Bug? calling javascript function from onComplete:

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] En nombre
> de Norbert Hartl
> Enviado el: Martes, 22 de Julio de 2008 09:22
> Para: Seaside Mailing-List
> Asunto: [Seaside] Bug? calling javascript function from onComplete:
>
> I need to chain some calls I do with Ajax. I found
> the onComplete:, onSuccess: etc. handlers. Every example
> I've found in the image uses them to invoke an html updater.
>
> Trying to do this
>
> ...
>    onClick: (
>       html updater
>          callback: [];
>          onComplete: 'alert("booo!");'
>    );
>    with: 'something'.
>
> leads to javascript code like
>
> new
> Ajax.Updater('layers','http://localhost:9090/seaside/svgex',{'
> insertion':Insertion.Bottom,'onSuccess':function(){'alert("boo
> !");'},'evalScripts':true,'parameters':['_s=EagyxUvvWRPxlAdD',
> '_k=K3OXE7pw','4'].join('&')})
>
> The problem is that to javascript code is printed with surrounding
> ticks ' and therefor cannot be executed.
>
> Am I doing something wrong or should be work that way?
>
> thanks,
>
> Norbert
>    
>
> _______________________________________________
> seaside mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

> cheers,
>
> Sebastian
>
>  
>
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: [hidden email]
> > [mailto:[hidden email]] En nombre
> > de Norbert Hartl
> > Enviado el: Martes, 22 de Julio de 2008 09:22
> > Para: Seaside Mailing-List
> > Asunto: [Seaside] Bug? calling javascript function from onComplete:
> >
> > I need to chain some calls I do with Ajax. I found
> > the onComplete:, onSuccess: etc. handlers. Every example
> > I've found in the image uses them to invoke an html updater.
> >
> > Trying to do this
> >
> > ...
> >    onClick: (
> >       html updater
> >          callback: [];
> >          onComplete: 'alert("booo!");'
> >    );
> >    with: 'something'.
> >
> > leads to javascript code like
> >
> > new
> > Ajax.Updater('layers','http://localhost:9090/seaside/svgex',{'
> > insertion':Insertion.Bottom,'onSuccess':function(){'alert("boo
> > !");'},'evalScripts':true,'parameters':['_s=EagyxUvvWRPxlAdD',
> > '_k=K3OXE7pw','4'].join('&')})
> >
> > The problem is that to javascript code is printed with surrounding
> > ticks ' and therefor cannot be executed.
> >
> > Am I doing something wrong or should be work that way?
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > Norbert
> >    
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > seaside mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
>
> _______________________________________________
> seaside mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

> I need to chain some calls I do with Ajax. I found
> the onComplete:, onSuccess: etc. handlers. Every example
> I've found in the image uses them to invoke an html updater.
>
> Trying to do this
>
> ...
>    onClick: (
>       html updater
>          callback: [];
>          onComplete: 'alert("booo!");'
>    );
>    with: 'something'.
>
> leads to javascript code like
>
> new
> Ajax.Updater('layers','http://localhost:9090/seaside/svgex',{'insertion':Insertion.Bottom,'onSuccess':function(){'alert("boo!");'},'evalScripts':true,'parameters':['_s=EagyxUvvWRPxlAdD','_k=K3OXE7pw','4'].join('&')})
>
> The problem is that to javascript code is printed with surrounding
> ticks ' and therefor cannot be executed.
>
> Am I doing something wrong or should be work that way?
>
> thanks,
>
> Norbert
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> seaside mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
>

> >  > If you put a String there, it is serialized as a String as well. Use
>  >  >
>  >  >    SUStresm on: 'alert("foo")'
>  >
>  > Just curious - would this be the more common usage? Would it make sense to
>  >  have ST strings convert to JS expressions (unquoted)? Should be easy to add
>  >  the quotes if that is what is desired.
>
>
> For me it is the only logical usage. The following Smalltalk objects
>  map to their JavaScript (PrototypeJS) counterparts: Association,
>  Character, Collection, Color, Date, Dictionary, Duration, Interval,
>  Point, String, and UndefinedObject. To complicate things, JavaScript
>  string literals needs a completely different encoding than JavaScript
>  code.
>
>  Now I agree that the introduction of verbatim JavaScript is a bit
>  complicated right now. This could be simplified by adding a converter
>  message to String. I haven't found the perfect name of this message
>  yet, but something along
>
>     String>>asVerbatimJavascript
>         ^ SUStream on: self
>
>  I also agree that putting a String into an event handler does not make
>  sense in any case. This could be resolved by adding something along
>  (all event handler automatically call #asFunction on the event
>  handler):
>
>    String>>asFunction
>         ^ (SUStream on: self) asFunction
>
>  However this would mean that depending on the context where an object
>  is used it gets converted to something else. I don't know if this is
>  good or bad? Up to now I decided against doing it, but since
>  discussion came up it is maybe time to change? What do you think?
>
>
>  Lukas
>
>
>  --
>  Lukas Renggli
>  http://www.lukas-renggli.ch
>

>  I haven't found the perfect name of this message
> yet, but something along
>
> #1
>    String>>asVerbatimJavascript
>        ^ SUStream on: self
>
> ...
> #2
>   String>>asFunction
>        ^ (SUStream on: self) asFunction