Maybe this applies?
http://ajaxian.com/archives/reusing-xmlhttprequest-without-abort

<http://ajaxian.com/archives/reusing-xmlhttprequest-without-abort>Snippet
========================

Last week, we 
mentioned<http://ajaxian.com/archives/the-xmlhttprequest-reuse-dilemma>
Eric
Pascarello’s “XMLHttpRequest Reuse
Dilemma”<http://ajaxian.com/archives/the-xmlhttprequest-reuse-dilemma>article.
Eric explained that to reuse an XMLHttpRequest object in IE, you must call
abort().

In a follow-up, Pavan
Keely<http://keelypavan.blogspot.com/2006/03/reusing-xmlhttprequest-object-in-ie.html>
says
you actually don’t need the *abort()* call. Instead, just make sure the
open() call happens before onreadystatechange(), rather than afterwards (as
in Eric’s example).
========================

The article goes on to clarify that even if you want to abort the call you
still don't need to use that function.

-R

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Juergen Donnerstag <
juergen.donners...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I understand the explanation why it is like it is, but I can imagine
> this question will be raised again, since at first the request returns
> an error, that is reported by various dev tools and that triggers some
> uncertainties in every developers mind. In order to give devs the
> correct feeling "request was successful", is there anything we can do
> to "fix" it that still works with the pool idea?
>
> - Juergen
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Pedro Santos <pedros...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > The default implementation of getTransport take an object from an pool.
> So
> > if you always return an created XmlHttpRequest, with createTransport for
> > instance (no more pool), it is ok to change the abort function. The
> > readyState will alway start with 0 (no need to reset an already
> > used XmlHttpRequest)
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Jeremy Thomerson <
> jer...@wickettraining.com
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pedro Henrique Oliveira dos Santos
> >
>

Reply via email to