reply.
There are a couple of ways you can do this.
1. Don't let them submit until the field is validated.
:
The point is I wanted to change my validation from dynamic (when
user type or changes the fields) to on submit only :)
2. Do the submit via XHR rather
By the way if I don't find any other solution soon I'll use
http://prototypejs.org/api/form/request probably to send entire form
and return some result.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Prototype
So my question is still open - is there any way to check something
with ajax request on submit and submit form when you have true/false
response?
Yes. Use Event#stop to prevent default submit action. Fire an ajax
request that does the validation. Show a validating indicator, upon
receiving
Hi,
The point is I wanted to change my validation from dynamic (when
user type or changes the fields) to on submit only :)
:-) !
Ok, I was thinking about this solution and using From.serialize but I
didn't want to my site to much - just simply change one thing -
Option #2 can be a
Hi,
Yes. Use Event#stop to prevent default submit action. Fire an ajax
request that does the validation. Show a validating indicator, upon
receiving the request back, just use $('my_form_id').submit() to
submit the form.
Thanks for hint :)
I was testing Event.stop but somehow I was
Woops!
Take that back. It is NOT working right using onSuccess instead of
setTimeout() over the split part of the module. Thought it was, but
it was not. After having a hell of a time trying to dynamically plug
the InPlaceEditor, I found out that onSuccess has little to do with
successfully
On 1 Mar, 22:38, BearState wixelb...@yahoo.com wrote:
I found out that onSuccess has little to do with
successfully returning anything from the script.
What do you exactly mean by this?
Quleczka
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are
TJ, I think BearState is just missing the async nature of ajax.
Best,
Tobie
On Feb 27, 11:17 pm, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
Hi,
No, the only real solution here, is to split the module at the point
of the Ajax.Request() call...Then, call the
remainder wrapped in a
2009/2/28 Tobie Langel tobie.lan...@gmail.com:
TJ, I think BearState is just missing the async nature of ajax.
Best,
Tobie
On Feb 27, 11:17 pm, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
Hi,
No, the only real solution here, is to split the module at the point
of the Ajax.Request()
On Feb 27, 6:21 am, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
Hi,
Rather than thinking of an Ajax request as a function call, think of
it as a message you send out. Send it, then get on with other things,
or just wait (where waiting is not a busy-wait where the user can't do
T.J., while I absolutely agree with what you have said, I think you're
missing part of BearState's question:
Thanks, Colin. On first read, I thought he meant some knucklehead
*programmers* might think it was a bug *in Prototype*. But I think
you're right.
And yes, simply displaying
Thanks for the feedback,
I appreciate it.True, it would be nice to have a progress
indicator. But I also said that the delay was not long, but long
enough to be of consequence. Therefore, the progress indicator is not
an issue.
The issue is that the code is a modular response to a user
Hi,
No, the only real solution here, is to split the module at the point
of the Ajax.Request() call...Then, call the
remainder wrapped in a setTimeout().
Why not in the onSuccess of the Ajax.Request? That's what it's there
for... You'll never get the timing right 100% of the time with
Oh,
One additional comment ...
If I get clever and try to wait in a while loop for AjaxRequest to set
a flag that it has completed, the browser complains that some script
is attempting to make the browser to run slow, do you want to let it
run? IE7.
So no, I can't create a slick wait loop
Hi,
Rather than thinking of an Ajax request as a function call, think of
it as a message you send out. Send it, then get on with other things,
or just wait (where waiting is not a busy-wait where the user can't do
anything). When you get a reply, deal with the reply. In this case,
replies are
21 matches
Mail list logo
