In our project, we had to assign a variable name to periodically_call_remote, so that we could manipulate it using rjs/ javascript (for instance, calling stop()). The details are on this ticket: #468 Add :name to periodically_call_remote - Ruby on Rails - rails
cheers, Herval
In our project, we had to assign a variable name to periodically_call_remote, so that we could manipulate it using rjs/ javascript (for instance, calling stop()). The details are on this ticket: #468 Add :name to periodically_call_remote - Ruby on Rails - rails
is it worth allowing a little more flexibility? Eg I might want to
store the executor as a property of some other object. A flexible way
round this would be if you could supply a function and we'd call it
passing the brand new periodical executor. Can't decide whether I
think this would be overkill.
Fred
It seems like those are both overkill over the current ability to do: var my_updater = <%= periodically_call_remote ... %>; -hume.
You can’t do that today, since periodically_call_remote generates a
block… I wouldn’t have come up with the patch if it did in fact work as you said 