Topic: In-place-editing without AJAX?

Is there a way to utilize the in-place-editing of Prototype without being forced to immediately send/retrieve AJAX requests? For my purposes I simply want the GUI features and not the AJAX stuff. Any idea if that's possible?

On a similar note, do I understand it correctly that if I have a form consisting of, say, 10 in-place editable fields, there will be made 10 individual calls to the server to get the default value?

Re: In-place-editing without AJAX?

Perhaps what you want instead of in-place-editing is an edit link below the item's details. With the help of AJAXy magic, clicking this link will replace the item's details with a form with many fields. You can edit any/all the fields then click the save button. This will do some more AJAX goodness and replace the form with the newly edited item details.

Is that what you want?

Railscasts - Free Ruby on Rails Screencasts

Re: In-place-editing without AJAX?

Thanks for you answer. No, it's not quite what I want in this case. Though that might be good in other situations. It doesn't quite seem you can do that directly either with Prototype. I tried to "dismantle" the Ajax.InPlaceEditor class. I got half the way but I can't quite comprehend what's going on after the result is received via Ajax (I need to circumvent that part). It might be easier to just write the thing from scratch myself. I had just hoped I didn't have to learn any JavaScript as I never had any desire for that. Awful language. lol

I scouted around through some of the other frameworks like jQuery and Fork. They all seem to insist on coupling this inplace-editing and Ajax. I find that a bit strange since they are strictly speaking two very different things. They are often used together but you can certainly think of good uses for both seperately.

There are probably more than one way to achieve what I need. My primary need is that I have several editable fields that have to be submitted together to the server. I could use a normal form but they have to fit into a fairly small area so I think that would look rather "heavy". (Btw, this is my ongoing work on doing some fancy searching that I mentioned a few days ago in another thread.)