Yes. Thank you muchly. Good to know that. Chris. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John J Barton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Firebug" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:51 AM > Subject: Re: Double POSTing to see POST request - why is it necessary? > > We have been working with Mozilla on this issue since May and the fix > has already been commited to Firefox source code. It will be in > Firefox 3.0.3 as far as we understand. Our corresponding code is > already written. As soon as the 3.0.3 nightly builds (right after > 3.0.2 ships) begin we will be offering a beta version of Firebug that > works with the new feature. > > If you want more > information,https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=430155 > > jjb > > On Sep 4, 8:55 am, "Josh Nathanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > These are pretty smart guys working on this, so my feeling is that if > > there > > was some way to store the ajax responses, that didn't involve double > > posting, they would've figured it out by now. > > > Probably, there are only certain ways to hook into Firefox's API. The > > people working on Firebug cannot change Firefox code. So, they are stuck > > with whatever Firefox gives them. > > > As Firebug has become so important to so many people, I'm hoping Mozilla > > will work with the Firebug developers to make integration easier as time > > goes on. > > > -- Josh > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "chrissavery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Firebug" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 2:15 AM > > Subject: Re: Double POSTing to see POST request - why is it necessary? > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
