> 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.
