doXHR is just sugar for the three or four lines you'd have if you were
dispatching an XMLHttpRequest manually. It doesn't really do anything
of significance. It doesn't really have anything to do with POST
specifically other than the fact that it can be used to construct a
POST request with arbitrary headers and content (just as it can be
used to do a GET or anything else).
-bob
On 11/30/06, David Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All,
> I've had success preventing caching in IE and FF by setting these response
> headers server-side:
> Cache-Control: no-cache, must-revalidate
> Expires: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 05:00:00 GMT
> Pragma: no-cache
>
> I know this is a javascript-related list, but I prefer to keep as much of
> this logic on the server as possible, and this seems to work well. I'm sure
> you can pick any time in the past for the Expires header.
>
> Bob,
> Is what you suggested here the "official" way to POST an xhr with mochikit?
> That question comes up all the time on the list and in the irc channel; it
> would be nice to be able to point people to a definitive answer (if one
> exists...).
>
> Thanks,
> David Shoemaker
>
>
> On 11/30/06, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > That's a really bad idea in general. If you want to post, use
> > something like this::
> >
> > var d = doXHR(url, {
> > method: 'POST',
> > 'mimeType': 'text/plain',
> > 'headers': [['Accept', 'application/json']]
> > }).addCallback(MochiKit.Async.evalJSONRequest);
> >
> > -bob
> >
> > On 11/30/06, Martyn Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Just as a side note, I found that by POSTING all my data rather than
> using
> > > GET (which is the loadJSONDoc default) that browsers (namely IE) stopped
> > > caching when it shouldn't.
> > >
> > > Perhaps loadJSONDoc could post by default rather than GET?, or perhaps
> have
> > > an option/another function for doing this?
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/1/06, Jorge Godoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Bob Ippolito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Even if it was relevant, the chances of doing a request precisely
> one
> > > > > hour after a previous request during the one hour per year in which
> > > > > that happens is a whole lot less than getting the same random number
> > > > > twice during any session at any time of the year. Especially
> > > > > considering the fact that most normal people are sleeping during (at
> > > > > least) the second 2am...
> > > >
> > > > Time changes earlier here in .br, for example. Anyway, point taken
> and it
> > > is
> > > > better using the timestamp then.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jorge Godoy < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Martyn
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --- I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous. ---
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"MochiKit" 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/mochikit?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
