Does building with Ant work from github anymore? I'm guessing no b/c
it needs to get QUnit/Sizzle.
Would it be nice if you could pull in dependencies in JS like ruby's
gem install, and all your building would already be done via
JavaScript.
Hm ... JMVC has this feature :).
--
You received
The reason is that some events (mousemove/mouseover) I rarely use the
event properties, but the performance of that function is rather
expensive compared to the number of events being fired. Fix might add
300ms of computation for the lifetime of a typical drag/drop event. (I
will happily get bette
> $.ajax is already one of the most complex and least consistent methods
> in jQuery, so if anything I'd like to see it get simpler.
Can you expand on this? It'd probably be good to either document or
fix the issues you're encountering.
--John
--
You received this message because you are subscr
On Nov 9, 4:31 pm, Dave Methvin wrote:
> > $.get(url, callback).error( onError )
>
> That creates a potential race condition, since the async request is
> made and may complete before the onError handler is attached.
Is that really true? I thought javascript was strictly single
threaded...
Mark
Just regarding the issue of jsonp, I'll ponit you to my own jsonp plugin:
http://code.google.com/p/jquery-jsonp/
I too agree jsonp is a bit too specific for an inclusion within $.ajax but
the proposed solution of returning a wrapper around the xhr could help
smoothing out differences.
Regarding th
> $.get(url, callback).error( onError )
That creates a potential race condition, since the async request is
made and may complete before the onError handler is attached.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this grou
> Couldn't you just use the .ajaxError() method in conjunction with
> $.get or $.post? That seems to work for me.
I use that technique as well, and it's nice because it gets the error
checking out of the way of the main code. I also have used a wrapper
plugin around $.ajax in some cases. Neither
+1
> Hmm. It'd be neat if we could somehow return just jQuery(xhr) but
> that's not really possible, not without breaking code, at least.
It might just be possible, if jQuery(xhr) was then extended with the
xhr API. I don't know if there is some overlap that would make this
impossible, and I'm r
This sounds a lot like Deferred/Promise APIs. +1
Julian Aubourg wrote:
> Yeah, $.ajax already returning jQuery(xhr) would be awesome, but talk
> about backward compatibility breakage... the real question being: how
> many actually do use the xhr as a returned value (as opposed to
> beforeSend for
Yeah, $.ajax already returning jQuery(xhr) would be awesome, but talk about
backward compatibility breakage... the real question being: how many
actually do use the xhr as a returned value (as opposed to beforeSend for
instance).
I have a question though... would jQuery(jQuery.get("url")).bind("su
> Jason, I like what you're getting at.. a lot.
I agree, I like it as well.
A completely different technique:
jQuery(jQuery.get("url")).bind("success", fn);
Then the jQuery.ajax method could call jQuery(xhr).trigger("success");
Hmm. It'd be neat if we could somehow return just jQuery(xhr) but
Jason, I like what you're getting at.. a lot.
2009/11/9 Jason Persampieri
> I agree with pretty much everything Julian said. And while I don't
> have a problem with $.get(url, onSuccess, onError), I can see how this
> isn't "jQuery-like".
>
> Right now, $.get returns an XmlHttpRequest object.
I agree with pretty much everything Julian said. And while I don't
have a problem with $.get(url, onSuccess, onError), I can see how this
isn't "jQuery-like".
Right now, $.get returns an XmlHttpRequest object. What if that
object were extended a bit?
$.get(url, callback).error( onError )
Or, h
OK and well I guess, but I'll go back to my original statement too then:
"simple cases don't protect from temporary connection and/or server
shutdowns, do they?". Like I said, I will use $.ajax anyway, but let me
re-iterate that simple in design (rather in signature here) does not mean
suitable for
Couldn't you just use the .ajaxError() method in conjunction with
$.get or $.post? That seems to work for me.
http://docs.jquery.com/Ajax/ajaxError#callback
--Karl
On Nov 9, 2009, at 10:48 AM, Julian Aubourg wrote:
> Well, to be honest, I never ever use $.get or $.put (or $.getJSON).
> The
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 wrote:
> Well, to be honest, I never ever use $.get or $.put (or $.getJSON).
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
On Nov 9, 7:29 am, John Resig wrote:
> 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
I dont think thats true. There are plenty of use ca
> 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
i
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
callba
> 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?
This one looks cleaner to me
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:22 PM, bourne_net2009 wrote:
> I have a IE bug in carousel3d plugin on image click animation after
> ajax call.
You're asking on the wrong list. This list is for the development of
the jQuery library itself. Discussions on how to use jQuery and its
plug-ins is on the ma
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
I noted that a test involves an myKlass with no methods.
My solution of isObject will not pass that test.
In isObjectLiteral gist there is no such test case, so I supposed that
that case is negligible for reason:
normally an class have methods, and detecting empty prototypes would
complicate isObje
24 matches
Mail list logo
