[Zope] More on understanding conflicts

[Chris McDonough]

On Dec 21, 2005, at 1:07 PM, Dennis Allison wrote:
> Sorry if I appeared unresponsive--the fact that we use frames is  
> hardly a
> secret.   I suppose that it would be helpful to make up soem  
> summary of
> features for ongoing threads like this one.

It was a secret to me (again, perhaps because of my inability to keep  
a thought in my head for more than an hour, for better or worse) or I  
honestly I wouldn't have asked again.  Just answering the questions  
as they're asked would really, really be the best tact here, because  
configurations change, code changes, and so on.  What was gospel a  
month ago might not be the case now.  So it's important to just  
answer the questions even if it seems utterly redundant to do so.   
Again, I'm not chiding you here, I realize this is hard stuff, but I  
need you to *help me help you* to get this put to bed.

> By convention the primary content frame does not cause other frames to
> re-render but there are multiple implementors and creaping featurism
> which may have changed that.  The navigation_box frame we have been
> discussion gets re-rendered on a navigation change (duh) and may  
> initiate
> re-rendering of a tabs_frame.  Except for the full frameset rendering,
> we are likely to be fairly conflict clean.  I can look in the logs and
> tell...  Might be interesting.

Yep.. particularly if you see a conflict only in requests that  
directly follow a request for the frameset URL.  If that's the case,  
unless people constantly reload the frameset, you should be OK.

> I did not know that XMLHttp interactions were asynchronous but  
> serialized.
> Most browsers can make multiple simultaneous requests so I'd  
> assumed that
> XMLHttp would just grab a connection and go and that multiple requests
> can be in progress simultaneously.

After going and reading the docs for at least one implementation of  
XMLHttpRequest, I think you're right.  There are some asynchronous  
things going on here.  So I take it back. ;-)

>> Well, that's good.  Does that mean I'm off the hook? ;-)
>
> Not really off the hook as issues still remain and you are a valuable
> resource.  :-)  I need to spend some time thinking about the issues  
> an do
> some cautious experimentation and testing.

Heh.

- C