Well be careful ...I'm not saying for sure that I know what is the
right approach in this particular instance, but I do know that I don't
like that tree widget at all. It may very well be a bad design
decision on the widget authors part, so just be careful jumping
through too many hoops if you don't have to.
Overriding an existing javascript object function (esp a widget
function) is very easy to do. something like
dojo.lang.extend(name.of.Object,
function:myOverrideFunction(){doYourStuff}) would probably be the
easiest way to fix a faulty function.
On 12/17/06, Alexandru Dragomir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think it can be handled very well with what is existing already in
framework.
I just took the wrong approach at the begining thinking that is json
response.
I'll post back after some time.
thanks.
Alex
On 12/17/06, andyhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> > I'd say that this is a bug in the tree controller. Tapestry "should
> > not" be sending back any JSON data enclosed with "()".
> +1
>
>
> > Either the tree is
> > incorrectly using javascript mimetype when it should be using json or
> > you aren't returning what the tree is expecting.
>
> Or, there's simply a need for a new JavascriptResponseBuilder
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Jesse Kuhnert
Tapestry/Dojo team member/developer
Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind. http://blog.opencomponentry.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
