Rails - Oct 2005 - using observe_field on fields created dynamically through ajax

I''m trying to use observe_field on a field w/ id
''chapters''.  Problem is,
chapters gets re-created through another ajax call on the page.  The id is the
same, still chapters, but its not really the "original" one.  Once it
has been
re-created the observe_field no longer works.  It works fine before it gets
re-created.

I figured this makes sense with an event based observe_field so I tried making
it a time-based check using :frequency => 1, figuring this would use
getElementById and should work fine even if it gets recreated, but alas it did
not ever fire off the event when a value changed.  : /

Any suggestions? Other than change the prototype library myself?

- steve

steve dp <oksteev@...> writes:
> 
> I''m trying to use observe_field on a field w/ id
''chapters''.  Problem is,
> chapters gets re-created through another ajax call on the page.  The id is
the
> same, still chapters, but its not really the "original" one. 
Once it has been
> re-created the observe_field no longer works.  It works fine before it gets
> re-created.
> 
> I figured this makes sense with an event based observe_field so I tried
making
> it a time-based check using :frequency => 1, figuring this would use
> getElementById and should work fine even if it gets recreated, but alas it
did
> not ever fire off the event when a value changed.  : /
> 
> Any suggestions? Other than change the prototype library myself?
> 
> - steve
> 

I answered my own question. I included the observe_field helper call in the
partial which is used to update the div.  So each time the control is recreated
so is the observe_field call.

This actually seems like something that should be changed.  It seems pretty
common to have observers on elements which themselves will be updated in the
lifetime of a page.  To have to refresh the observer script as well seems wrong.
 It seems like a better approach to change the observers to resolve the element
id every time they try to access it instead of doing it once at the beginning
and storing the reference.  I''m sure the time you save by only doing it
once is
very minimal.

Just my thoughts..

- steve