Have you tried this already?
1585: if (Expr.filter.hasOwnProperty(type) && (match =
Expr.match[type].exec(expr)) !=
> > > null) {
Regards
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:02 PM, CaptainPalapa <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> Are there any solutions to this issue yet? We're reworking our entire
> framework that (prior to my arrival) was a mess of Prototype,
> ColdFusion CFAjax stuff, Spry, you name it. We're slowly replacing
> other code with jQuery calls, but it's not going to be an overnight
> process...and we still have to keep the existing site running. The
> noConflict() doesn't completely solve all our issues, but sure made a
> big difference.
>
> On Mar 28, 2:51 am, DBJDBJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> > First: Ok, I will not. It looks silly I know.
> >
> > Second + Third :
> >
> > -- I do never extend object prototype myself. But 50% of javascript
> > users will. As soon as they find some "awesome" snippets on the net.
> > The point here is not what me and you (or unavoidable Daniel) know
> > and do with jQ.
> > The point is what majority of jQuery customers do and will do.
> > My voluntary contribution is to point out what I think general
> > jQuery public will experience, not us (aka "experts" ;o)
> > Same as my discusion about context logic: I know what it is and how
> > is it to be used etc. But at least 50% of jQuery customers will either
> > never ever
> > use the context in $() call or will use it but in a wrong way.
> > Exactly the same is with Object.prototype.
> > So when real non expert jQuery customer (which is not me ;o) posts
> > a finding,
> > the last thing I want you John (and Daniel ;o) to do is to say
> > anything along the lines: "this is a wrong question to ask"..
> > And I do not want you to do this because I think jQuery is very
> > good AND equaly importantly has good people "inside".
> > Also there is a small matter of a typical jQ users blaming jQ for
> > their inexperience. As I am sure you are experiencing every day.
> > There are already blogs where managrs complain how jQ enbaled pages
> > are becoming slower etc.
> > Some of them also blog about their developers not using context or
> > some other examples of bad Javascript and/or jQ usage.
> > But most of them do not blog about having bad web developers.
> > And that leaves bad impression (undeservedly) on jQ.
> > I think 90% of jQ users until few months ago have been
> > Web Designers who found out about $("#mydiv").hide("slow").show
> > ("slow") and got excited ;o)
> > With my findings , I just might to help deal with that kind of jQ
> > users. Which are making, I am affraid, far more than 50% of jQ users
> > population.
> >
> > Enough of ranting ;o)
> >
> > It seems (obvious?) to me jQuery.each () is where you arleady have
> > solved the "extending Object.prototype" problem, (as you already
> > know)?
> > Have length property and use it always, to iterate over jQ internal
> > objects. Same as you do with jQ itself ...
> >
> > So, jq.1.3.2 line # 1584 becomes :
> >
> > 1584: for (var type = 0; type < Expr.filter.length; j+
> > +) {
> >
> > ...
> >
> > On Mar 27, 6:30 pm, John Resig <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > First, please don't use all-caps in your email subjects.
> >
> > > Second, Yes, this is known - and it's highly recommended that you
> > > don't extend Object.prototype - it'll do far more than break jQuery.
> >
> > > Third, it's something that we're looking into for the future, but
> > > please don't do it, regardless of the state of jQuery.
> >
> > >http://erik.eae.net/archives/2005/06/06/22.13.54/
> >
> > > --John
> >
> > > 2009/3/27 DBJDBJ <[email protected]>:
> >
> > > > I have found this:
> >
> > > > If I do this, in a global scope :
> >
> > > > Object.prototype.any_method = function () {}
> >
> > > > Then Sizzle fails.
> >
> > > > [ jQuery.1.3.2 (uncompressed) ]
> >
> > > > 1583: while (expr && set.length) {
> > > > 1584: for (var type in Expr.filter) {
> > > > 1585: if ((match = Expr.match[type].exec(expr)) !=
> > > > null) {
> > > > 1586: var filter = Expr.filter[type], found,
> > > > item;
> > > > 1587: anyFound = false;
> > > > 1588:
> > > > 1589: if (curLoop == result) {
> > > > 1590: result = [];
> > > > 1591: }
> >
> > > > Line 1585 , causes an exception "Object does not support this
> property
> > > > or method".
> > > > This is because Expr.match[type].exec is "undefined", when type ==
> > > > any_method
> > > > An it inevitably will become that because of the
> > > > Object.protoype.any_method "extension" ...
> >
> > > > In the presence of jQuery (Sizzle) users should be able to add
> methods
> > > > to Object prototype, I think ?
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
