I've been following this issue for a while as well. What seems to be unstated here and crucial to understanding is knowing how Firebug gets any response.
I have been assuming that because Firebug rides piggy back on Firefox that it has access to whatever Firefox received when the response arrived in the first place. So when a user causes a GET/POST then Firefox receives data and has it in store to generate the suitable screen changes. I am sort of reading here that this isn't the case. Because if it were then the needed data would already br present and there would never be any need to GET/POST again. So implicitly the need to repeat a query is the fault of not having access to Firefox's original data. Is this why we're talking about the cache? Is the needed data in Firefox's cache and can sometimes be got there? And sometimes not? The answer to this whole issue in my mind is to grab that data before it vanishes. Perhaps even before Firefox has processed it. I don't know the structure of Firefox's internal code so maybe I'm describing something that is impossible to do. But nonetheless I think it is the correct way to handle it as if you grab that response data and keep it in Firebug then the need to ever re-query is gone. Would doing this create a higher storage burden on Firebug? I could see that you wouldn't want to store all responses forever in Firebug but depending on the Firefox cache seems to be having severe consequences. Since this is a very useful debugging aid it would seem to merit at least storing some number of recent response data strings independently of the Firefox cache. Does this make any sense? Well, I've been programming for many, many years and I know it makes some kind of sense but I have not looked into Firefox source an dhow Firebug interacts with it. Is it not possible to get access to original query response data from Firefox? That's the real underlying issue. Chris :) On Sep 4, 7:10 am, "Josh Nathanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What changed in order for it to not automatically let us see? In previous > > versions it seems to me that I was able to view without having to POST > > agian. > > I think what he's referring to is that in past versions, it wasn't explicit > that Firebug was double posting. It was doing it in the background. With > the newer version, where you have to do the extra click, people are aware of > the double posting. > > For the record I think it's fine the new way. > > -- Josh --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Firebug" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
