To clarify, the .as XMLHttpRequest implementation we build should only provide the subset of functionality we need today. We can build it out later.
-Max P T Withington wrote: > I like that idea, so long as there is not a big 'impedance mis-match' > that causes an inefficient swf implementation. I think swf9 will > effectively have XmlHttpRequest, so that will be a win. > > One issue is the 'synchronous' option, which I can't imagine being > easy to simulate in swf (but it is very nice for trivial uses). > > On 2006-07-14, at 15:26 EDT, Max Carlson wrote: > >> Henry and I just talked and we think emulating a subset of >> XMLHTTPRequest in Flash is sensible. That way, the DHTML >> implemenation comes for free... >> >> -Max >> >> P T Withington wrote: >>> On 2006-07-14, at 07:49 EDT, Henry Minsky wrote: >>> >>>> Also, did we decide on a better name for >>>>> delete, since it's a reserved word? Whatever we decide, all four >>>>> method >>>>> names should be consistent, e.g. doGet() or getRequest(). Any more >>>>> thoughts on this? >>>> >>>> >>>> I guess doGet() etc. would be best. >>> >>> Or be more like XMLHTTPRequest, where the request type is just a >>> parameter, instead of having a method for each request type? >>> > _______________________________________________ Laszlo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
