javascript - Paul Irish 'duck punching' pattern observation - Stack Overflow

admin管理员组

文章数量:1387360

Had a question about the 'duck punching' pattern I first encountered on Paul Irish's blog. I get the general premise... save a ref to an existing function, then replace the existing function with a conditional branch that will call a new function if condition is met, or the old version if not. My question is why do we have to use the "apply" with 'this' as the first param when we call the _old function? I understand how apply works, but I'm looking for some clarification on why it is necessary.

(function($){

        // store original reference to the method
        var _old = $.fn.method;

        $.fn.method = function(arg1,arg2){

            if ( ... condition ... ) {
               return  .... 
            } else {           // do the default
               return _old.apply(this,arguments);
            }
        };
    })(jQuery);

Had a question about the 'duck punching' pattern I first encountered on Paul Irish's blog. I get the general premise... save a ref to an existing function, then replace the existing function with a conditional branch that will call a new function if condition is met, or the old version if not. My question is why do we have to use the "apply" with 'this' as the first param when we call the _old function? I understand how apply works, but I'm looking for some clarification on why it is necessary.

(function($){

        // store original reference to the method
        var _old = $.fn.method;

        $.fn.method = function(arg1,arg2){

            if ( ... condition ... ) {
               return  .... 
            } else {           // do the default
               return _old.apply(this,arguments);
            }
        };
    })(jQuery);

• javascript
• jquery

Share Improve this question Follow edited Jul 9, 2013 at 21:55 Ben 52.9k3636 gold badges132132 silver badges154154 bronze badges asked May 1, 2011 at 14:00 mikemike 26511 silver badge66 bronze badges 0

Add a ment  | 

3 Answers 3

Sorted by: Reset to default 8

Consider this example

var obj = {
    foo: "bar",
    baz: function () {
        return this.foo;
    }
};
o = obj.baz;
obj.baz(); // "bar"
o(); // undefined

if you call a method with obj.baz, the object that is behind the dot is the function's context (this will refer to this object). if you store a method in a variable, you lose the information about the context. In that case, the context will be set to the global object.

var obj = {
    baz: function () {
        return this;
    }
};
o = obj.baz;
obj.baz() === obj; // true
o() === obj; // false
o() === window; // true

A proper context will likely be important for the .method to work as intended.

You pass this because apply() needs the first argument to be what this should be when calling the old function.

apply() is being used so you can easily hand arguments which will be treated as the arguments to the old function.

So, when deciding what to pass as this, you have chosen to pass on what this is in that context.

If you were to call the original function without apply, you let JavaScript decide what to bind this to, and that may well be something different from what it would be bound to if you hadn't monkeypatched/duckpunched the original code.

Using apply, you ensure that the correct value is used for this, e.g. the one the wrapper function is being called with.

本文标签： javascriptPaul Irish 39duck punching39 pattern observationStack Overflow