Try using the onsuccess on failure parameters in Ajax updater.
onFailure: function() {alert(bombed);},
onSuccess: ...
On Jul 27, 2012 12:04 AM, Jim Longo jimlong...@gmail.com wrote:
If it helps, I can replace the js with something real simple (an alert)
and it still won't run in the AJAX page.
Hello Walter und Acu,
thank you very much for your replies. I will try both possiblities and see
what happens. :-)
Best regards, Matthias
--
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
Thanks for your response. I'm sorry, I forgot to mention I had tried that.
The request is successful (as I mentioned I can pass html and php, just
not javascript)
On Friday, July 27, 2012 7:35:11 AM UTC-4, ppetree wrote:
Try using the onsuccess on failure parameters in Ajax updater.
then perhaps we're not understanding what you mean by passed
normal process is:
onSuccess: call a function that processes the incoming data
onFailure: tell the user what happened
what gets passed is data.
what gets called are functions.
having code in an external file indicates to me you want
I think I know what is going on
in the first example - everything runs as normal and nothing happens
because you are just declaring a function in the external script - the
function is not called - plus getLottoNumber() is not defined
the second example you are requesting a javascript file - but
Thanks Phil,
I do want to call a javascript function.
But let me try to simplify my problem.
Here is a page . . .
div id=myDiv/div
script type=text/javascript
new Ajax.Updater('myDiv', 'XYZ.html', {evalScripts: true}) ;
/script
Here is the page being called . . .
script type=text/javascript
Jim,
Did Jason's code not work?
And you're right, the examples and docs totally suck... it's like trying to
decipher some secret code that someone forgot to let the rest of us
normal programmers in on.
The purpose of AJAX calls is to reduce bandwidth and server hits by
reducing the number of
Jim,
I shoulda put this in my last email...
Here are two ways to set the individual fields using prototype:
$('my_div').innerHTML = szUpdate;
$('my_form_field').value='what I want the value to be';
function success_function(transport)
{
var json = transport.responseText.evalJSON(true);
//
Phil
setting the content of an element via the innerHTML property was deprecated
for the $(elmentid).update(content) function. Or by using
the $(elmentid).insert(content) function if appropriate.
Jason Westbrook | T: 313-799-3770 | jwestbr...@gmail.com
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Phil
Thanks for that Jason... must be another part of that inner chamber code
I'm yet to break! LOL (just teasing)
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Jason Westbrook jwestbr...@gmail.comwrote:
Phil
setting the content of an element via the innerHTML property was
deprecated for the
Thanks both Jason and Phil, there's a lot of new things to try there. I'll
see if they lead me anywhere, and prevent me from breaking the wall that I
have been banging my head against. :)
On Friday, July 27, 2012 4:23:10 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
Phil
setting the content of an element via
P.S. The reason I haven't tried Jason's code yet, was there were too many
elements in there that I didn't understand at all, and I'm loathe to open
any more wormholes. But I'll take another look at it.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Don't worry about that wall, I've already got a nice soft dent in it!
On Jul 27, 2012 5:38 PM, Jim Longo jimlong...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks both Jason and Phil, there's a lot of new things to try there.
I'll see if they lead me anywhere, and prevent me from breaking the wall
that I have been
13 matches
Mail list logo
