Atozed Forums › Atozed Software Products › IntraWeb › English › IntraWeb General Discussion v
ExecuteJS and CallbackResponse.AddJavaScriptToExecute

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Thread Modes
ExecuteJS and CallbackResponse.AddJavaScriptToExecute
RenSword Offline
Junior Member
**
Posts: 21
Threads: 8
Joined: Sep 2023
Reputation: 0
#1
01-15-2024, 12:53 AM
Is there any difference between ExecuteJS() and CallbackResponse.AddJavaScriptToExecute()?
Find
Reply
Alexandre Machado Offline
Administrator
*******
Posts: 2,261
Threads: 196
Joined: Mar 2018
Reputation: 86
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
#2
01-28-2024, 06:02 AM
ExecuteJS() calls AddJavaScriptToExecuteAsCDATA() internally *when* it is a callback response (async). If the code is being executed from a sync event, it will call AddToInitProc() which also executes the JS code, but when the page loads.

So, in general it is safe to replace CallbackResponse.AddJavaScriptToExecute() by ExecuteJS() (which is waaaay shorter) with the advantage that it will also work during a sync event.
Find
Reply
RenSword Offline
Junior Member
**
Posts: 21
Threads: 8
Joined: Sep 2023
Reputation: 0
#3
01-29-2024, 12:34 AM
(01-28-2024, 06:02 AM)Alexandre Machado Wrote: ExecuteJS() calls AddJavaScriptToExecuteAsCDATA() internally *when* it is a callback response (async). If the code is being executed from a sync event, it will call AddToInitProc() which also executes the JS code, but when the page loads.

So, in general it is safe to replace CallbackResponse.AddJavaScriptToExecute() by ExecuteJS() (which is waaaay shorter) with the advantage that it will also work during a sync event.

Okay, thanks alex
Find
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)