Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"Loading.." sticks
#11
(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. Toungue

You found a loophole in my logic! Good jobSmile
#12
(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. Toungue

You found a loophole in my logic! Good jobSmile

Was this the loophole game? o.0
#13
(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. Toungue

You found a loophole in my logic! Good jobSmile

Was this the loophole game? o.0
No. But if it was, you'd have wonToungue
#14
The loader needs to be implemented slightly differently. An AJAX queue with the loader attached to the AJAX handler could solve the issue.
#15
(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.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)