Rick, your 1 (which I too have suggested in the past) might bring about unease as folks would prefer any eval-ing to come through explicit request. I also think it's imperative that the behavior of any dataType setting (including null) shouldn't change (especially to one that suddenly evals!). But that's just my opinion. My 1, 2 would be:
1. Allow $.ajax() to accept multiple expected dataTypes. 2. Setting to have $.ajax() auto-detect/translate via response content-type header. On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:03:22 -0500, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.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). >> > > 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. -- 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.
