Somebody's mail server thinks that rpc.js is evil. Can you attach it to a jira issue?
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Paul Lindner <[email protected]> wrote: > running rpc.js through jslint (as Henning did a while back) reveals some > potential issues. > > The issue here appears to be that: > > setAuthToken() calls setupFrame(), which in turn relies upon relayChannel > variable to be set. However that variable is set below this function, so > there's really an implicit declaration of relayUrl prior this this.. > > I've attached a cleaned up rpc.js, anyone want to try it out on those > platforms? > > > > > > On Mar 24, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Weygandt, Jon wrote: > >> On a related issue for fe and nix methods: >> >> Which should come first, the call to gadgets.rpc.setAuthToken or the >> placement of the iframe on the page? >> >> If the setAuthToken comes first, I have seen the "nix" and "fe" methods >> not getting properly initialized, so in IE6 and FF2 it will use "ifpc". >> Which is OK, but it means that there is lots of "dead" code in rpc.js. "nix" >> and "fe" methods will never get properly set up. >> >> If the setAuthToken comes after the iframe, there is a race condition, >> where the iframe can be initialized and make the first rpc call before the >> container is ready to receive it, which creates functional issues. >> >> Thanks, >> Jon >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Brian Eaton [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 11:50 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: killing "fe" channel for gadgets.rpc >> >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Paul Lindner <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Any idea why this breaks? >> >> I'm digging now. There is something wrong with the fall back to IFPC. >> >> I am not in love with the Chrome javascript debugger. >> >>> Also, any idea why Chrome does not use the wpm method? I thought it >>> was based off a fairly recent version of WebKit, no? >> >> Not recent enough. > > >
