How to keep google-chrome from buffering
I have a situation where I am calling a js function when a button is clicked in a php page, a hidden dialog is displayed and some data is painted in the dialog prior to issuing a series of synchronous ajax calls which generate SQL statements server-side. This process may be repeated in a loop which is the reason for the synchronous ajax as the loop would need to be interrupted should the ajax call return an error of some kind.
My problem is that Chrome will not display the data prior to the ajax call whereas firefox will. I've tried setting the contentType method of the jqXHR Object to "application/octet-stream" but no luck.
Here's the ajax code:
$.ajax({
async : false,
url : "url",
method : "GET", // redudntant, GET is the default
dataType : "text",
beforeSend : function(xhr) {
xhr.overrideMimeType("application/octet-stream;");
},
success : function(data) {
// do stuff with data
}
}).fail(function(xhr, status, error) {
// do stuff with error
});
javascript ajax
google-chrome firefox mime-types edited Jan 8 at 15:52
Cœur
19.1k9114155
asked Nov 21 '18 at 19:50
SamSam
7114
add a comment |
I have a situation where I am calling a js function when a button is clicked in a php page, a hidden dialog is displayed and some data is painted in the dialog prior to issuing a series of synchronous ajax calls which generate SQL statements server-side. This process may be repeated in a loop which is the reason for the synchronous ajax as the loop would need to be interrupted should the ajax call return an error of some kind.
My problem is that Chrome will not display the data prior to the ajax call whereas firefox will. I've tried setting the contentType method of the jqXHR Object to "application/octet-stream" but no luck.
Here's the ajax code:
$.ajax({
async : false,
url : "url",
method : "GET", // redudntant, GET is the default
dataType : "text",
beforeSend : function(xhr) {
xhr.overrideMimeType("application/octet-stream;");
},
success : function(data) {
// do stuff with data
}
}).fail(function(xhr, status, error) {
// do stuff with error
});
javascript ajax
google-chrome firefox mime-types edited Jan 8 at 15:52
Cœur
19.1k9114155
asked Nov 21 '18 at 19:50
SamSam
7114
This process may be repeated in a loop which is the reason for the synchronous ajax as the loop would need to be interrupted should the ajax call return an error of some kind. Huh? Asynchronous calls can be aborted and can haveerrorcallbacks.
– Scott Marcus
Nov 21 '18 at 20:00
Right, but as I indicate the ajax call must return its data before the loop is repeated. Not only that but the user has no idea what's happening because chrome is not allowing anything to display. The server-side process can take some time to complete so I need to show something otherwise he'll think it's frozen. Firefox doesn't do that. Anything I add to a div's innerHTML appears instantly.
– Sam
Nov 21 '18 at 22:18
So, don't use a loop at all. Use a regular asynchronous AJAX call and separate the loop code into its own function. Then, in the success callback, call the function that used to be the loop body. Then, the browser won't become unresponsive and you won't perform the next task until the previous one is done.
– Scott Marcus
Nov 22 '18 at 0:02
Good advice but it doesn't answer the main point of the question: why is chrome behaving differently from firefox? Is it due to buffering (I read somewhere that chrome buffers 1K before displaying) and if so how can that be overcome? I'd like an answer to that before I restructure my logic.
– Sam
Nov 22 '18 at 12:05
add a comment |
I have a situation where I am calling a js function when a button is clicked in a php page, a hidden dialog is displayed and some data is painted in the dialog prior to issuing a series of synchronous ajax calls which generate SQL statements server-side. This process may be repeated in a loop which is the reason for the synchronous ajax as the loop would need to be interrupted should the ajax call return an error of some kind.
My problem is that Chrome will not display the data prior to the ajax call whereas firefox will. I've tried setting the contentType method of the jqXHR Object to "application/octet-stream" but no luck.
Here's the ajax code:
$.ajax({
async : false,
url : "url",
method : "GET", // redudntant, GET is the default
dataType : "text",
beforeSend : function(xhr) {
xhr.overrideMimeType("application/octet-stream;");
},
success : function(data) {
// do stuff with data
}
}).fail(function(xhr, status, error) {
// do stuff with error
});
javascript ajax
google-chrome firefox mime-types edited Jan 8 at 15:52
Cœur
19.1k9114155
asked Nov 21 '18 at 19:50
SamSam
7114
I have a situation where I am calling a js function when a button is clicked in a php page, a hidden dialog is displayed and some data is painted in the dialog prior to issuing a series of synchronous ajax calls which generate SQL statements server-side. This process may be repeated in a loop which is the reason for the synchronous ajax as the loop would need to be interrupted should the ajax call return an error of some kind.
My problem is that Chrome will not display the data prior to the ajax call whereas firefox will. I've tried setting the contentType method of the jqXHR Object to "application/octet-stream" but no luck.
Here's the ajax code:
$.ajax({
async : false,
url : "url",
method : "GET", // redudntant, GET is the default
dataType : "text",
beforeSend : function(xhr) {
xhr.overrideMimeType("application/octet-stream;");
},
success : function(data) {
// do stuff with data
}
}).fail(function(xhr, status, error) {
// do stuff with error
});
javascript ajax
google-chrome firefox mime-types javascript ajax
google-chrome firefox mime-types edited Jan 8 at 15:52
Cœur
19.1k9114155
asked Nov 21 '18 at 19:50
SamSam
7114
edited Jan 8 at 15:52
Cœur
19.1k9114155
asked Nov 21 '18 at 19:50
SamSam
7114
edited Jan 8 at 15:52
Cœur
19.1k9114155
edited Jan 8 at 15:52
Cœur
19.1k9114155
edited Jan 8 at 15:52
Cœur
19.1k9114155
19.1k9114155
asked Nov 21 '18 at 19:50
SamSam
7114
asked Nov 21 '18 at 19:50
SamSam
7114
asked Nov 21 '18 at 19:50
SamSam
7114
7114
This process may be repeated in a loop which is the reason for the synchronous ajax as the loop would need to be interrupted should the ajax call return an error of some kind. Huh? Asynchronous calls can be aborted and can haveerrorcallbacks.
– Scott Marcus
Nov 21 '18 at 20:00
Right, but as I indicate the ajax call must return its data before the loop is repeated. Not only that but the user has no idea what's happening because chrome is not allowing anything to display. The server-side process can take some time to complete so I need to show something otherwise he'll think it's frozen. Firefox doesn't do that. Anything I add to a div's innerHTML appears instantly.
– Sam
Nov 21 '18 at 22:18
So, don't use a loop at all. Use a regular asynchronous AJAX call and separate the loop code into its own function. Then, in the success callback, call the function that used to be the loop body. Then, the browser won't become unresponsive and you won't perform the next task until the previous one is done.
– Scott Marcus
Nov 22 '18 at 0:02
Good advice but it doesn't answer the main point of the question: why is chrome behaving differently from firefox? Is it due to buffering (I read somewhere that chrome buffers 1K before displaying) and if so how can that be overcome? I'd like an answer to that before I restructure my logic.
– Sam
Nov 22 '18 at 12:05
add a comment |
This process may be repeated in a loop which is the reason for the synchronous ajax as the loop would need to be interrupted should the ajax call return an error of some kind. Huh? Asynchronous calls can be aborted and can haveerrorcallbacks.
– Scott Marcus
Nov 21 '18 at 20:00
Right, but as I indicate the ajax call must return its data before the loop is repeated. Not only that but the user has no idea what's happening because chrome is not allowing anything to display. The server-side process can take some time to complete so I need to show something otherwise he'll think it's frozen. Firefox doesn't do that. Anything I add to a div's innerHTML appears instantly.
– Sam
Nov 21 '18 at 22:18
So, don't use a loop at all. Use a regular asynchronous AJAX call and separate the loop code into its own function. Then, in the success callback, call the function that used to be the loop body. Then, the browser won't become unresponsive and you won't perform the next task until the previous one is done.
– Scott Marcus
Nov 22 '18 at 0:02
Good advice but it doesn't answer the main point of the question: why is chrome behaving differently from firefox? Is it due to buffering (I read somewhere that chrome buffers 1K before displaying) and if so how can that be overcome? I'd like an answer to that before I restructure my logic.
– Sam
Nov 22 '18 at 12:05
This process may be repeated in a loop which is the reason for the synchronous ajax as the loop would need to be interrupted should the ajax call return an error of some kind. Huh? Asynchronous calls can be aborted and can have
error callbacks.– Scott Marcus
Nov 21 '18 at 20:00
This process may be repeated in a loop which is the reason for the synchronous ajax as the loop would need to be interrupted should the ajax call return an error of some kind. Huh? Asynchronous calls can be aborted and can have
error callbacks.– Scott Marcus
Nov 21 '18 at 20:00
Right, but as I indicate the ajax call must return its data before the loop is repeated. Not only that but the user has no idea what's happening because chrome is not allowing anything to display. The server-side process can take some time to complete so I need to show something otherwise he'll think it's frozen. Firefox doesn't do that. Anything I add to a div's innerHTML appears instantly.
– Sam
Nov 21 '18 at 22:18
Right, but as I indicate the ajax call must return its data before the loop is repeated. Not only that but the user has no idea what's happening because chrome is not allowing anything to display. The server-side process can take some time to complete so I need to show something otherwise he'll think it's frozen. Firefox doesn't do that. Anything I add to a div's innerHTML appears instantly.
– Sam
Nov 21 '18 at 22:18
So, don't use a loop at all. Use a regular asynchronous AJAX call and separate the loop code into its own function. Then, in the success callback, call the function that used to be the loop body. Then, the browser won't become unresponsive and you won't perform the next task until the previous one is done.
– Scott Marcus
Nov 22 '18 at 0:02
So, don't use a loop at all. Use a regular asynchronous AJAX call and separate the loop code into its own function. Then, in the success callback, call the function that used to be the loop body. Then, the browser won't become unresponsive and you won't perform the next task until the previous one is done.
– Scott Marcus
Nov 22 '18 at 0:02
Good advice but it doesn't answer the main point of the question: why is chrome behaving differently from firefox? Is it due to buffering (I read somewhere that chrome buffers 1K before displaying) and if so how can that be overcome? I'd like an answer to that before I restructure my logic.
– Sam
Nov 22 '18 at 12:05
Good advice but it doesn't answer the main point of the question: why is chrome behaving differently from firefox? Is it due to buffering (I read somewhere that chrome buffers 1K before displaying) and if so how can that be overcome? I'd like an answer to that before I restructure my logic.
– Sam
Nov 22 '18 at 12:05
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
This is not so much an answer to my original question but given that nobody was able to answer it or even give me advice or point me in the right direction I reworked my code completely to eliminate client-side code with reliance on ajax for server-side processing. My solution relies almost entirely on server-side code with minimal client-side limited to messaging and informational visuals and no ajax. The fact that no solution was forthcoming from the community is a source of great disappointment as I've come to rely on stackoverflow for advice and examples. It begs the question: was it that nobody had the answer or that it was deemed answered?
answered Nov 28 '18 at 15:07
SamSam
7114
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53419555%2fhow-to-keep-google-chrome-from-buffering%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This is not so much an answer to my original question but given that nobody was able to answer it or even give me advice or point me in the right direction I reworked my code completely to eliminate client-side code with reliance on ajax for server-side processing. My solution relies almost entirely on server-side code with minimal client-side limited to messaging and informational visuals and no ajax. The fact that no solution was forthcoming from the community is a source of great disappointment as I've come to rely on stackoverflow for advice and examples. It begs the question: was it that nobody had the answer or that it was deemed answered?
answered Nov 28 '18 at 15:07
SamSam
7114
add a comment |
This is not so much an answer to my original question but given that nobody was able to answer it or even give me advice or point me in the right direction I reworked my code completely to eliminate client-side code with reliance on ajax for server-side processing. My solution relies almost entirely on server-side code with minimal client-side limited to messaging and informational visuals and no ajax. The fact that no solution was forthcoming from the community is a source of great disappointment as I've come to rely on stackoverflow for advice and examples. It begs the question: was it that nobody had the answer or that it was deemed answered?
answered Nov 28 '18 at 15:07
SamSam
7114
add a comment |
This is not so much an answer to my original question but given that nobody was able to answer it or even give me advice or point me in the right direction I reworked my code completely to eliminate client-side code with reliance on ajax for server-side processing. My solution relies almost entirely on server-side code with minimal client-side limited to messaging and informational visuals and no ajax. The fact that no solution was forthcoming from the community is a source of great disappointment as I've come to rely on stackoverflow for advice and examples. It begs the question: was it that nobody had the answer or that it was deemed answered?
answered Nov 28 '18 at 15:07
SamSam
7114
This is not so much an answer to my original question but given that nobody was able to answer it or even give me advice or point me in the right direction I reworked my code completely to eliminate client-side code with reliance on ajax for server-side processing. My solution relies almost entirely on server-side code with minimal client-side limited to messaging and informational visuals and no ajax. The fact that no solution was forthcoming from the community is a source of great disappointment as I've come to rely on stackoverflow for advice and examples. It begs the question: was it that nobody had the answer or that it was deemed answered?
answered Nov 28 '18 at 15:07
SamSam
7114
answered Nov 28 '18 at 15:07
SamSam
7114
answered Nov 28 '18 at 15:07
SamSam
7114
answered Nov 28 '18 at 15:07
SamSam
7114
7114
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53419555%2fhow-to-keep-google-chrome-from-buffering%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
This process may be repeated in a loop which is the reason for the synchronous ajax as the loop would need to be interrupted should the ajax call return an error of some kind. Huh? Asynchronous calls can be aborted and can have
errorcallbacks.– Scott Marcus
Nov 21 '18 at 20:00
Right, but as I indicate the ajax call must return its data before the loop is repeated. Not only that but the user has no idea what's happening because chrome is not allowing anything to display. The server-side process can take some time to complete so I need to show something otherwise he'll think it's frozen. Firefox doesn't do that. Anything I add to a div's innerHTML appears instantly.
– Sam
Nov 21 '18 at 22:18
So, don't use a loop at all. Use a regular asynchronous AJAX call and separate the loop code into its own function. Then, in the success callback, call the function that used to be the loop body. Then, the browser won't become unresponsive and you won't perform the next task until the previous one is done.
– Scott Marcus
Nov 22 '18 at 0:02
Good advice but it doesn't answer the main point of the question: why is chrome behaving differently from firefox? Is it due to buffering (I read somewhere that chrome buffers 1K before displaying) and if so how can that be overcome? I'd like an answer to that before I restructure my logic.
– Sam
Nov 22 '18 at 12:05