Comments on: Google Gears: too much interface? http://www.markbaker.ca/blog/2007/06/google-gears-too-much-interface/ Celebrating the power of the Web Fri, 26 Aug 2011 20:00:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Mark Baker http://www.markbaker.ca/blog/2007/06/google-gears-too-much-interface/comment-page-1/#comment-263 Mark Baker Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:39:05 +0000 http://www.markbaker.ca/blog/2007/06/05/google-gears-too-much-interface/#comment-263 Right, that's more or less where I was going with that last paragraph. Right, that’s more or less where I was going with that last paragraph.

]]> By: Ian Bicking http://www.markbaker.ca/blog/2007/06/google-gears-too-much-interface/comment-page-1/#comment-262 Ian Bicking Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:23:36 +0000 http://www.markbaker.ca/blog/2007/06/05/google-gears-too-much-interface/#comment-262 As far as I know, XHR goes through the same fetching stack as any other web request, meaning that the cache is checked, cookies sent, etc. But there are still times when on the application side you'd like to know if the cache would be hit. Then, for instance, you can give the user some indication of whether some action is possible to perform, instead of performing the action and getting a failure. Actually augmenting XHR is also probably hard for them to deploy now. At least from the Javascript side I've had a hard time manipulating that object reliably (not that I've tried that hard, but I imagine they might try that hard). It might be nice to simply, for instance, add a .can_open() method (instead of just .open()), that guesses as to whether the request would work (using some knowledge of the offline status and the local cache). Anyway, it would be rude of Google to extend XHR; extensions like that should be discussed first. And discussions are best done with concrete examples, and Google Gears is the concrete example; so maybe all is as it should be? As far as I know, XHR goes through the same fetching stack as any other web request, meaning that the cache is checked, cookies sent, etc. But there are still times when on the application side you’d like to know if the cache would be hit. Then, for instance, you can give the user some indication of whether some action is possible to perform, instead of performing the action and getting a failure.

Actually augmenting XHR is also probably hard for them to deploy now. At least from the Javascript side I’ve had a hard time manipulating that object reliably (not that I’ve tried that hard, but I imagine they might try that hard). It might be nice to simply, for instance, add a .can_open() method (instead of just .open()), that guesses as to whether the request would work (using some knowledge of the offline status and the local cache). Anyway, it would be rude of Google to extend XHR; extensions like that should be discussed first. And discussions are best done with concrete examples, and Google Gears is the concrete example; so maybe all is as it should be?

]]>