> 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? > > Ryan Baxter wrote: > 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. > > Stanton Sievers wrote: > Wouldn't we want to follow any 3xx redirects to ensure that the final > content is available? > > Another idea I thought of that might be worth evaluating... what if you > proxied the iframe urls through Shindig's proxy servlet and returned an error > page from there? Maybe add a query param flag that the proxy servlet can > read to know whether to return the original response or an error page. That > could at least solve the issue of having several http requests. > > The response.error and response.status stuff makes sense.
I don't think that would work. I don't think the proxy would be able to rewrite all of the content and fix images, css, links, etc... for the page to function properly. - Dan ----------------------------------------------------------- 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 > >
