Well, if you're aware of the side-effects, that's fine by me. Still it's a bit like using an h-bomb to treat cancer patients, sure it's likely to cure it 100% of the times, as long as you don't mind your patient dying in the process.
Michel Belleville 2009/11/16 nowotny <nowotn...@gmail.com> > On 16 Lis, 11:40, Michel Belleville <michel.bellevi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Well for a start I wouldn't use a this kind of pause() trick if I were > you, > > it's pretty brutal suff looping along until time has passed will likely > > freeze your interface and that's a bad thing. > Like I said... it's only a stand in for the ajax call that'll replace > it in the end... the thing is I have to test if on the IP and port the > user specified there is a certain service running and if a user puts > in an invalid IP (where the service is not running) the ajax call > takes some time (until timeout) to process... during that time the > interface is frozen and I want it to be... I just want it to show that > it's testing the connection and I thought putting "Testing" into DOM > before doing the ajax call would inform the user what's happening but > it's not being changed until after the whole function finishes > processing when it's already to late cause I already have the results > of the ajax call... > > > You'd probably be better off > > with a setTimeout() which would delegate exécution of a callback after > the > > time, thus truely imitating an Asynchronous call. > Again, I said I want to do a synchronous ajax call... and I don't need > to delay anything so setTimeout() is not needed here... > > -- > nowotny >
