It would be quite nice if. $ ( defined as: )
function(selector, context) {
// The jQuery object is actually just the init
constructor
'enhanced'
return new jQuery.fn.init(selector, context);
}
if the above will have a few sanity checks so that one can do this :
try {
jq = $("...", "......") ;
} catch ( x )
{
// x.number === jQuery.error_code
// x. message == "jQuery error message"
}
This would remove 90% of issues and will explain to a lot of people a
lot about jQuery ...
PS: of course to even start jQuery in the presence of serious abuses
like Object.prototype extensions one is always welcomed to start from
http://dbj.org/jquery.1.3.2.safe.slow.js ....
-- DBJ
On May 19, 2:13 pm, Julian Aubourg <aubourg.jul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh yes, I understood, I was just answering to the last statement you made in
> your previous post about logging rather than throwing exceptions :)
>
> 2009/5/19 David Zhou <da...@nodnod.net>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Well, there's no reason not to throw exceptions too. The point was a
> > script that monkeypatched jQuery to allow for some of the debugging
> > features being discussed.
>
> > -- dz
>
> > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Julian Aubourg
> > <aubourg.jul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I dunno.
> > > From what I witnessed, when jQuery starts to complain/halt, the problem
> > is
> > > generally elsewhere, especially when you keep references to nodes/select
> > > results like I personnaly do. Exceptions would be nice imo, so that you
> > get
> > > the callstack. Logs are good as long as all of the application being
> > > developped is heavily "consoled" or else you won't know anything about
> > the
> > > context of the problem.
> > > Of course, I'm talking from the point of view of someone who develops
> > sites
> > > that are ultra-heavy in the js department.
>
> > > 2009/5/19 David Zhou <da...@nodnod.net>
>
> > >> I wonder if it's feasible to monkeypatch debugging wrappers around
> > >> jQuery core methods. You don't even need it to throw errors -- a
> > >> simple console.log warning would suffice.
>
> > >> -- dz
>
> > >> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Julian Aubourg
> > >> <aubourg.jul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > jquery.debug.js / jquery.release.js ? ;)
> > >> > I really like this idea. When I first started using jQuery, I
> > sometimes
> > >> > had
> > >> > some issues determining what it was I was doing wrong when jQuery
> > >> > complained
> > >> > deep in its internal functions.
>
> > >> > 2009/5/19 Matt Kruse <m...@thekrusefamily.com>
>
> > >> >> On May 19, 5:32 am, DBJDBJ <dbj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> > This is an discussion on library develeopment philosophy.
> > >> >> > There are only two sides to this coin: fast and dangerous and safe
> > >> >> > and
> > >> >> > slow.
>
> > >> >> I think this is another use for a jQuery "development" build. One
> > that
> > >> >> would generate warnings of empty selector results, invalid arguments,
> > >> >> etc. It could also detect possible conflicts like this that would
> > >> >> cause jQuery to misbehave and alert the developer.
>
> > >> >> Once development is done, you swap in the "production" version of
> > >> >> jQuery and avoid the penalty his that comes with all the debug stuff.
>
> > >> >> Matt Kruse- 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 jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
