dojo.storage not working with Firefox 2.0

[sdrye at atg.com]

Running the dojo.storage test doesn't work correctly on Firefox 2.0. http://archive.dojotoolkit.org/nightly/tests/storage/test_storage.html

- If you select any option for the storage mechanism, it says that it is not supported. I have Flash and Java installed, and FF should support XPCOM directly. - If you ignore the errors and click configure, the Flash configuration dialog does pop up and you can set the limit. - If you use the "save book" link, it will pop up the Flash "allow" dialog and save the book correctly

So, Flash is clearly working correctly, despite the error that it isn't supported by the browser.

- None of the other options can be configured. The Flash popup shows up for any other option chosen.

[guest]

Really sorry about accidentally creating the junk report in the "View Tickets" reports list.

[guest]

Figured out that the majority of the errors are because the storage providers are unimplemented. The demo should be updated to let users know which ones aren't implemented yet vs. which ones aren't supported by the browser.

The Flash provider bug where it announces the browser doesn't support it is still there. Despite the alert that the browser "does not support features necessary to use... FlashStorageProvider?", Flash storage is working fine.

[guest]

Attaching initial stab at dojo.storage.browser.CookieStorageProvider?. ATG has a CCLA on file.

[sdrye at atg.com]

Initial stab at cookie provider

[liucougar]

I already have a full cookie implementation of storage backend (based on dojo.cookie), but it has some wired issues, so I do not check it in

[bradneuberg]

The demo page used to give the incorrect assumption that you could dynamically change the storage providers after the page was loaded, which was wrong. I fixed this awhile ago. Also, we now support Firefox 2 correctly. I am not going to incorporate the cookie.js patch since I have not had any requests for using cookies to handle Dojo Storage style storage -- cookies are just too small and it will bloat the code size.