Mailing-List: contact users-help@myfaces.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "MyFaces Discussion" <users@myfaces.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of mwessendorf@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.146.181 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=hYKUHrKVqI4ibOAbtrxgvubIIMA0qPLWng+Fyq/WvMwRaQ96y5w7rLcfq46Ok6A56+XFNJjfWpBNhKDa+tddhw9mv23LaO6TplhwjiGhS9LGcTdQ6DursVQjupSVOftP4QoRGEB2ODkpiU1SGElW7guulDYDzYntR4Wez7BUhE0=
Message-ID: <71235db40711280944g6dd74f00r79857ac94618dfb5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:44:47 +0100
From: "Matthias Wessendorf" <matzew@apache.org>
Sender: mwessendorf@gmail.com
To: "MyFaces Discussion" <users@myfaces.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Trinidad Ajax
In-Reply-To: <474DA6D2.4090006@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: 
 <OFA62AF8D3.B18B55D3-ONC12573A1.002D3518-C12573A1.002EE2FB@anicasystem.com.pl>
	 <6AB2F728DACBB54EA203EE6736D1883A013D5F22@s3k002.hypoport.local>
	 <71235db40711280203h616443c0pa5ae770a7b8c1cad@mail.gmail.com>
	 <474DA6D2.4090006@gmail.com>

regarding IE 5.5 I think it came up here on the list,
that MS isn't supporting anymore, so we also don't really :-)

On Nov 28, 2007 6:35 PM, Scott O'Bryan <darkarena@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jan,
>
> I understand that sometimes companies like this may be unwilling to
> change for security reasons, but the XHR is actually a more secure
> implementation.  Because of the nature of iframe, you are open to may
> more exploits then you will be using XHR.  This is because using XHR
> requires someone trying to exploit the system to familiar with the
> application being used whereas in the iframe case they need to know only
> that they are in a browser.
>
> If companies want to run in a secure environment, they really need to
> not be running IE6, but rather Mozilla or IE7.  As for IE 5.5, I thought
> Trinidad had a minimum technical requirement of IE6 anyway.
>
> Scott
>
>
> Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > Hi Jan,
> >
> > yes, we switched to XHR with the release of 1.0.2 (and 1.2.2).
> > There is no way to use IFrame instead of XHR.
> >
> > This will remain, because Ajax is pretty common these days and
> > other JSF-libs have that as well.
> >
> > Providing an option to "fallback" might be possible, but not sure if that
> > will be done.
> >
> > Is "IE 5.5" really still supported by M$?
> > If not, I'd strongly recommend to kick that guy out.
> > Sure... only the IE7 doesn't require ActiveX for XHR, but IE does.
> >
> > I am not aware of a solution for that.
> >
> > Do you have any ideas ?
> >
> > -Matthias
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2007 10:48 AM, Goerss, Jan <jan.goerss@hypoport.de> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> we noticed that MyFaces Trinidad is changing the PPR mechanism towards real
> >> AJAX and the XmlHttpRequest object.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> We are using Trinidad is the finance sector. There it is normal that the
> >> clients use the Internet Explorer with deactivated ActiveX.
> >>
> >> Furthermore they use not the newest browsers, so we although need to support
> >> at least IE 5.5+.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> At the beginning of our project we decide to take Trinidad because of it's
> >> IFrame-PPR solution.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It seems as if it is not possible to choose between the two modes: PPR or
> >> AJAX.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Will this remain? If so why? Otherwise, we think that a lot of Trinidad
> >> library users will encounter problems with their clientsJ
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >>
> >> Jan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org