Are any user agents other than IE8+ currently implementing or have
implemented XHR2 timeout?
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74802
I have a couple of things I wanted to question, which may or may not result
in clarification in the spec.
1. The spec says the timeout should fire after
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:25:33 +0100, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.org
wrote:
1. The spec says the timeout should fire after the specified number of
milliseconds has elapsed since the start of the request. I presume this
means literally that, with no bearing on whether or not data is coming
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.comwrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:25:33 +0100, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.org
wrote:
1. The spec says the timeout should fire after the specified number of
milliseconds has elapsed since the start of the request. I presume
On 12/21/2011 05:59 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
mailto:ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:25:33 +0100, Jarred Nicholls
jar...@webkit.org mailto:jar...@webkit.org wrote:
1. The spec says the timeout
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fiwrote:
On 12/21/2011 05:59 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
mailto:ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:25:33 +0100, Jarred Nicholls
On 12/21/2011 08:59 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
mailto:olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 12/21/2011 05:59 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren
ann...@opera.com
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fiwrote:
xhr.onprogress = function() {
this.timeout += 250;
}
What if a UA suspends scripts in background pages (eg. to save battery),
but allows XHR requests to continue? This would time out as soon as that
happened.
This
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fiwrote:
xhr.onprogress = function() {
this.timeout += 250;
}
What if a UA suspends scripts in background pages (eg. to save battery),
but allows XHR
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.org wrote:
You sound really self-conflicted based on how you started your message vs.
how you ended it.
Please be less vague.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fiwrote:
On 12/21/2011 08:59 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
mailto:Olli.Pettay@helsinki.**fi olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 12/21/2011 05:59 PM, Jarred
(11/12/21 23:47), Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:25:33 +0100, Jarred Nicholls
jar...@webkit.org wrote:
1. The spec says the timeout should fire after the specified number of
milliseconds has elapsed since the start of the request. I presume
this means literally that, with no
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.org
wrote:
1. Clean code, which is better for authors and the web platform. To
achieve the same results as a native dataTimeout, your snippet
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.orgwrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.org
wrote:
1. Clean code, which is better for authors and the web platform.
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:54:28 +0100, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
wrote:
I think timeout is a bit too limiting. Especially the step
2. If the send() flag is true raise an INVALID_STATE_ERR exception and
terminate these steps.
Setting timeout no longer throws and invoking open() no
On 11/12/2009 05:24 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:03:07 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
Anyway, do you have opinions on the synchronous case? Do you agree we
should use TIMEOUT_ERR
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:03:07 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
Anyway, do you have opinions on the synchronous case? Do you agree we
should use TIMEOUT_ERR there? What do the people from Microsoft think?
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
I was looking at defining the timeout feature. For consistency with abort
error and network error it would make sense to introduce a TIMEOUT_ERR
for synchronous requests, but Internet Explorer is probably not doing this
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:23:04 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Are all of these comments for synchronous XHR only?
Only the TIMEOUT_ERR exception was for the synchronous case. I think the
synchronous case it would be most consistent to not dispatch any events.
This is however
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
I agree that firing readystatechange seems like the most consistent thing
to do.
I agree that firing timeout (and IMHO abort) on the XHRUpload object
unless upload has already finished.
In general, I think
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:41:32 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
abort() has some legacy attached to it that I rather not copy.
Such as?
Actually, apart from switching the state to 0 in the end there is
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:41:32 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
abort() has some legacy attached to it that I rather not copy.
21 matches
Mail list logo
