This does sound like a caching issue.  I understand that POST does not
cache.  You could change the GET to a POST to see if that is so.
Alternatively, you can append some unique string to the GET url.  Many
folks use Date.time for this.

 

Tracy

 

________________________________

From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom Armstrong
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 10:56 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [flexcoders] HTTPService and Browser Differences

 

Hi All,

 

As I continue my Flex education I've come across an issue in my first
production application. I'm using ROR along with Flex and passing XML
back and forth, etc. I've learned a bunch via "Flex Solutions", "Flex on
Rails", and "Training from the Source", etc. The issue I'm having seems
to be caused by differences in IE and FF and how they handle responses
from HTTPService calls. By using CharlesProxy I can see that everything
works great in FF but they don't when using IE. I was hoping to remove
all the cross-browser issues by moving to flex. :-)

 

Anyway, I'm doing something like this:

 

1) Create a new record via HTTPService->POST\record.xml

2) The new record is created and an event is fired so that the existing
record list can be refreshed.

3) HTTPService->GET\record.xml

4) Grid in the List component is refreshed with the additional record.

 

Everything works great in FF and I can see both the POST and GET along
with the returned XML item, and then list.

 

On IE (v6), however, only the POST goes through and it seems like it is
"caching" the result from the POST and using as the result for the GET,
thereby making my "list" just a list of "one", the most recently created
record. Though, this doesn're really work either as it doesn't have the
surrounding <records type=array"> element.

 

Anyway, I'm sure there is something I am missing with this new Flex
development so I'm hoping you all can direct me to some specific reading
to help me understand the major behavior differences between the
browsers when using Flex, etc.

 

Thanks much,

 

Tom

 

Reply via email to