> > We're struggling with the best way to inform .ajax() that we expect > multiple data types. Either, with a setting like "auto" or by passing an > array of data types (or maybe allowing both). >
Perhaps it would help if we defined a list of goals. I'll start. 1. $.ajax() - if dataType has not been defined in the argument list, $.ajax() should respect the returned Content-type header and translate accordingly. 2. .... Fill it in! Rick On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 7:41 PM, <webbied...@websiteguard.com> wrote: > We're struggling with the best way to inform .ajax() that we expect > multiple data types. Either, with a setting like "auto" or by passing an > array of data types (or maybe allowing both). > > > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:02:54 -0800, Erik Beeson <erik.bee...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Seems like a lot of awkward wheel reinventing going on here. Content > > type negotiation is a feature of HTTP; is there a reason we aren't > > using it? > > > > --Erik > > > > > > On Saturday, December 26, 2009, webbiedave <webbied...@websiteguard.com> > > wrote: > >> "Following your idea that a library has to keep exactly the same > >> behavior from versions to versions [...] then what happens if & when > >> jQuery introduces a new auto-detectable dataType in 1.4.1" > >> > >> Things could break *without* the introduction of new auto-detectable > >> types. If you use "auto" and are only handling json and html and > >> suddenly javascript is returned, that javascript will be eval'd and > >> things will will not turn out well. That's why you can't use "auto" on > >> untrusted/incompetent servers. That's the whole point of "auto". You > >> are trusting the server to return the correct data. Use at your own > >> risk. But it's there if you need it. > >> > >> Having said that, #1 in my suggestions is passing an array (dataType: > >> ["json", html"]). > >> > >> > >> > >> On Dec 26, 6:41 pm, Julian Aubourg <aubourg.jul...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > As I mentioned in my previous > >>> > post, one of this approach's downside is "null vs auto" confusion as > >>> > auto is like null plus more (json, script, future accepted > dataTypes). > >>> > The whole point is that "auto" means auto-detect type via > content-type > >>> > headers and null does not mean that (it means guess between html or > >>> > xml) > >>> > >>> This is exactly where the solution is inconsistent. > >>> > >>> "auto", in your implementation, does not mean "null plus more (json, > >>> script, > >>> *future accepted dataTypes*)" but it just means "null plus json & > >>> script" > >>> and only that. Following your idea that a library has to keep exactly > >>> the > >>> same behavior from versions to versions (which jQuery broke btw when > >>> ditching the @ syntax for attributes in selectors) then what happens if > >>> & > >>> when jQuery introduces a new auto-detectable dataType in 1.4.1? You > >>> create > >>> an "auto2" dataType so that existing code running in 1.4 is unaffected > >>> (ie: > >>> the new dataType is not auto-detected)? How would you document such a > >>> behaviour? What happens when there's another auto-detectable dataType > >>> introduced in 1.4.2? > >>> > >>> Giving programmers a way to specify exactly the dataTypes they expect > to > >>> be > >>> auto-detected is the way to go (would it be with an array or an > >>> expression). > >>> Just add a s.dataType = s.dataType || [text,xml] in the ajax code and > >>> you're > >>> done: no backward compatibility issue... plus you're safe for future > >>> developments in the dataType auto-detection area. > >>> > >>> 2009/12/27 webbiedave <webbied...@websiteguard.com> > >>> > >>> > "Second, auto seems like the weirdest thing ever to me used like it > is > >>> > here. So dataType==null and dataType=="auto" act the same for xml but > >>> > not for script & json? Seems completely inconsistant to me." > >>> > >>> > It's not that weird. I don't think that different settings yielding > >>> > different results is necessarily inconsistent. There are two ways to > >>> > get xml and now there'll be a third. As I mentioned in my previous > >>> > post, one of this approach's downside is "null vs auto" confusion as > >>> > auto is like null plus more (json, script, future accepted > dataTypes). > >>> > The whole point is that "auto" means auto-detect type via > content-type > >>> > headers and null does not mean that (it means guess between html or > >>> > xml). It is imperative that the behavior of dataType: null remains > the > >>> > same so this is a way to do that while affording multiple expected > >>> > dataTypes in a way that's secure, doesn't bloat and doesn't break > >>> > existing apps. Quite frankly, it usage makes simple sense to me and > >>> > those who need it will know exactly what it means and how to use it > >>> > (and will be relieved they can ditch their hacked libraries). > >>> > >>> > "If a coder does not want auto conversion, then he simply specifies a > >>> > dataType (namely "text")." > >>> > >>> > But null does not mean auto convert. It means guess between html or > >>> > xml and that cannot change. > >>> > >>> > "But, please, do not introduce a behavior that will act differently > >>> > for xml than it does for any other dataType deduced from content type > >>> > headers." > >>> > >>> > I admit I don't share your fear of such behavior and, in fact, > greatly > >>> > desire such a new setting. I'll know that my live apps that are using > >>> > dataType: null will be unaffected and in the future I'd be able to > >>> > write ajax calls that can respond to various data types. Also, I've > >>> > suggested several approaches and look forward to reading what others > >>> > think of them. > >>> > >>> > On Dec 26, 3:47 pm, Julian Aubourg <aubourg.jul...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > Regardless, I'm leaning towards the dataType: "auto" approach as > >>> > > it's easy to use/implement and affords enough control. > >>> > >>> > > Well, so, first, I translated the dataType to "auto" when it was > >>> > > null/undefined in my rewriting (because I hate messy/undefined > >>> > > values). > >>> > But > >>> > > that's no biggy. > >>> > >>> > > Second, auto seems like the weirdest thing ever to me used like it > >>> > > is > >>> > here. > >>> > > So dataType==null and dataType=="auto" act the same for xml but not > >>> > > for > >>> > > script & json? Seems completely inconsistant to me. > >>> > >>> > > If a coder does not want auto conversion, then he simply specifies > a > >>> > > dataType (namely "text"). You just have to document it. But, > please, > >>> > > do > >>> > not > >>> > > introduce a behavior that will act differentely for xml than it > does > >>> > > for > >>> > any > >>> > > other dataType deduced from content type headers. > >>> > >>> > > 2009/12/26 webbiedave <webbied...@websiteguard.com> > >>> > >>> > > > I was referring solely to the "bitwise or" style. Regardless, I'm > >>> > > > leaning towards the dataType: "auto" approach as it's easy to > use/ > >>> > > > implement and affords enough control. > >>> > >>> > > > Julian Aubourg wrote: > >>> > >>> > > > > As for string expressions not being in the calling style of > >>> > > > > jQuery... > >>> > > > > well... I really disagree here, since jQuery has expression > >>> > > > > parsed > >>> > parsed > >>> > > > > pretty much everywhere ;) > >>> > >>> > > > -- > >>> > >>> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google > >>> > Groups > >>> > > > "jQuery Development" group. > >>> > > > To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com > . > >>> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >>> > > > > > > <jquery-dev%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com<jquery-dev%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > <jquery-dev%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com<jquery-dev%25252bunsubscr...@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> > <jquery-dev%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com<jquery-dev%252bunsubscr...@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<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.
