If I¹m understanding you correctly, wouldn¹t it be sufficient to code this as a simple AjaxLink, which responds with a regular AJAX update when the link is disabled, or uses setResponsePage when it¹s enabled?
Boris On 1/7/15, 9:15 PM, "Joachim Schrod" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi, > >I have a class of links where some of them sometimes shall not >trigger. The decision is made server-side according to current state. > >At first sight, the realization seems to be not that straight forward: > -- I add an AJAX behavior to these link that allows default action > and computes if the link action shall be prevented. > -- The AJAX behavior has an AJAX call listener (complete handler) > that may call attrs.event.preventDefault() if the link shall > not be triggered. > -- The decision if the link shall not be triggered is > communicated by the AJAX request to the complete handler via > an HiddenField that is updated in the AJAX request. Delivery > of the decision via JSON is difficult, as we also want to > update other DOM elements with the response (feedback why the > link was not triggered). > >Do I miss something? Is there a completely different approach that >I could take? > >Or: Is there a better way to communicate the decision if the link >shall be triggered to the call listener? Introducing a hidden field >for that purpose seems to be awkward, for me. > >I would be thankful for any comments or recommendations. > > Joachim > >-- >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >Joachim Schrod, Roedermark, Germany >Email: [email protected] > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
