it is ok. i just it is more readable to use resnpose.js
On Dec 24, 11:18 pm, weheh <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't understand. Let's say app has 2 components, a and b, each with > its load view. I have discovered that an ajax that causes a to go to > the server can then have a update b by returning a > jQuery("#b_some_id").html("hello"); > > I discovered this because I'm completely recasting my app as > components and all the ajax scripts from before still work (after > getting updating urls). I know this isn't what the doc describes > (using response.js), but is it kosher, anyway? > > On Dec 24, 10:33 pm, mdipierro <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You can do and there is nothing against it. It just that the > > components should not directly communicate serverside, execpt by > > sharing data in session. The component can return response.js with > > client-side instructions that affect other components. That is the > > idea and that is fine. > > > On Dec 24, 7:09 pm, weheh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'm diving into components but the doc says something that could be a > > > show-stopper: > > > > "A component ... must perform its task independently of the rest of > > > the page." > > > > I want to be able to ajax click on an item in one component and have > > > it update a div in another component. I can't imagine this won't be > > > possible, but the doc seems to suggest otherwise. > >
