4 ms·
A very good point! Presumably the appeal of a system like this is the potential for graceful degradation where if sockets aren’t working or some requests are fa
by memco 6y ago
A very good point! Presumably the appeal of a system like this is the potential for graceful degradation where if sockets aren’t working or some requests are failing then the default html behavior should still work: links will just take you to the original destination, but there’s no indication that this is actually what happens.
- inopinatus 6y agoThis is an isomorphic fetch. The original href already is the visited URL, so I'm not sure that trying that again is wise, or appropriate, unless the user chooses to reload. The entire design philosophy here is to mimic apparent browser behaviour, or to delegate to it. Hence, to GP's question; you should expect the appearance of browser-like behaviour in any circumstance, modulo anything Turbo is specifically trying to do different. Deviation from baseline browser semantics was certainly a basis for filing bugs in its predecessor (Turbolinks). As for what Turbo actually does, I checked the source. Good news, even for a first beta, they're not the cowboy nitwits alleged; it gracefully handles & distinguishes between broken visits and error-coded but otherwise normal content responses, and the state machine has a full set of hooks, incl. back to other JS/workers, busy-state element selectors, and the handy CSS progress bar carries over from Turbolinks.