This is something that we're looking in to for a future release, in the meantime, you should definitely be using json2.js: http://json.org/json2.js
--John On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:27 AM, nothize <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've found an old thread talking about the compatibility issue with > json.js and jquery : > > [ jQuery + Json library = broken jQuery ] > > http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev/browse_thread/thread/5aecf614042d5a20/5eacf4619d19a8a7?lnk=gst&; > q=json#<http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev/browse_thread/thread/5aecf614042d5a20/5eacf4619d19a8a7?lnk=gst&%0Aq=json#> > > Whenever json.js, which mess with Object.prototype, is included in a > web page with jquery, two javascript errors are potentially awakened. > > As I think it is awful to workaround this problem by modifying all > JSON related function calls or any other things that might have > injected into Object, I decided to let jquery to be more fault > tolerant to a given environment. Like how it did for cross browser > support. > > > The unified diff between jquery 1.3.2 and the changes I have made to > avoid the errors: > > ============================================== > --- jquery-1.3.2.js 2009-03-12 14:09:14.000000000 +0800 > +++ jquery-1.3.2_fix.js 2009-03-12 14:15:38.000000000 +0800 > @@ -1582,7 +1582,7 @@ > > while ( expr && set.length ) { > for ( var type in Expr.filter ) { > - if ( (match = Expr.match[ type ].exec( expr )) != > null ) { > + if ( Expr.match[ type ].exec && (match = > Expr.match[ type ].exec > ( expr )) != null ) { > var filter = Expr.filter[ type ], found, > item; > anyFound = false; > > @@ -2683,6 +2683,9 @@ > for ( var j in handlers ) { > var handler = handlers[j]; > > + if ( !handler.guid ) { > + continue; > + } > // Filter the functions by class > if ( all || namespace.test(handler.type) ) { > // Pass in a reference to the handler > function itself > ============================================== > > The first change avoided a problem in IE 5 that saying blahblahbalh > method not found. > The second change avoided an infinite recursion loop, though checking > the existence of guid may still be vulnerable to coincidence. Perhaps > adding a hopefully unique identifier(maybe the jQuery instance?) when > an event is being added via jQuery.event.add() will be safer? > > I love jquery as it helped me much in not reinventing the wheels. > Hopefully the fixes will be incorporated as part of the jquery so that > the fixes can be shared by more people. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jQuery Development" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
