Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
Thank you for your suggestion. I agree that it would be better to apply the
modification of No.3.
At first, I couldn't understand why you also changed the No.1 and No.2. After a
little thought, I understood the reason. Probably, the current getScriptUrl()
function returns a wrong value when the script is loaded asynchronously. So,
I'm going to modify the code so that the function will always return a correct
value.
Original comment by revu...@gmail.com
on 16 Jan 2011 at 10:20
About a bulletproof getScriptUrl: I don't know how you want to do that. But I
suggest, that you don't relay on the filename. There are a lot of CMS, which
will change this name.
Original comment by a.farkas...@googlemail.com
on 17 Jan 2011 at 7:45
I have committed your patch in r193 with some modifications. Could you check
whether it works as you expect? Since I gave up detecting the URL of
flashcanvas.js automatically, you need to set the location of SWF file in the
following way.
document.createElement("canvas");
var FlashCanvas = {
swfPath: "http://example.com/js/"
};
jQuery.getScript("flashcanvas.js", function(){
......
});
Personally, I don't recommend loading flashcanvas.js asynchronously because it
might cause unexpected problems. For example, when I first tested your patch,
FlashCanvas.unlock() method was never called. To make the script work, I had to
add some wait before calling the unlock() method. But I don't know why such a
wait is required, and I'm not sure whether the length of this wait is
sufficient or not.
Original comment by revu...@gmail.com
on 17 Jan 2011 at 2:22
This works fine. Thanks for your help. I will make further tests to check
wether this timer workaround makes any problems (slow connection, slow machines
etc.). But I think, it is just weird and nothing else.
Hope to see this in next pro version, too.
Original comment by a.farkas...@googlemail.com
on 18 Jan 2011 at 1:14
I plan to release FlashCanvas Pro 1.5 in the near future. If you'd like to test
with a pro version, here is a latest beta version that I have applied the same
patch.
http://flashcanvas.net/archive/FlashCanvasPro-20110117.zip
Original comment by revu...@gmail.com
on 18 Jan 2011 at 2:20
I have testet the normal and default version with different
connections/machines in IE6-IE8 and it works. Something, that, I would expect
is, that I can set all options with the technique above and not only the
swfPath:
window.FlashCanvas = {
disableContextMenu: true,
swfPath: "http:example.com/js/"
};
Original comment by a.farkas...@googlemail.com
on 18 Jan 2011 at 3:06
Thank you for your report.
I think setting the options via a FlashCanvas object is a good idea. I'll
implement that feature by the next release. And I keep this issue open until I
release the next version.
Original comment by revu...@gmail.com
on 18 Jan 2011 at 9:13
Ok, thank you. You are my hero :-)
Original comment by a.farkas...@googlemail.com
on 18 Jan 2011 at 11:31
I noticed a little problem in the current implementation. If you have no
objection, I'd like to use a window.FlashCanvasOptions object instead of a
window.FlashCanvas object to configure FlashCanvas.
We often check the existence of a FlashCanvas object before calling a method of
FlashCanvas, as shown in the following example.
// Execute only when FlashCanvas library has been loaded.
if (typeof FlashCanvas != "undefined") {
FlashCanvas.initElement(canvas);
}
However, if we set options via a window.FlashCanvas object, browsers other than
IE may also try to execute the above code, and that will result in an error.
For this reason, I think using a window.FlashCanvasOptions object has fewer
problems. What do you think?
Original comment by revu...@gmail.com
on 20 Jan 2011 at 1:36
I tentatively committed r195, which uses a window.FlashCanvasOptions object
instead of a window.FlashCanvas object.
Original comment by revu...@gmail.com
on 25 Jan 2011 at 8:53
I've released FlashCanvas-20110201 and FlashCanvas Pro 1.5, and it seems that
Webshims Lib 1.5.0 now supports FlashCanvas.
So, I close this issue.
Original comment by revu...@gmail.com
on 19 Mar 2011 at 1:38
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
a.farkas...@googlemail.com
on 16 Jan 2011 at 3:10