destroy

How to destroy inline CKEditor with jQuery

五迷三道 提交于 2019-12-05 07:31:53
Let's say that this is code I have: <div class="editor" contenteditable></div> // This is working for me $('.editor').click(function(){ $(this).ckeditor(); }); // This is the problem $('.editor').on('focusout', function(){ $(this).ckeditorDestroy(); // What will destroy ckeditor? }); I know that this function doesn't exists, but I didn't found nothing what was working? HTML <div contenteditable="true" class="editor">Editor 1!</div> <div contenteditable="true" class="editor">Editor 2!</div> JS CKEDITOR.disableAutoInline = true; $( '.editor' ).click( function(){ $( this ).ckeditor( function() {

How do I destroy a jquery resizable without destroying child resizables?

人走茶凉 提交于 2019-12-05 03:43:30
I have a parent div which is resizable (width only) - within this div I have a number of other divs that are also resizable (height only). At times I want to either disable or destroy the parent width resizing but leave the inner height resizing in place. When I call $("#idTopDiv").resizable("destroy"); , this destroys the resizables on all of the child divs as well. Typical layout is:- <div id=idDivTop> <!-- Resizable width --> <div id=idInnerOne> </div> <div id=idInnerTwo> <!-- Resizable height --> <div> </div> Appreciate any ideas. I think this happens because the destroy of resizable

Detecting global destruction in Perl

雨燕双飞 提交于 2019-12-05 00:16:30
问题 I'd like to detect if my object is being DESTROY 'd as part of global destruction, and print out a warning (as that'd clearly be an error and lead to data loss). The obvious way to do that would seem to be: sub DESTROY { my $self = shift; # ⋮ if (i_am_in_global_destruction()) { warn "I survived until global destruction"; } } but I have been unable to find a good way to detect global destruction (instead of normal refcount hit 0 destruction). By "good way", I mean not this, which though it

Rails 3 friendship model : how to ignore a friend request?

早过忘川 提交于 2019-12-04 19:22:04
I have the traditional friendship model: The user model has: has_many :friendships, :dependent => :destroy has_many :friends, :through => :friendships, :dependent => :destroy has_many :inverse_friendships, :class_name => "Friendship", :foreign_key => "friend_id", :dependent => :destroy has_many :inverse_friends, :through => :inverse_friendships, :source => :user, :dependent => :destroy I would like to define the status "friend" only if a friend request has been sent, and accepted by the other user. Everything works fine except that I did not manage to process the "ignore friend request" part.

SurfaceView with camera preview is not destroyed

六月ゝ 毕业季﹏ 提交于 2019-12-04 09:00:30
I have a Tab Activity with 2 tabs (activities). Each tab has a 3d Open GL scene drawn on top of a SurfaceView with camera preview. Yet, depending on device orientation, tabs are being switched. The problem is that when the other activity starts, it calls camera.open(), which generates exception, saying that camera service is unavailable. In fact, the problem is that camera is not stopped when activity is paused, in other words onSurfaceDestroyed() is not called for the SurfaceView. I tried to stop camera when onPause() for activities is called, but get the same error still. Anyone had same

Android Activity Intent remains after shutdown

天大地大妈咪最大 提交于 2019-12-04 07:18:15
SETUP One Activity, SingleTop, receives an intent from a notification. Intent is consumed by activity. User hits back button to end the activity. onDestory gets called and isFinishing() returns true. Long press Home key to bring up recent apps. Launch previously closed application. Similar situation occurs with onNewIntent when onStop is called after user presses home key on activity. Problem Upon recreation of the activity after it's finished, the same intent from the notification is used. I don't want this. Is there a way to tell the system that we already consumed that notification so stop

How would I make destroy() method in tkinter work with my code?

纵饮孤独 提交于 2019-12-04 05:36:54
from tkinter import * class GameBoard(Frame): def __init__(self): Frame.__init__(self) self.master.title("test") self.grid() #button frame self.__buttonPane = Frame(self) self.__buttonPane.grid() #buttons self.__buttonA1 = Button(self.__buttonPane,text = "A1",command = self._close) self.__buttonA1.grid() def _close(self): GameBoard().destroy() def main(): GameBoard().mainloop() main() How would I make my function for close to work? GameBoard() creates a new instance of GameBoard . Therefore: GameBoard().destroy() creates a new instance and calls destroy() on it which has no effect on the

Destroy a PHP session on clicking a link

别等时光非礼了梦想. 提交于 2019-12-04 03:29:58
Is this code valid? <a href="#" onclick="<?php session_destroy();?>">Logout</a> No it is not a valid code. It will destroy the session at the time of loading the php page. For destroying session on click you should write <a href="logout.php" >Logout</a> in logout.php session_destroy(); Make a page called logout.php Logout.php_ _ ___ <?php Session_start(); Session_destroy(); header('Location: ' . $_SERVER['HTTP_REFERER']); ?> Your page_ _ ____ <a href="Logout.php">Logout</a> Wrong code. you can use this code: <?php if($_GET['logout']==1) session_destroy(); ?> <a href="?logout=1">Logout</a> That

default_scope breaks (update|delete|destroy)_all in some cases

扶醉桌前 提交于 2019-12-04 02:40:41
I believe this is a bug in Rails 3. I am hoping someone here can steer me in the correct direction. The code posted below, is purely for illustration of this problem. Hopefully this does not confuse the issue. Given I have a Post model, and a Comment model. Post has_many Comments, and Comment belongs_to Post. With a default_scope set on the Post model, defining joins() and where() relations. In this case where() is dependent on joins(). Normally Posts wouldn't be dependent on Comments. Again, I just want to give a simple example. This could be any case when where() is dependent on joins().

Can an object destroy itself?

好久不见. 提交于 2019-12-04 00:11:01
I have an object which needs to destroy itself. Can it be done? Is the example wrong? void Pawn::specialMoves(Coordinate const& from, Coordinate const& to, int passant) { /*...*/ m_board->replace(to, new Queen(m_colour));//replace pawn by queen } void Board::replace(Coordinate const &to, Piece* newPiece) { delete tile[to.x()][to.y()]; tile[to.x()][to.y()] = newPiece; } Yes, it's legal to call delete this from inside a member function. But there's very rarely a good reason to do so (especially if you're writing idiomatic C++ where most memory-management tasks should be delegated to containers,