[Seaside] jQuery variable check for onBlur

[jtuchel at objektfabrik.de]

Gaston,

Am 10.04.13 17:11, schrieb Gastón Dall' Oglio:
> Hello all.
>
> I guess that Seaside developers only wrap js construction that was 
> needed to give support to another pieces of Seaside (like ajax, 
> jQuery...), and they are not thinking in to give really support to 
> construct complex js code in with Smalltalk objects. For that reason 
> those js wrappers are incomplete and no correctly correlated to js 
> language.
Well, they are indeed incomplete, but cover quite some area. But I agree 
that sometimes the API to construct javascript statements feels strange. 
That is why I sometimes prefer to write a jQueryPlugin and integrate it 
with a subclass of JQPlugin on the Smalltalk side. Works quite well so far.
> For example, for conditional statements exists only JSCondition that 
> to evaluate only for true case, neither "If...else" nor "If...else 
> if...else" (JSIfThenElse wrap the conditional operator not conditional 
> statement).
Hmm. I wasn't aware of the differences between an if/then/else statement 
and the conditional statement. For me that was just the same thing with 
a shorter (and idiotic, but C-like) syntax. So the fix I suggest(ed) 
turns a JSIfThenElse form a conditional statement into an 
If..then...else statement. Not sure where there might be problems. Maybe 
if somebody uses JsIfThenElse on the right side of an assignment in JS. 
For my purposes, it does a good job.
>
> Recently I made an Seaside app and often I had to make js sentences 
> using "JSStream on:", no good :(. I've also seen other programmers 
> code which did the same, in Reef IIRC. Maybe to use amber for that to 
> be better...
>
> Below some inline comments:
>
> 2013/4/10 jtuchel at objektfabrik.de <mailto:jtuchel at objektfabrik.de> 
> <jtuchel at objektfabrik.de <mailto:jtuchel at objektfabrik.de>>
>
>
>      There's always something new to learn in Seaside and its
>     Javascript integration.
>
>
> Yes it's really true!
>
>     Please remember my fix if you need to have more than one
>     javascript statement executed (concatednated with a , on the
>     Smalltalk side) in either the true or false branch.
>
>     But maybe the fix isn't needed if you put those into a JavaScript
>     block. I never tried and never had the idea before until right now
>     as I type this.
>     I don't even know if
>
>     (a==b) ? {callA(); callB()} : {callC(); callD()};
>
>
> In conditional operator, you have to use "," instead to ";" to 
> separate sentences within brackets. Seaside to use an ";" to render js 
> when concatenate sentences, so you have a problem here :(
So my fix is perfect. Because it completely eliminates the conditional 
statement and nobody has to worry about that (once again, very 
technical) difference.

Or am I missing something?

Joachim