On 08/13/2009 09:54 AM, Joe Cole wrote: > > >> Yes. I'd give that a shot. I am wondering why you're not going for the >> watchdog timer. I'd throw such logic at this problem too. > > Yes, this would be a good solution in general. You are meaning > something similar to the way gmail loads, and if it takes longer than > usual it tells you? > We have users on networks that sometimes can take many minutes to load > the site (they are used to this on all sites) so this may cause issues > there though.
That's a problem with watchdog timers. I'm not happy it takes minutes to load the site; but that's an issue for another time. >> I think that it doesn't have this logic because there's no single error >> handler that would satisfy all users. > > Ok, makes sense. That being said, there is some exception handling in the trunk version of the IFrame linker's JavaScript template that you should review. >> Now I see that the bootstrap logic in trunk HEAD is somewhat different >> than your original example (posted on 4-Aug). Please take a moment to >> look at trunk HEAD's bootstrap to see if there's something you can use. >> Perhaps the diff between your current GWT version and HEAD will be >> illuminating. > > Ahh. I just checked and the current linker we are using is the old > IFrame linker from 1.5.3 as you suspected. > Am I going to have to upgrade (we are currently on 1.5) to try this > linker? Yes, if you want to go whole-hog. I'd suggest a diff first to see if you can simply patch your local copy. >>>>> Please try the cross-site linker. >> >>>> I've never used it before - how will this help? >> >> I'm not sure it will. The XS linker implements another way of getting >> the *.cache.html file to the client. It's cheap to try (simply add a >> line to your module.xml file) and may be a win in that the firewall >> responds differently. Although if it's a size-based rule, the firewall >> will probably restrict this technique too. I admit that I'm grasping at >> straws with this suggestion. > > :) > >> On this topic, you might also try upgrading to the GWT trunk and >> experimenting with the code splitting logic. There is a cost to this >> besides time: you will have to analyze and modify the code to see what >> parts of it can load later than others[*]. So, following this suggesting >> will produce a branch of your current trunk. The SOYC linker produces a >> report that will aid in this implementation. Remember that you can have >> several GWT versions installed on a single machine; if there's a problem >> you simply revert to the older GWT version. > > I'd love to upgrade asap, but can't really before things stabilize as > we release daily at the moment to production sites. > Any idea when things are going to stabilize for an RC? No. That being said, if you're on 1.5 you should /very seriously/ evaluate the upgrade of your code base to 1.7. I know: there's never time to upgrade. I don't know what the delta is in the linker between TRUNK and 1.7. You should be able to comprehend the differences in the IFrame linker's JavaScript template between your version and the version in HEAD. I cannot see a reason why some of the differences between HEAD and 1.5 cannot be backported. At least you'll see a path to get some of the exception trapping and reporting you want. >> [*] >> And if you're on GWT 1.5 or earlier, you will see a lot of deprecated >> code warnings. >> >>>>> I'm guessing others haven't seen this since it's specific to these >>>>> firewall settings? Or are these separate customers with different >>>>> firewalls? I have seen on this list a very difficult to reproduce >>>>> issue regarding RPC cargo getting truncated on the trip to the server. >>>>> But, obviously, that's after loading the script. >> >>>> These are two separate customers (one university installation, one >>>> corporate on separate continents). >>>> I have seen the truncation issue before with a personal firewall >>>> (Norton) as well. >> >> Just to be clear: these installations use the same firewall with the >> same (probably default) settings? > > Two separate firewalls. I am not sure if they use the same one or not, > but I can try and find out. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to Google-Web-Toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
