Wouldn't it still break some scripts that actually expect the data never to
be undefined?
Why not the following:
$.get("someurl", function(data) {
// got results
}, function(errorMessage) {
// got error
});
That way, actual scripts behave as usual and new ones can provide an error
callback.
Thoughts?
2009/11/9 John Resig <jere...@gmail.com>
> I've thought about your post some more and I think this might actually
> be ok. Considering that right now the only callback that is fired is
> the success callback we can safely assume that people who are using
> this method don't actually care about the error state - thus if we
> pass in the normal error callback the page will still break (albeit in
> a different manner).
>
> Thus if you wanted to make proper use of the $.get or $.post with the
> dual-callback functionality you would have to do:
>
> $.get("someurl", function(data){
> if ( typeof data === "string" ) {
> // got results
> } else {
> // got error
> }
> });
>
> Another option could be a modified error callback and actually have it
> work like this:
>
> $.get("someurl", function(data, errorMessage){
> if ( data ) {
> // got results
> } else {
> // got error
> alert( errorMessage );
> }
> });
>
> Thoughts on this?
>
> --John
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Mr Speaker <mrspea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The $.post and $.get are really handy, but seem limited in their use
> > for serious work because you can't tell if they fail (can you? I mean,
> > besides the global error handler?).
> >
> > I couldn't find any discussion on this, it would be useful if you
> > could just call the same callback method for either success or error
> > and let the user play with the result:
> >
> > post: function( url, data, callback, type ) {
> > ...
> > return jQuery.ajax({
> > type: "POST",
> > url: url,
> > data: data,
> > success: callback,
> > error: callback, <-- same function
> > dataType: type
> > });
> >
> > This would be especially useful for $.post where it's usually pretty
> > important that you know that an update has occurred. In the
> > documentation the callback code has this comment:
> > // NOTE: Apparently, only "success" is returned when you make
> > // an Ajax call in this way. Other errors silently fail.
> >
> > So I guess there is a reason for not doing this... it would break
> > existing code for people who just checked for ANY return value, and I
> > suppose it complicates the simple $.post function a little - but it
> > would give these helper functions more "real world" uses.
> >
> > --
> >
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "jQuery Development" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to jquery-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<jquery-dev%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en.
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "jQuery Development" group.
> To post to this group, send email to jquery-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<jquery-dev%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en.
>
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en.
