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 simple cases. The OP problem is quite clear: for "serious work"
(ie: in real world production), error handling is mandatory because no
matter how simple the ajax call, error can (and will) occur. I'm afraid the
simple cases you're refering to are nothing more than proof of concepts and
I personally don't use jQuery to do prototypes but real world web sites.
That being said, the current status of $.get and $.post also pushes
developers into ignoring errors altogether which makes for plugins you have
to modify (or just plain rewrite) for production use (sadly talking from
experience here).
Finally, handling error cases with $.ajaxError in that case is like crushing
an egg with a grand piano.
And before anybody jumps at my throat, let me say again that I mean no
disrespect: I admire the work you guys put into jQuery and I shudder to
imagine how I would develop without this fantastic toolbox but, as of today,
$.get and $.post are not "write less, do more", they are "write less, do
half the work".
But well, what do I care? I never use them anyway ;)
2009/11/9 John Resig <jere...@gmail.com>
> 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<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<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.
