In our project, we had to assign a variable name to periodically_call_remote, so that we could manipulate it using rjs/ javascript (for instance, calling stop()). The details are on this ticket: http://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-rails/tickets/468 cheers, Herval --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On 22 Jun 2008, at 14:39, Herval wrote:> > In our project, we had to assign a variable name to > periodically_call_remote, so that we could manipulate it using rjs/ > javascript (for instance, calling stop()). The details are on this > ticket: http://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-rails/tickets/468 >is it worth allowing a little more flexibility? Eg I might want to store the executor as a property of some other object. A flexible way round this would be if you could supply a function and we''d call it passing the brand new periodical executor. Can''t decide whether I think this would be overkill. Fred> cheers, > Herval > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
It seems like those are both overkill over the current ability to do: var my_updater = <%= periodically_call_remote ... %>; -hume. On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 3:08 AM, Frederick Cheung <frederick.cheung@gmail.com> wrote:> > > On 22 Jun 2008, at 14:39, Herval wrote: > >> >> In our project, we had to assign a variable name to >> periodically_call_remote, so that we could manipulate it using rjs/ >> javascript (for instance, calling stop()). The details are on this >> ticket: http://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-rails/tickets/468 >> > is it worth allowing a little more flexibility? Eg I might want to > store the executor as a property of some other object. A flexible way > round this would be if you could supply a function and we''d call it > passing the brand new periodical executor. Can''t decide whether I > think this would be overkill. > > Fred >> cheers, >> Herval >> > > > > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
You can''t do that today, since periodically_call_remote generates a <script> something </script> block... I wouldn''t have come up with the patch if it did in fact work as you said :-) On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 6:33 PM, John D. Hume <duelin.markers@gmail.com> wrote:> > It seems like those are both overkill over the current ability to do: > var my_updater = <%= periodically_call_remote ... %>; > -hume. > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 3:08 AM, Frederick Cheung > <frederick.cheung@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 22 Jun 2008, at 14:39, Herval wrote: > > > >> > >> In our project, we had to assign a variable name to > >> periodically_call_remote, so that we could manipulate it using rjs/ > >> javascript (for instance, calling stop()). The details are on this > >> ticket: > http://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-rails/tickets/468 > >> > > is it worth allowing a little more flexibility? Eg I might want to > > store the executor as a property of some other object. A flexible way > > round this would be if you could supply a function and we''d call it > > passing the brand new periodical executor. Can''t decide whether I > > think this would be overkill. > > > > Fred > >> cheers, > >> Herval > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---