I also like this approach because apparently there's no way to protect the loops without downgrading performance or relying on a length property. It depends on the way it's presented, I doubt a novice would choose to download a version labeled "Object.prototype safe" if he doesn't know what it means. And if he does, no harm is done except for slightly worse performance. Might aswell do the opposite, an "unsafe" version for developers who have full control of their environment.
On Apr 26, 2:59 pm, ajpiano <[email protected]> wrote: > I tend to think an alternate build being available from the website > would tend to be confusing to the average consumer, especially given > the fact that Object.prototype "insurance" is a goal for an upcoming > release (so I've heard...) It won't be very long before Google grabs > this thread and exposes the techniques demonstrated to anyone who > might be after a temporary fix. > > On Apr 24, 4:43 pm, Daniel Friesen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think I like the idea of an alternate jQuery download. > > > for ( var i in hash ) /*...@cc loopsafe; if( hash.hasOwnProperty( i ) ) */ > > attr[i] = hash[i]; > > > Standard jQuery build would contain: > > for ( var i in hash ) > > attr[i] = hash[i]; > > > While a special jquery.loopsafe.js build would contain: > > for ( var i in hash ) if( hash.hasOwnProperty( i ) ) > > attr[i] = hash[i]; > > > The result being that there is an alternate build of jQuery for people > > that currently need to deal with legacy code which extends Object.prototype; > > I find this to be a fair solution. It gives an option to those who want > > to use jQuery in an environment which is already hostile due to legacy > > code they slowly want to remove. > > But it also caters to the larger group of us that know not to touch > > Object.prototype and don't care for the slowdown. > > > ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) > > > Balazs Endresz wrote: > > > Well, if someone really needs a quick *intermediate* solution it can > > > be done by inserting checks with search and replace. I didn't think it > > > through properly at all but it seems to work if you execute these in > > > order (except for the loop around line 3757, where a semicolon should > > > be removed after `add( j, this );`). Don't try it on any other script, > > > this is only intended for the current (1.3.2) release! > > > > loop with braces: > > > (for \( (var )?([^\n]+) in ([^\n]+)\) {) > > > $1 if ( !$4.hasOwnProperty( $3 ) ){ continue } > > > > single line loop without braces: > > > (for \( (var )?([^\n{]+) in ([^\n{]+)\) )(?!{)([^;]+;) > > > $1{ if ( !$4.hasOwnProperty( $3 ) ){ continue } \n $5 } > > > > multiline loop without braces: > > > (for \( (var )?([^\n{]+) in ([^\n{]+)\))[^ ] > > > $1 { if ( !$4.hasOwnProperty( $3 ) ){ continue } \n $5 } > > > > Here's a modified version:http://pastebin.com/m731b1dff > > > > On Apr 24, 1:13 pm, DBJDBJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> we all then nicely agree, no flames here ;o) > > > >> still we have no solution to Captain P. and other jQuery well wishers > > >> who have inherited legacy javascript apps and who want to refactor > > >> them using jQ only. > > >> while having to keep the legacy app running ... > > > >> -- DBJ > > > >> On Apr 23, 11:06 am, Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > > >>> @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. > > > ... > > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
