Rails Ruby on Rails

Comments and changes to this ticket

• 

  Michael Koziarski July 9th, 2008 @ 10:15 AM

  • Assigned user set to “Michael Koziarski”
  • Tag changed from “actionpack, actionview, helper, patch, prototype” to “actionpack, actionview, enhancement, helper, patch, prototype, tiny”
• 

  DHH July 9th, 2008 @ 04:04 PM

  • State changed from “new” to “committed”
• 

  Pratik July 10th, 2008 @ 01:02 AM

  • State changed from “committed” to “resolved”

  Resolved in http://github.com/rails/rails/co...

• 

  Tarmo Tänav October 6th, 2008 @ 02:19 PM

  Hey everyone,

  Looks like there was a conflict between this change and one added later : http://github.com/rails/rails/co... (ignore the fact that said commit does nothing because the commit introduced by this ticket, albeit earlier, overrides all methods added by it).

  My question is, why should button_to_remote use submit_to_remote style API when it could easily use link_to_remote style and thus become (by default) usable without a containing form?

  Is there any benefit to keeping submit_to_remote and button_to_remote as aliases instead of separating button_to_remote to be something like link_to_remote and submit_to_remote as a specialization of that button_to_remote which applies the :with => "Form.serialize(this.form)" and :name => name options?

• 

  Michael Koziarski October 6th, 2008 @ 03:45 PM

  • State changed from “resolved” to “open”
  • Milestone cleared.

  Let's make sure we have a nice api before we cut the 2.2 release.

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Clemens Kofler October 6th, 2008 @ 11:56 PM

  Tarmo,

  on the Pro side I see the benefits of the change you're suggesting because it makes plenty of sense. Personally, I wouldn't have implemented submit_to_remote as it is in the first place but I guess we're touching some really old Rails code base here.

  On the other hand, the reason why I originally opened this ticket was because of the inconsistency. Back then, I was surprised to find that link_to had its counterpart link_to_remote whereas button_to didn't have one - at least not by name. Making button_to_remote behave totally different than button_to might lead to some amount of confusion. Moreover, without a containing form, the button wouldn't degrade gracefully with JS turned off. I'm not sure if the current solution degrades gracefully but that's certainly a downpoint.

  In short: I have a hard time deciding which I find makes more sense - so I guess this is up to you guys!

• 

  Michael Koziarski October 9th, 2008 @ 05:12 PM

  • Assigned user changed from “Michael Koziarski” to “Pratik”

  Moving this to pratik as I may be on holiday during the RC

• 

  DHH October 9th, 2008 @ 05:25 PM

  • Assigned user changed from “Pratik” to “Tarmo Tänav”

  I'm +1 on making button_to_remote work like link_to_remote and keeping submit_to_remote as it always was.

• 

  Michael Koziarski October 9th, 2008 @ 05:48 PM

  Does this do it:

  http://github.com/rails/rails/co...

• 

  Pratik October 16th, 2008 @ 11:01 AM

  • State changed from “open” to “resolved”