@DBJ I know what you mean and I talked about this ages ago in my 5 cents
about javascript prototypal inheritance ...
Summary, respecting Mozilla convention for other Array cases (forEach,
filter, some, map, etc):
Object.prototype.forIn = function(callback, self){
for(var key in this){
if(this.hasOwnProperty(key))
callback.call(self, this[key], key, this);
};
};
// simple test case
Object.prototype.a = 1;
({b:2}).forIn(function(value, key, object){
alert(key);
});
Above forIn prototype could be the "de-facto" standard for every library
then we'll find some clever guru that will overwrite that prototype causing
"disasters" ... the same could be relying the hasOwnProperty method ... it
could be redefined from other silly developers.
As summary, due to the dynamic nature of the language, Object.prototype is
untouchable but if a library touches it we all should "sign" a deal:
hasOwnProperty has to be the native one so we can all use that method for
each "for in" call (slowing down consistently every browser ... so again, do
not touch the Object.prototype or you gonna have troubles)
Regards
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:26 AM, DBJDBJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> @Andrea
>
> Captains text is the best example why you are not supposed to say :
> " ... for people that use obtrusive code that changes the
> Object.prototype..."
>
> Faced with a javascript royal mess he inherited, Captain P. trusted
> that jQuery is the way to go. But now his trust is somewhat less
> prominent...
>
> Me or you or Captain P. we surely will not extend Object.prototype,
> but still we need jQuery that will work in the presence of a code that
> does this. We do not need to be talled that Object.prototype should
> never be extended.
>
> So jQ team, just go ahead and do it ;o) ... There are tons of legacy
> javascript out there with Object.prototype abused comprehensively.
> Right now none of it can be replaced with jjQuery.
>
> --DBJ
>
>
> On Apr 22, 2:30 pm, Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > I did not know a native hasOwnProperty method as boolean condition could
> > cause so many troubles but I simply replied to Captain Palapa. It was not
> a
> > suggestion for Sizzle, just a quick fix for people that use obtrusive
> code
> > that changes the Object.prototype.
> > But, obviously, if Sizzle uses for in everywhere, well ... that is just
> the
> > top of the iceberg :-)
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 2:14 PM, DBJDBJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > I tough of that, seemingly obvious ... but I think it has not
> > > worketh ...
> >
> > > Also this will require a non trivial jQ+Sizzle refactoring. Lot of
> > > testing, etc ... Me thinks ?
> >
> > > -- DBJ
> >
> > > On Apr 22, 9:01 am, Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > 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 ?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
