On Aug 13, 10:27 am, John Fremlin <[email protected]> wrote: > The isearch feature is IMHO one of the most awesome aspects of > weblocks. Even before an efficient interface to the underlying store is > made, it would be really nice to have it.
Yes, indeed. It's a great selling point and really convenient, too. But it's worrying that it will produce wrong results when used with a store that actually heeds pagination. Assume we're showing items 1-10 gathered from the CLSQL store; then we will never filter the rest of the items at all (because DATASEQ-DATA will only work on the paginated set). This is not how the original isearch worked and messes with your expectations. So: efficiency considerations can wait, but we need to ensure that we're delivering correct results. Hacking a custom version of DATASEQ-DATA (preferably while duplicating as little as possible) for filtering purposes would help. > What do you think about it? Perhaps it should be a mixin instead as > nunb suggested? If that is feasible, yes. > I think MSI might be willing to do a bit of work to get it tidy enough to be > included. That would be great. The current version would need some minor beautification, a fix for the problem above and ideally some tests. > I guess there is this worrying comment > ;(send-script (ps* `(.activate ($ ,sym)))) ;why the hell does this not work? > what is the webloxy way of doing focus? Right now there is none. With Mackram's Javascript abstraction focussing is probably part of the common JS API, though. Leslie --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" 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/weblocks?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
