Thanks a lot for your explaining!

So it is a-feature-and-not-a-bug thing. :)

Witold

Am Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:57:35 -0600
schrieb Jeremy Thomerson <jer...@wickettraining.com>:

> Yeah - but if Wicket is using that object in a pool, this doesn't sound like
> a good idea - because it won't get the state reset.
> 
> --
> Jeremy Thomerson
> http://www.wickettraining.com
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Pedro Santos <pedros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Actually everything in javascript is pluggable, just the call to abort
> > method from XmlHttpRequest you can't avoid.
> > Ex.:
> >
> > Wicket.Ajax.getTransport = function(){
> > var t = Wicket.Ajax.createTransport();
> > t.abort = function(){console.log('do nothing');};
> > return t;
> > };
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Pedro Santos <pedros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The actual wicket ajax implementation use a pool of XmlHttpRequest
> > objects.
> > > So, after an request is made, wicket call his abort method to get his
> > > readyState back to 0, and use this object again. Other frameworks like
> > > jQuery have an pluggable factory method to create XmlHttpRequest objects.
> > > The default implementation don't use pool, just always create an new for
> > > each ajax request.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Witold Czaplewski <
> > > witold-mail...@cts-media.eu> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I just updated Firebug to the new version 1.5.
> > >>
> > >> Using this version I noticed that all ajax requests created by Wicket
> > seem
> > >> to
> > >> abort. Firebug always shows "200 Aborted" and not "200 OK". You can use
> > >> all
> > >> ajax demos (http://wicketstuff.org/wicket14/ajax/) to reproduce it.
> > >>
> > >> And I don't think it is a bug in firebug, because other sites i've
> > tested
> > >> (facebook, jquery demo, mootools demo) return a "200 OK".
> > >>
> > >> cheers,
> > >> Witold
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Pedro Henrique Oliveira dos Santos
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pedro Henrique Oliveira dos Santos
> >

Reply via email to