Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Cacheable view served via /ajax/view #9794

Closed
hypeJunction opened this issue May 5, 2016 · 6 comments
Closed

Cacheable view served via /ajax/view #9794

hypeJunction opened this issue May 5, 2016 · 6 comments
Milestone

Comments

@hypeJunction
Copy link
Contributor

We currently allow any simple cache view to be served via /ajax page handler, which includes images etc. I am not sure this was the intended behavior - as far as I can understand we wanted to have a BC way to serve only JS/CSS views, but after the big simplecache refactor we are sending everything and with wrong headers.

@hypeJunction
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mrclay
Copy link
Member

mrclay commented May 5, 2016

Your fix seems reasonable. As long as elgg/Ajax responses are always served with JSON content type.

@mrclay
Copy link
Member

mrclay commented May 5, 2016

I'm sure your bigger Q is should we allow it. I don't know.

@hypeJunction
Copy link
Contributor Author

I am fine either way. I just think it would be odd to serve raw image bytes for example with elgg/Ajax having no clue what the content type is in value

@hypeJunction hypeJunction added this to the HTTP Responses milestone May 27, 2016
@hypeJunction
Copy link
Contributor Author

Not a blocker for 3.0

@jdalsem jdalsem removed this from the Elgg 3.0.0-RC1 milestone May 14, 2018
@jdalsem jdalsem added this to the Elgg 3.1 milestone Jun 21, 2019
@jdalsem
Copy link
Member

jdalsem commented Jul 16, 2019

This has long been fixed in bfc860c

We currently allow it and send the correct content type

@jdalsem jdalsem closed this as completed Jul 16, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants