Wrapping jQuery Ajax Convenience Methods: Good idea or bad idea

[Gregg Bolinger]

We're using jQuery's load() function a lot throughout our application. We've discovered, quite embarrassingly I might add, that we need better error handling. So instead of

$.load(url, params, function() { });

we need to use

$.load(url, params, function(response, status, xhr) { });

So that we can check the status and deal with things appropriately. I'm thinking of writing a wrapper around load() (among other things) that would allow us to write code like this (function name for demo only):

$.customLoad({
  url: '',
  params: {},
  success: function() {},
  error: function() { }
});

But as I look at that, it makes me think I should just use the $.ajax() function instead, since I can already do that. So what would be a better "standard"? Wrap the convenience methods or just fall back to .ajax() ?

[Bear Bibeault]

If it's centralized error handling you are after, I'd just use the jQuery error events.

[Gregg Bolinger]

Bear Bibeault wrote:If it's centralized error handling you are after, I'd just use the jQuery error events.

Yea, I'm already doing that for some things. However, these error handling bits aren't all generic. For example, in this one instance on a load() call, I am showing and hiding some elements on success. But if there was an error, I don't want to show/hide things. I need to basically not do anything.

[Bear Bibeault]

I generally fall back to $.ajax in similar circumstances, unless it's something that will be done again and again and again, in which case extending/wrapping would be a decent approach.

[Gregg Bolinger]

Bear Bibeault wrote:I generally fall back to $.ajax in similar circumstances, unless it's something that will be done again and again and again, in which case extending/wrapping would be a decent approach.

That's what I figured and just needed that confirmation. Thanks.