Subject: [jquery-dev] Re: Why can't jQuery support object
prototype extensions?

John- I don't have an account yet so I cannot post the diff. I'll
send you an email containing the diff, but it was really just a proof
of concept to ensure that my app would compile with the jquery lib
included. I haven't tested it yet and it's partly why I asked the
group about the situation.

For anyone interested I basically added the following statement: " if
(!obj.hasOwnProperty(x)) continue; " to each loop where obj &
x were the object & key values. In some cases I had to add brackets
to the loop.

After reading the attached discussions in the ticket you referenced
and doing a bit more research on the topic I decided to run some tests
on hasOwnProperty since everyone liked to say it would destroy
performance but provide no stats. As it turns out the performance hit
was about 5% when using hasOwnProperty and 2.5% when using
Object.prototype[x]. I'm not sure how often jQuery is iterating over
objects for any given application, but I can't imagine it's anywhere
close to 50% which means the overall impact on an application is
negligible. There are far easier ways to gain a percentage point
increase in performance in a web app than worrying about an if
statement in a for loop.

According to my research there is also the problem of hasOwnProperty
not being supported in Safari 1.3 & IE5.0, but the prototype check is
supported and it's faster anyway.

For my purposes I don't care so much about speed as I do about the
flexibility of my framework as my focus is on data mining and
automation on the internet which has performance issues orders of
magnitude greater than a few hundred milliseconds. But from the
research it looks like this has been a thorn in a few people's sides
so maybe there is a need to optimize further. In which case I'd go
with Yehuda Katz and optimize with a whitelist where you have full
control, and possibly with a blacklist and some checksum on the
object's prototype collection when you can't trust it.

Andrea - as for modifying hasOwnProperty, I would expect that it be a
good thing to rely on that modification. If someone had modified that
function it would probably be for a very good purpose. I've done some
crazy machine learning algorithms based on the premise that I can
modify and extend the prototype of every object and being able to
isolate or selectively include certain keys as always being native to
the object could prove necessary. In that instance I would also want
jQuery to think they were part of the object as well, and if I didn't
I could modify my hasOwnProperty implementation to handle such a case.

Anyway, the test results are below, and I'll send that email to your
gmail account John. Thanks for the quick reply!

500k "" iterations
run on an idle, amd 1.8 ghz 1g memory system running xp, ie7

each test was run in a new instance of a browser
times are in milliseconds and do not include object construction

Time with No Prototype Extension, Checking for hasOwnProp
19297, 19141, 19140

Time with No Prototype Extension, No hasOwnProp
18157, 18375, 18188

Time with 100 Prototype Extensions, no hasOwnProp
18250, 18281, 18235

Time with 100 Prototype Extensions, checking for hasOwnProp
19047, 19125, 19015

Time with 100 Prototype Extensions, checking Object.prototype
18657, 18750, 18609

On Feb 24, 3:45 pm, John Resig <jere...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Marcus -
> This is the current ticket that I'm tracking on the
> issue:
> I currently have it on the 1.4 roadmap -  but if you already have a
> patch, I would love to see it (please attach it to the above ticket,
> as well) - perhaps we can get something landed sooner, rather than
> later.
> --John
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Marcus Pope <AngloA...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Of the 4 total bugs found when searching for hasOwnProperty, each one
> > reports that jQuery doesn't support object prototype extensions
> > because of some factor.  In the most recent case a bug was closed
> > invalid with the following explanation:
> > "jQuery does not support changes to Object.prototype. The additional
> > Object properties become visible to for-in loops and breaks any code
> > that uses them. "
> > After going through and editing the 30 or so references to unsafe
> > loops I was able to compile my application which extensively
> > uses custom functions on the object prototype.  I guess I'm confused
> > as to why this cannot (or will not) be integrated into the jquery
> > code.
> > I'll admit I'm not a jQuery expert, but I couldn't find any code using
> > inherited objects in the iterations.  Maybe it has something
> > to do with jquery pluggins.
> > Of course my solution is to modify the codebase every time a new
> > version is released, but this seems pointless if making the iterations
> > safe would resolve the problem altogether.
> > Just curious, any info welcome.
> > Thanks,
> > Marcus- 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

Programming list archiving by: Enterprise Git Hosting