On 10/8/07, Andreas Junghans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, I think I get it. You're right, there's no security problem > (since you can't load arbitrary content without preparing the > server). It seems like a nice idea for applications from different > domains to communicate with each other (and without the need to send > every message through a server). However, I don't think it would make > sense to write a qooxdoo transport around it. You would still need to > prepare the server so that it generates the necessary script code to > initiate the communication. And you'd have to divide the content into > many "packets" to avoid the URL length limit.
The person whom I heard about this from indicated that he believed that a transport implemented with this mechanism would not provide the cookie stealing capabilities that Script transport provides. If that's true, there's good reason to write a qooxdoo transport around it. If it's not true, then I see no particular benefit of it over Script transport. Derrell ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ qooxdoo-devel mailing list qooxdoo-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
