Forum OpenACS Q&A: Re: ajaxhelper and its tests
moving stuff down will work most probably for "widgets" like the calender widget, but not for functions which will be needed earlier.
Many of the functions are not needed at all (imho), the calendar should go into its own file, the acs_List* and acs_KeypressGoto are still needed. It would be appreciated if someone can shed more light on the functions marked with "?"
The move-to-the-body-change might break the focus handling in the blank-master.
document.getElementById -> ancient stuff, not needed acs_Focus -> www/blank-master.tcl acs_FormRefresh -> ? acs_CopyText -> ? acs_RichText_* -> packages/acs-templating/tcl/richtext-or-file-procs.tcl acs_rte* -> www/blank-compat.tcl acs_initHtmlArea -> ? acs_ListFindInput -> packages/assessment/www/asm-admin/session-delete.tcl acs_ListCheckAll -> packages/acs-templating/tcl/list-procs.tcl acs_ListBulkActionClick -> packages/acs-templating/tcl/list-procs.tcl acs_KeypressGoto: packages/acs-templating/resources/forms/confirm-button.adp Calendar
I think we should change template::add_body_script code so it checks for duplicate inclusion of the same script as template::head::add_script does.
The need for this comes from this consideration: to keep js inclusion the closest possible to the tcl actually requiring that, I would put acs_RichText_* inclusion into template::widget::richtext_or_file proc. This proc can be called multiple times for each widget, so it would be convenient if we had a mean to avoid multiple inclusion in body.
As multiple inclusion of the same script in body could make sense (multiple execution of the same code) this should be parametric. I was thinking about the following:
- if the flag 'once_p' is given, behave like template::head::add_script and update reference into script array
- if flag is not given, put script into the 'anonymous' special element of array so no check is performed
- change template::head::prepare_multirows so it knows that now body_scripts is an array, rather that a plain list
What do you think about that?
I think it's a good idea to check for dups. In fact, thought should be placed on whether there should be two separate namespaces (one for body, one for head) or one namespace for both -- do we want to deny a dup that originated in the head whose destination is body, or vise versa?
I don't think there is need for merging the two procs in a more generical one. Some little code replication exists, but removing that could be as good as letting thing as they are, leaving space for further difference in script management.
Consider preparing/referring to a tutorial or other further documentation, as it could really encourage its usage and our feedback!