> On 2011-12-06 23:03:02, Stanton Sievers wrote: > > Overall this seems OK. > > > > Have you looked at the performance impact here using lifecycle logging? > > > > The extra HTTP round trip could be costly, especially none of the HEAD > > request can be cached and reused by the subsequent GET. Just throwing it > > out there, how much sense would it make to do a GET instead of a HEAD > > request to check for page availability? My reasoning here is that at least > > the browser will have cached the page contents from the initial GET making > > the subsequent GET more performant. In the error case the HEAD and GET > > will take approximately the same amount of time to fail.
Would the browser actually cache the response of the osapi.http.get? I am sure Shindig would but I am not sure the browser would. The request for the get will be a post to the rpc servlet, the iframe will make a request to the URL, would the browser be smart enough to know those are the same? - Ryan ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/3037/#review3681 ----------------------------------------------------------- On 2011-12-06 22:36:38, Ryan Baxter wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/3037/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 2011-12-06 22:36:38) > > > Review request for shindig, Dan Dumont and Stanton Sievers. > > > Summary > ------- > > When you call commoncontainer.navigateUrl if the URL cannot be reached the > caller has no way of knowing if the URL was navigated successfully or not. To > solve this we make a head request to the URL we are navigating to and add a > callback to the API. > > It is important to note that we will not be caching the response of the head > request. While this could possibly give us better performance we have no way > of guaranteeing the server will still be up next time and everything may > fail. This is different from the gadget case where we have the gadget XML > cached on the server. > > > This addresses bug SHINDIG-1669. > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1669 > > > Diffs > ----- > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/open-views/viewenhancements-container.js > 1211103 > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/embeddedexperiences/embedded_experiences_container.js > 1211103 > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/container/container.js > 1211103 > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/container.util/util.js > 1211103 > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/content/samplecontainer/examples/embeddedexperiences/PhotoList.xml > 1211103 > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/test/javascript/features/container.url/container_url_test.js > 1211103 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/3037/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > Tested in container as well as updating unit tests. > > > Thanks, > > Ryan > >
