kind of messy due to moving things around, but here you are:
http://codereview.appspot.com/27105
On Mar 24, 2009, at 1:55 PM, Brian Eaton wrote:
Or better than jira, a code review issue over on http://codereview.appspot.com
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Brian Eaton <bea...@google.com>
wrote:
Somebody's mail server thinks that rpc.js is evil. Can you attach it
to a jira issue?
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Paul Lindner <plind...@hi5.com>
wrote:
running rpc.js through jslint (as Henning did a while back)
reveals some
potential issues.
The issue here appears to be that:
setAuthToken() calls setupFrame(), which in turn relies upon
relayChannel
variable to be set. However that variable is set below this
function, so
there's really an implicit declaration of relayUrl prior this this..
I've attached a cleaned up rpc.js, anyone want to try it out on
those
platforms?
On Mar 24, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Weygandt, Jon wrote:
On a related issue for fe and nix methods:
Which should come first, the call to gadgets.rpc.setAuthToken or
the
placement of the iframe on the page?
If the setAuthToken comes first, I have seen the "nix" and "fe"
methods
not getting properly initialized, so in IE6 and FF2 it will use
"ifpc".
Which is OK, but it means that there is lots of "dead" code in
rpc.js. "nix"
and "fe" methods will never get properly set up.
If the setAuthToken comes after the iframe, there is a race
condition,
where the iframe can be initialized and make the first rpc call
before the
container is ready to receive it, which creates functional issues.
Thanks,
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Eaton [mailto:bea...@google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 11:50 AM
To: shindig-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: killing "fe" channel for gadgets.rpc
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Paul Lindner <plind...@hi5.com>
wrote:
Any idea why this breaks?
I'm digging now. There is something wrong with the fall back to
IFPC.
I am not in love with the Chrome javascript debugger.
Also, any idea why Chrome does not use the wpm method? I
thought it
was based off a fairly recent version of WebKit, no?
Not recent enough.
