Thanks guys,
But sadly I've actually already been down this road.
Part of the img src does include a large random number.
On top of that I have also checked the temporary internet folder and I
see multiple copies (with different random numbers) of the same image
there.
I have run this test with a cleared cache, and with previous copies in cache.
the results do not vary.
This makes no sense to me either.
Which is why I'm asking for help.
I have reduced my script down to JUST creating an image with a random
number as its query string, and my results STILL do not vary.
[shrug]
I agree that this does not make sense.
But this IS what I am faced with......
I've tried to disprove this as many ways as i can think of...
--Alex
On Nov 12, 2007 4:28 PM, Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 11/12/07, Alex Brelsfoard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I know this is not so much a JavaScript group, but I figured someone
> > might have heard of what I am running into.
> > If not, feel free to ignore this message.
> >
> > Situation:
> > I am using JavaScript to create an image.
> > It needs to be loaded, and i need to see its request in the apache logs.
> >
> > Problem:
> > The code I am using works in every situation except on IE7 on Windows
> > (the image loads and exists in the temporary internet files folder,
> > but there is no request for the image in the apache logs).
> > I have found a way to make it work in IE7, but the solution confounds me.
> >
> > Original code:
> > var img_src = ......;
> > var my_img = new Image(1,1);
> > my_img.src = img_src;
> >
> > [That's the code that works everywhere but in IE7]
> >
> > The Fix:
> > var img_src = ......;
> > var my_img = new Image(1,1);
> > my_img.onload = function() {}
> > my_img.src = img_src;
> >
> > Here's the REALLY interesting point: I can replace 'onload' with
> > 'onerror' and it works.
> > But if I do not have that onload or onerror, I do not get the image
> > request in my logs.
> >
> > Does anyone have any idea how/why this might happen?
>
> Obvioulsy IE 7 has a more aggressive caching algorithm, and your extra
> function gets in the way of that algorithm. For further details we'd
> have to know the details of said caching algorithm.
>
> (As Tom Metro says, your technique should be regarded as unreliable,
> even though it works now.)
>
> Cheers,
> Ben
>
_______________________________________________
Boston-pm mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
