"Loading.." sticks

[x_Stricken_x]

(02-01-2009 07:19 AM)Rcpalace Wrote:  

(02-01-2009 07:17 AM)TomL Wrote:  Well, true. But you can always double-check the status once it disappears. It's not really complicated..

It isn't complicated but it'd probably take longer to make the checks than to actually post the post.

You found a loophole in my logic! Good job

[Imad Jomaa]

(02-01-2009 07:22 AM)TomL Wrote:  

(02-01-2009 07:19 AM)Rcpalace Wrote:  

(02-01-2009 07:17 AM)TomL Wrote:  Well, true. But you can always double-check the status once it disappears. It's not really complicated..

It isn't complicated but it'd probably take longer to make the checks than to actually post the post.

You found a loophole in my logic! Good job

Was this the loophole game? o.0

[x_Stricken_x]

(02-01-2009 07:30 AM)Rcpalace Wrote:  

(02-01-2009 07:22 AM)TomL Wrote:  

(02-01-2009 07:19 AM)Rcpalace Wrote:  

(02-01-2009 07:17 AM)TomL Wrote:  Well, true. But you can always double-check the status once it disappears. It's not really complicated..

It isn't complicated but it'd probably take longer to make the checks than to actually post the post.

You found a loophole in my logic! Good job

Was this the loophole game? o.0

No. But if it was, you'd have won

[Yumi]

The loader needs to be implemented slightly differently. An AJAX queue with the loader attached to the AJAX handler could solve the issue.

[x_Stricken_x]

(02-02-2009 08:55 AM)Yumi Wrote:  The loader needs to be implemented slightly differently. An AJAX queue with the loader attached to the AJAX handler could solve the issue.

Would that be sufficient though? I think it would, but again - I'm not sure.