$.load don't inherit from $.ajax

[adrien.dupuis@…]

The $.load() function return this. The $.ajax() request build inside the $.load() can't be accessed for, as example, .abort(). By changing

• jQuery.ajax({

+ return jQuery.ajax({

• return this;

$.load could be a true $.ajax shorthand.

[adrien.dupuis@…]

I mean minus signs, not bullets (diff patch style).

[timmywil]

load is different in that it is not $.load, but $.fn.load. Generally, functions on the prototype should return the current jQuery instance.

[ajpiano]

I'm sort of inclined to agree with the OP that there should be some way to access the Deferred associated with a given $.fn.load call - perhaps something similar to how we are able to do so for animations now?

[dmethvin]

This seems like an exceptional case, if it can't be done with one line of code or less I'd prefer we just let people use their own wrapper around $.ajax. #nobloat

[jaubourg]

I thought about it back when I was working on fn.promise. Fact is you can do element.promise( "someCategory" ). For instance, by default element.promise() is equivalent to element.promise( "fx" ). It's just a question of adding the _mark/_unmark calls where needed.

Dunno if it's that useful though... should we tag this as an 1.7 enhancement proposal?

[timmywil]

Perhaps something like

$(elem).load().promise("ajax")

I think I would like that.

[john]

Nominating ticket for 1.7 discussion.

[Rick Waldron]

+0,

[jaubourg]

-1, The more I think about it, the less I like this. If you want to do this, use ajax directly.

[timmywil]

-1, per my initial reaction + jaubourg's comment

[dmethvin]

-1, Rare cases may need additional code. No shame in that.

[john]

-1, Uhh yeah, that would be bad.

[addyosmani]

-1

[ajpiano]

+1 I don't see why there shouldn't at least be a mechanism to get at the promise from a $.fn.load...

[scottgonzalez]

-1, .load() is very much a convenience method, use $.ajax if you need more control