Question

I have added a simple .js file to my page that has some pretty mundane common-task sort of functions added to the Object and Array prototypes.

Through trial and error, I ve figured out that adding any function to Object.prototype, no matter it s name or what it does causes Javascript errors in jQuery:

The culprit?

Object.prototype.foo = function() {
    /*do nothing and break jQuery*/
};

The error I m getting line 1056 of jquery-1.3.2.js, in the attr:function { } declaration:

/*Object doesn t support this property or method*/
name = name.replace(/-([a-z])/ig, function(all, letter) {
            return letter.toUpperCase();
        });

Apparently G.replace is undefined.

While it s obvious that there s something I m just not wrapping my head around with prototyping, I m failing miserably to figure out what it is.

To be clear, I m not looking for a workaround, I have that handled... what I m looking for is an answer to Why?. Why does adding a function to Object.prototype break this bit of code?

Answer 1

You should never extend Object.prototype. It does far more than break jQuery; it completely breaks the "object-as-hashtables" feature of Javascript. Don t do it.

You can ask John Resig, and he ll tell you the same thing.

Answer 2

If it s simply a case of messing up for...in loops, can t you use Object.defineProperty to add your fn without making it enumerable?

So:

Object.defineProperty(Object.prototype, "foo", { 
    value: function() {
        // do stuff
    },
    enumerable : false
});

Seems to work for me. Would this still be considered bad form?

Answer 3

I agree, adding something to Object.prototype demands caution and should be avoided. Look for other solutions such as:

Adding it to Object and then accessing it with a call or apply, as needed. For example:

Object.foo = function () { return this.whatever()}

Then call that on an object by:

Object.foo.call(Objname);  // this invokes the function as though it were a
                           // method of Objname.  That is, its like Objname.foo()

For fun, you can add the following (yes, I know its a bit dangerous...):

Function.using = Function.call; // syntactic sugar

Now you can write Object.foo.using(Objname) and it reads like a sentance.

But as a rule, stay away from altering any of the big prototypes.

Answer 4

I banged my head around this problem as I wished to implement "real" object orientation in all of my objects, like this:

interface Object
{
    GetType: () => string;
    ToString: () => string;
    GetHashcode: () => number;
    Equals: (obj: any) => boolean;
}

Since Object.prototype breaks JQuery, I defaulted to the abovementioned solution to make use of defineProperty but that does not take any arguments.

The good news is that you can hack into defineProperty and actually accept parameters. Here is my implementation:

Object.defineProperty(Object.prototype, "Equals",
    {
        value: function (obj: any)
        {
            return obj == null && this == null
                    ? true
                    : obj != null && this == null
                        ? false
                        : obj == null && this != null
                            ? false
                            : this.GetHashcode() == obj.GetHashcode();
        },
        enumerable: false
    });

This works and does not clash with JQuery.

Answer 5

I doubt adding a function to Object.prototype breaks jQuery directly. Just make sure each for..in loop you have throughout your site is wrapped in a hasOwnProperty check, since you ve add the function globally and the result of iterating over it can be unpredictable:

Object.prototype.foo = function() {};    
var myObject = {m1: "one", m2: "two" };

for(var i in myObject) { if(myObject.hasOwnProperty(i)) {
   // Do stuff... but not to Object.prototype.foo
}}

友情链接