Re: requestNavigateTo and beta1 v.s. trunk differences

2012-06-01 Thread Henry Saputra
Henry made in this review, >>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/4486/ and the problem goes away.  Henry > can >>> you take a look at this?  I am pretty sure it is the changes in >>> SiteHolder.dispose that are causing the problem here.  While I think > using >>>

Re: requestNavigateTo and beta1 v.s. trunk differences

2012-06-01 Thread Ryan J Baxter
ere. While I think using >> a buffering element would solve the problem, the API (at this point) >> indicates the buffering element is optional, so everything should work >> without it. >> >> -Ryan >> >> >> >> >> From: daviesd >> To:

Re: requestNavigateTo and beta1 v.s. trunk differences

2012-06-01 Thread Henry Saputra
a buffering element would solve the problem, the API (at this point) >> indicates the buffering element is optional, so everything should work >> without it. >> >> -Ryan >> >> >> >> >> From: daviesd >> To: , >> Date: 06/01/2012 1

Re: requestNavigateTo and beta1 v.s. trunk differences

2012-06-01 Thread Ryan J Baxter
+1 to creating a JIRA, forgot to put that in my email. -Ryan From: Dan Dumont/Westford/IBM@Lotus To: dev@shindig.apache.org, Cc: daviesd , Henry Saputra Date: 06/01/2012 03:12 PM Subject:Re: requestNavigateTo and beta1 v.s. trunk differences Hi Doug, The long term

Re: requestNavigateTo and beta1 v.s. trunk differences

2012-06-01 Thread Dan Dumont
Re: requestNavigateTo and beta1 v.s. trunk differences Ryan, Thank You Thank You Thank You. I will try what you suggest with the buffering, but I'm not sure I want that as a long term solution. doug On 6/1/12 2:55 PM, "Ryan J Baxter" wrote: > This is certainly a bu

Re: requestNavigateTo and beta1 v.s. trunk differences

2012-06-01 Thread daviesd
ing should work > without it. > > -Ryan > > > > > From: daviesd > To: , > Date: 06/01/2012 11:30 AM > Subject:Re: requestNavigateTo and beta1 v.s. trunk differences > > > > Ya, that was my first thought. But inspecting with firebug re

Re: requestNavigateTo and beta1 v.s. trunk differences

2012-06-01 Thread Ryan J Baxter
without it. -Ryan From: daviesd To: , Date: 06/01/2012 11:30 AM Subject:Re: requestNavigateTo and beta1 v.s. trunk differences Ya, that was my first thought. But inspecting with firebug reveals that there is not even any content from the view navigated to. Even if I

Re: requestNavigateTo and beta1 v.s. trunk differences

2012-06-01 Thread daviesd
-Ryan > > > > > From: daviesd > To: shindig , > Date: 06/01/2012 10:58 AM > Subject:Re: requestNavigateTo and beta1 v.s. trunk differences > > > > Doh! It¹s Friday. I guess I should have described the symptoms. I end up > with a gadget

Re: requestNavigateTo and beta1 v.s. trunk differences

2012-06-01 Thread Ryan J Baxter
, Date: 06/01/2012 10:58 AM Subject:Re: requestNavigateTo and beta1 v.s. trunk differences Doh! It¹s Friday. I guess I should have described the symptoms. I end up with a gadget with no content area (collapsed). On 6/1/12 10:50 AM, "daviesd" wrote: > Does anyone (D

Re: requestNavigateTo and beta1 v.s. trunk differences

2012-06-01 Thread daviesd
Doh! It¹s Friday. I guess I should have described the symptoms. I end up with a gadget with no content area (collapsed). On 6/1/12 10:50 AM, "daviesd" wrote: > Does anyone (Dan?) have any idea why this code > > container.rpcRegister("requestNavigateTo", function > requestNavigateTo(rpcAr

requestNavigateTo and beta1 v.s. trunk differences

2012-06-01 Thread daviesd
Does anyone (Dan?) have any idea why this code container.rpcRegister("requestNavigateTo", function requestNavigateTo(rpcArgs, view, params) { var site = rpcArgs[osapi.container.GadgetSite.RPC_ARG_KEY], url = site.getActiveSiteHolder().getUrl(), renderParams = {