I may be missing something here, but I do not see any compelling reason for this... but I do see compelling reasons against this... maybe someone can explain the rationale they see that lead to this suggestion. -y
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Vidul Petrov <[email protected]> wrote: > > I find this object (response.scripts) very useful, especially if it's > able to manipulate different HTML elements, not only after page load > (__call__ modification?): > > response.scripts("$('#post')", "onclick", "$('#post .comments').css > ({'value', 'sm.th.'})") > > Probably this breaks the MVC views' rules, but in when it comes to > Ajax I feel more comfortable when the presentation logic is in the > controller. > > On Mar 30, 8:18 am, TheDude <[email protected]> wrote: > > This certainly breaks the MVC architecture, but it is valuable. I > > think web2py should be about being able to expand as much as possible > > without interfering the people who just want a small and easy > > framework (it can be a small plant or a big tree). I do like the idea > > of everything going into the same $().ready() function. > > > > After a bit of thinking about it, this would be no different (in terms > > of usability and mvc structure) as saying something like > > response.title = 'xxx' within the controller. I'm going to give this a > > thumbs up, as long as it doesn't slow down the framework and I wont be > > required to do it. ;) > > > > On Mar 30, 12:15 am, mdipierro <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Some clarifications. > > > Right now one can already do this in views by inserting somewhere: > > > > > <script> > > > $(document).ready(function() { do_something(); }); > > > </script> > > > > > Mr. Freeze's suggestions has pros and cons. In my opinion: > > > > > Pros: > > > - it is more compact > > > Cons: > > > - moves into the controller something that (usually) belongs to the > > > view. > > > - if the script in quotes has a bug it may break web2py_ajax > > > because everything would go in the same $(..).ready(function(){}). > > > > > I would like to hear more opinions about this. Perhaps some examples > > > when this would be better than placing the code in the view. > > > > > Massimo > > > > > On Mar 29, 10:46 pm, Jason Brower <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Good question. > > > > I like the idea as it gives us a nice place to put scripts and make > them > > > > apply to the views we want very easily. so +1 on that! > > > > Regards, > > > > Jason Brower > > > > > > On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 20:23 -0700, mr.freeze wrote: > > > > > It's basically a new global list, response.scripts, that is > rendered > > > > > in the jQuery(document).ready function so you can inject javascript > > > > > from the controller. Massimo mentioned that it may go against MVC > > > > > separation standards and wanted me to put it out here to get a few > > > > > opinions. Sample usage: > > > > > > > def index(): > > > > > if not request.vars.name: > > > > > response.scripts.append("$('#messages').text('Messages: > Name > > > > > Missing').css('color','red');") > > > > > else: > > > > > response.scripts.append("$('#messages').text('Messages: > Hello > > > > > " + request.vars.name + "');") > > > > > return dict() > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py Web Framework" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
