I'm doing some work with html 5's offline application cache using firefox 3.6. My web application uses iframes to load other web application that pass the same-origin policy requirement. Unfortunately, the offline application cache for the iframe loaded page does not work. Specifically:
For the url sourced in via an iframe, I observe the application manifest and all of resources listed inside of it being loaded from my webserver.
When I load the url of the iframe directly by typing it into my URL bar, the application cache works.
When the page that has the application cache is loaded via an iframe, the application cache does not work.
The only difference between the container page url and the iframe src url is the web application context (i.e. container is 'https://www.example.com/cat' while iframe source url is 'https://www.example.com/dog').
I did find some chatter on a whatwg working group thread discussing whether iframe's should inherit container manifest settings, which leads me to believe that this ought to work.
Am I doing something unreasomnable? Is firefox lagging behind the whatwg specification? Any ideas or pointers to a solution would be appreciated.
I figured out the problem and filed a bug ticket with firefox:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=623996
Related
I have developed cloud application in ASP.NET. After every deployment, the portal either shows white screen or shows older version of the application.
Any suggestions would be highly appreciated.
I have already tried:
1) Updating JS version in each deployment (white screen issue was resolved by this)
2) Recycling Application Pool
3) IIS manager->http response header->set common headers->enable web content
4) Restarting IIS(8.5) after each deployment
However, none of these have worked. The application works fine in incognito mode of Chrome browser but not the regular one.
However, none of these have worked. The application works fine in incognito mode of Chrome browser but not the regular one.
As far as I know, if your brower has accessed your web application once, it will store the cache in client side.
If you modify the content and add the response header, it will not re-send the request to the server, it will use the cache page.
To aovid this, the only way is clear the browser's cache or use Ctrl+F5 to refresh the page.
Then if your reponse haeder contains the no-cache next time, the browser will not store the cache again.
In liferay application, we have page loaded from actionurl. Once after page is loaded, in browser we are setting work offline.
If we copy the "actionurl" of the loaded page and tried accessing on another tab, still page is getting loaded. This page is getting loaded from cache. From developer tool, we could see page loaded with label "cached".
How to prevent this?.
setting browser.cache.disabled=true - is not working in the above case.
Try this, in portlet.xml under portlet-class and init-param add:
<expiration-cache>0</expiration-cache>
This would set a cache that is always expired.
I need a Portable web Browser, or any install-able (Windows) Browser, which will only load my URL.
Some thing Like I will have my Shortcut in the desktop, when User click, the Web browser with my URL loads.
Is it possible with portable Firefox to modify, I also need cookies to work along, thats the reason I need to find a custom Web browser.
I just found out a partial solution using
Mozilla Client Customization Kit , we can create a extension which allows to customize firefox upto certain limitations.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cck/
I am developing an addon using Firefox's Addon SDK (v. 1.11). My extension dynamically creates an iframe on each website and then loads an html file which includes other resources such as images, font files, etc. from the add on's local directory.
Problem
When loading any of such local resources (i.e.: "resource://" schema), the iframe fails to display them and a message is thrown:
Security Error: Content at http: //www.XXX may not load or link to
resource://XXX
This is a security measure introduced on Firefox 3. When developing without the Addon SDK, the way around it is declaring a directory with "contentaccessible=yes", making the directory's contents accessible to anyone, including my add on. However, I have not been able to find similar functionality using the Addon SDK. Is there a better way of using local data on an iframe that my addon creates and inserts into a page?
I don't think you can directly load an iFrame that points to a resource inside your URL. The browser complains because it's either breaking same origin policy or cross site scripting one. I can't remember which one right now.
if it is html content you want to load you can always inject it into the DOM and then send a message to the document object using the events API to display your custom html. I've done this in the past and it works.
so from main.js send a message to content script which will then inject your iframe html into the DOM and then you can send the document object a message to display it.
I hope this helps.
Not sure if this was the case when you posted the question, but it appears that "resource://" should no longer be used with the Addon SDK.
If you're using the resource inside of an HTML file in the extension, you can reference it locally, otherwise you should use data.url('whatever.jpg') and pass around that value as needed.
Full info is here: http://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2012/01/11/sdk-1-4-known-issue-with-hard-coding-resource-uris/
I'm using iFrame in my site to include other third party site in my site. How can I optimize its performance?
Are iFrame resources get cached?
If yes, then who is responsible for configuring it?
Should I configure caching of iFrame or should owner of third party website has to do this?
There is no 'performance' to an iFrame. An iFrame is merely an HTML tag that opens up space up in the current page to load an external HTML file.
That external HTML file would be cached by your browser as your browser settings see fit.
In terms of server caching and performance of the page it is loading, that's entirely up to the owner of that particular page and their own server/network set up.