Learn how easy it is to sync an existing GitHub or Google Code repo to a SourceForge project! See Demo
If you look at the latest revision I have put in branch prib (365) and the thresholds.xml under tableDefinitions under WLM you will see I have changed the objectTable to take in new tag delete which can be an action script. It all appears to work except for passing a parameter which is the name of the threshold.
<assignSharedConstant name="objectType" type="raw">
<assignSharedConstant name="objectName" type="fixed">
It is not clear how to get the table row value passed.
You have made some major changes to the objectTable, this was never intended to be done. I am amazed you have managed to work your way around that code, it is not a section of the code I look forward to working in. One of the main goals of 3.5 branch was to completely rewrite the tableObject and allow for this type of expansion much easier and without having to modify the core files so that the code could survive an upgrade. To be honest the objectTable is removed from 3.5 for testing and will only be put back in for backwards compatibility and I have intent to completely remove it in the next 6 months.
hum....I do not have the time right now to read through your changes in the objectTable and table definition in the next few weeks as I am focused on releasing the 3.5 branch.
... If all goes well I will have time to look at what you did and get back to you on the 22 for me 23 for you.
Hum... after my bref overview in 3.3 a block value is the value contained in the element '<blockName>_<value>' so if this value dose not exists you will get null and the blockName needs to be unique for that page or you might get a different value. When I output the data right now I put hidden div's in with raw values for each column that can be used to access this data for a row or a detailed view. To be honest it is not clear because it is really messy, actions were hacked together and took on a life of there own you are using them and extending the TE in a way that was never intended in this revision. (I know I keep saying this but it was rewritten in 3.5 and I can pass and use object instead of retrieving values from the HTML).
I do not know if what you want to do can be done easily...
hum.... if you are in a detailed view then try using the code 'CALLING_PAGE . "_TableResults_ROW"' for your block value. (this will only work for a detailed view)
dang you are just too good and a bit ahead of me.
I promise to get back to you as soon as I can.
Just you and I should just talk sometime and align what you and I are working on.
I hear you, It dose help and I really do like what you have done.
I made a few changes to your code base I think they will fix some of the problems you were having (extraFunctions.js)
you should also look at
The main problem with the object table is that it is not modular and thus if I were to make changes I could (have in 3.5 since I do not use the object table) break everything you have done.
As I said you are ahead of me. It is where I am heading within the new core.
I hear you about the action script and all I can say is that I am working on making it easier, and changing the naming. It is high on our todo list.
after the 22 I will sit down and start bring what you have done into the 3.5 branch... It is where I want to go so all is good.