[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Caching and JS - Bug?

At 08:31 AM 3/3/96 -0500, Ed Kloskowski wrote:
>Hey ANDY consider this a CLAM DOWN!!! message.  You took this WAY over 
>board, and I stress way overboard!  

Sorry, I didn't realize I was getting excited <g>, I was just encouraging
you to post some code so we could all see what you've been dealing with.

>I didn't say OR imply anything of the kind, you took yourself there. All 
>I said was a previous version of a JS (I used the word bad because in my 
>case it was bad code that spit up when an onMouse over event occured) 
>repeat: a previous version of a JS WILL stick around in the cache and 
>will not always be overwritten when you think it would (i.e. you use an 
>onMouse over event to update a the text in a text box, you change what 
>the text says then reload your page a presto old text after the same 
>page has loaded!! a simple example, but it illustrates the point.)

The fact that *forms* text boxes don't get re-initialized is considered an
*enhancement* in Navigator.  Imagine filling out a huge form and submitting
it, but an error occurring and having to re-type all your data.  By clicking
the back button, all your info is still avaliable to try again (or change).
IF you take a look at:


you'll see an example I whipped up that will easily re-initialize a text-box
on reload/revisit.  I'm still not sure if this was really what you were
discussing, but it's my attempt to help.  Let me know if I am off base on this.

>Don't get me wrong, I love JS and use it everyday, but it does still 
>have limitations and small probs we need to make each other aware of, 
>not berate fellow users as you did (what if I just rolled over and said 
>"oh, I won't reply to that message Andy might scream at me" we may lose 
>valuable insight by intimidation).

Ed, I'm not saying that because we love JavaScript, we can't say bad things
about it.  That would be detrimental to the language.  I guess the reason
you thought I *freaked* out was because I crave details.  I was not trying
to berate you, nor would I purposefully do this to anyone else (that didn't
deserve it <g>).  I was just frustrated that you made several posts about a
bug/problem and I wasn't able to help because you weren't specific enough.  

I think the best way to problem solve for JS is to make our code readily
available to eachother.  As an example: yesterday Gordon and I tried to work
out a problem with formatting numbers as dollars/cents, and after we each
posted our code he alerted me that they were in essence the same.  I would
have left my code as it was (which would have caused me problems), but
because he could see it I got it fixed.

Take a look at what I've done and get back in touch.
I promise not to *scream* at you <g>,

Andy Augustine
JavaScript 411 -- http://www.his.com/~smithers/freq/beta/index.html

For help about the list, please send a message to 'majordomo@obscure.org'
with the message body 'help'. To unsubscribe, send a message to
'majordomo@obscure.org' with the message body 'unsubscribe javascript'.
List archives and pointer to FAQ: http://www.obscure.org/javascript/