Regards, Dave Brown
SCJP 6 - [url]http://www.dbws.net/[/url] - Check out Grails Forum
Regards, Dave Brown
SCJP 6 - [url]http://www.dbws.net/[/url] - Check out Grails Forum
Mark Spritzler wrote:Yeah, I agree, I always get all these emails after posting about how it is still waiting to send it to the mailing list. I think I will send an email to them to add it to the Spring Forums so that it is much better.
But in the meantime, I am looking forward to see the tutorials that you create.
One question, why don't you like the list view in Grails, I understand that it doesn't generate delete, etc links, but you still have a link on a row that can take you to the show view, which is very easy to change to take you to say the edit view. And also very easy to add a link in each row to call the delete controller method.
I would be interested in seeing a tutorial that you can do a one to many page, where when you want to add something to the many side, it just has a Web 2.0 popup window for the create view of the many domain.
Good Luck
Mark
Regards, Dave Brown
SCJP 6 - [url]http://www.dbws.net/[/url] - Check out Grails Forum
Mark Spritzler wrote:I would be interested in seeing a tutorial that you can do a one to many page, where when you want to add something to the many side, it just has a Web 2.0 popup window for the create view of the many domain.
Mark
Gregg Bolinger wrote:It's live
http://groovy.dzone.com/articles/better-scaffolding-jquery-part
Mark Spritzler wrote:I liked both parts Gregg.
I do wish it wasn't that much more work for the error handling, and having to create a wrapper object to return for the domain/errors. Then having to do the JavaScript work to correctly display what comes back, etc.
Mark
Gregg Bolinger wrote:If you have recommendations for improvements, do tell. I'm always looking to make my code better.
Am I off my rocker and just being JavaScript newbie?
Gregg Bolinger wrote:
Am I off my rocker and just being JavaScript newbie?
No, not at all. This is all perfectly valid. And if these callbacks were reusable in any way, then I might do that. In the case of the tutorial it just would have created more jumping around to see things, in my opinion. jQuery callbacks can get really nested and ugly at times.
Mark Spritzler wrote:
Gregg Bolinger wrote:
Am I off my rocker and just being JavaScript newbie?
No, not at all. This is all perfectly valid. And if these callbacks were reusable in any way, then I might do that. In the case of the tutorial it just would have created more jumping around to see things, in my opinion. jQuery callbacks can get really nested and ugly at times.
That is where I have a different opinion coming from Java.
Because it seems to get nested and ugly a lot in JavaScript and even though the callback wasn't reusable, I would still do it to look clean, in my opinion. Even in a tutorial. I just found it easier to read how I wrote it, than it being nested, I have to almost shift my brain to read it when it is all nested, so that I can make sure my brain has the context of the next function in my head and understood.
Mark
Gregg Bolinger wrote:
Mark Spritzler wrote:
Gregg Bolinger wrote:
Am I off my rocker and just being JavaScript newbie?
No, not at all. This is all perfectly valid. And if these callbacks were reusable in any way, then I might do that. In the case of the tutorial it just would have created more jumping around to see things, in my opinion. jQuery callbacks can get really nested and ugly at times.
That is where I have a different opinion coming from Java.
Because it seems to get nested and ugly a lot in JavaScript and even though the callback wasn't reusable, I would still do it to look clean, in my opinion. Even in a tutorial. I just found it easier to read how I wrote it, than it being nested, I have to almost shift my brain to read it when it is all nested, so that I can make sure my brain has the context of the next function in my head and understood.
Mark
Even in Java, I find it simpler to keep things together, when it makes sense. For you, it may never make sense. But if there are very few lines of functionality outside of the inner function, I don't see the point in externalizing it for the sake of externalizing it. Encapsulating it in a single location is a lot easier, for me. Then I don't have to jump around between methods so much.
...and tighter coupling
With a little knowledge, a cast iron skillet is non-stick and lasts a lifetime. |