Hello

First post here. Hello everyone :)

I noticed two weird things and I'd like to check I am not dreaming.

*First, a minor issue *: I tried to use the following flags when performing 
an http request : EMSCRIPTEN_FETCH_LOAD_TO_MEMORY 
| EMSCRIPTEN_FETCH_PERSIST_FILE.
Then, later, I reverted to using only EMSCRIPTEN_FETCH_LOAD_TO_MEMORY.
I noticed that the emscripten fetch code always looks up the entry in the 
IndexedDB first, even with only the EMSCRIPTEN_FETCH_LOAD_TO_MEMORY flag 
specified. In that particular case, the existing entries in IndexedDB from 
my previous attempt were interfering with my requests (since I am quite new 
to web development -- I am now in it thanks to emscripten :) -- I did not 
know about the whole IndexedDB stuff and wasted some time trying to 
understand that). Don't you think that, by default, IndexedDB should not be 
used at all ?

*The real problem I have encountered *: I was performing a REST API call on 
some server (Orthanc) with a POST request. The responses were returned from 
the existing IndexedDB entries and, furthermore, it seems that *only part 
of the body is used in the index* : hundreds of calls to this endpoint, 
with different bodies, were always returning the responses of the first 
request.

My first question : shouldn't it be better to use the same rules to store 
the response in IndexedDB that the browser uses ? (POST not cached by 
default unless some header is added) ?
My second question (the important one) : is this possible that two POST 
requests with same URI but different bodies (only different after 30 
characters or something) return the same stored response ?

Thanks a lot in advance for your help sorting this out.

Best,

Benjamin Golinvaux
(Belgium)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"emscripten-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/emscripten-discuss/6a44f3ff-bc39-415b-ac53-e92ebe0edbb2%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to