Ok, so I go back to my original statement: "Really the get and post
methods are meant to be simple cases, everything else should be
tackled with the ajax method."
--John
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Julian Aubourg <aubourg.jul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, to be honest, I never ever use $.get or $.put (or $.getJSON). The main
> reason is that there is no error callback which, in my opinion, makes them
> completely useless in any production environment.
>
> Now I understand the convention being broken argument, but the two callback
> solution:
> - does not break current code, ever,
> - does not necessitate jQuery to create a special error callback that will
> redirect to the dual callback function,
> - does not necessitate branching in user code.
>
> I dunno, but for helper functions, I'd be willing to sacrifice some api
> purity and have them really useful yet backward compatible. But, then again,
> I never had the responsibility of anything that's became as huge as jQuery,
> so...
>
> 2009/11/9 John Resig <jere...@gmail.com>
>>
>> > Wouldn't it still break some scripts that actually expect the data never
>> > to
>> > be undefined?
>>
>> As I mentioned before - the application would just break in a
>> different way. Normally it would break in that the result would never
>> come in - now it would throw an exception (again, that's assuming that
>> if they're trying to do something directly with the object - a more
>> likely result is seeing "null" outputted somewhere).
>>
>> > 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?
>>
>> I'm not a huge fan of this - having dual functions being passed in as
>> arguments is messy and against the current jQuery conventions. I feel
>> like if you're passing in so many functions why not just use $.ajax
>> and be done with it? Especially since $.ajax is so much more explicit
>> any way.
>>
>> Either we should find a simple solution (like what I proposed) or do
>> no change at all.
>>
>> --John
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> 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.
>
--
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.
