> On 2011-12-06 23:03:02, Stanton Sievers wrote:
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/container/container.js,
> >  line 934
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/3037/diff/2/?file=62529#file62529line934>
> >
> >     I'd rather be checking for a status of any 2xx code.  I'd rather treat 
> > redirects and other 3xx codes as failures if they are going to fail at 
> > render time anyway.
> >     
> >     Also, what is the difference between checking response.error and 
> > response.status.  Shouldn't they indicate the same thing?

I ignored the 3xx codes because I figured the browser would be able to handle 
them and redirect the iframe accordingly.

I looked into the response.error case.  It looks like that will happen if 
something goes wrong in the containers proxy.  The response.status is the 
result of actually making the http request.


- 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
> 
>

Reply via email to