EDIT: Anyway, this commit is already in, no point in reverting it back in forth, we can discuss it here if you have doubts and optionally revert later.
One way to reduce the code size here would be to remove the check completely and just always use the second logic. I'm not sure if that would introduce any performance penalty.
BTW, this is the only issue that was making Android 4.0 consistently fail.
Another example, if it would start with PR, i, or someone else could point that this is not our style guide, now in order to fix it, you should do another commit.
But not with the rest of the team, that's why we use PRs, to have full discussions and commit only if we all on the same page.
That's true, I just didn't think this change will be controversial as this is the only issue making Android 4.0 fail. There are a lot of things commited without PRs by most of team members.
Anyway, this commit is already in, no point in reverting it back in forth
That's not an argument, for example – if i would revert it and then said exactly the same thing, would that really matter for this issue?
That is an argument (you just disagree with it), please try to be considerate. Anyway, yes, this would apply in the same way if you did the same, it's just now we know we disagree on the issue and if we revert it now it'll generate 1-2 additional commits depending on the team decision whereas if we wait for the next meeting and discuss it there, we'll have 0-1 additional commits depending on the resolution.
Another example, if it would start with PR, i, or someone else could point that this is not our style guide, now in order to fix it, you should do another commit.
These kinds of things should be handled by our linters, otherwise mistakes will always keep happening.
it's just now we know we disagree on the issue and if we revert it now it'll generate 1-2 additional commits depending on the team decision whereas if we wait for the next meeting and discuss it there, we'll have 0-1 additional commits depending on the resolution
i'm not saying we should do the revert now, i was just expression my position on this.
There are a lot of things commited without PRs by most of team members.
I probably went a little over the board, but still, review for this amount of code should have happened, if we would decided to land it, we could have discuss the code, maybe it's presented with a new bug or it could be simplified, now we can do only damage control.
These kinds of things should be handled by our linters, otherwise mistakes will always keep happening.
From the old days, reviews was a solution for it, i don't see why it couldn't be now
I probably went a little over the board, but still, review for this amount of code should have happened, if we would decided to land it, we could discuss the code, maybe it's presented with a new bug or it could be simplified, now we can do only damage control.
It was premature on my part, I agree for +59 bytes I should have created a PR and waited for feedback a little longer.
Discussing it last night with @mzgol I wondered whether we should just go back to our own string replace for all browsers. It seems like the only place where we might process a big string would be globalEval.
the only place where we might process a big string would be globalEval
And even there, explicit regex anchoring means we'll stay pretty darn efficient. I'm sold on abandoning String.trim for Android<4.1, but doing it ourselves will still be costly even without the test.
markelog repliedFeb 14, 2014
I don't think we should add that amount of code without having discussion about it first, until then, i think we should revert this
mgol repliedFeb 14, 2014
I discussed this with @dmethvin & @gibson042.
EDIT: Anyway, this commit is already in, no point in reverting it back in forth, we can discuss it here if you have doubts and optionally revert later.
One way to reduce the code size here would be to remove the check completely and just always use the second logic. I'm not sure if that would introduce any performance penalty.
BTW, this is the only issue that was making Android 4.0 consistently fail.
markelog repliedFeb 14, 2014
But not with the rest of the team, that's why we use PRs, to have full discussions and commit only if we all on the same page.
That's not an argument, for example – if i would revert it and then said exactly the same thing, would that really matter for this issue?
My arguments are the same as in #1514
markelog repliedFeb 14, 2014
Another example, if it would start with PR, i, or someone else could point that this is not our style guide, now in order to fix it, you should do another commit.
mgol repliedFeb 14, 2014
That's true, I just didn't think this change will be controversial as this is the only issue making Android 4.0 fail. There are a lot of things commited without PRs by most of team members.
That is an argument (you just disagree with it), please try to be considerate. Anyway, yes, this would apply in the same way if you did the same, it's just now we know we disagree on the issue and if we revert it now it'll generate 1-2 additional commits depending on the team decision whereas if we wait for the next meeting and discuss it there, we'll have 0-1 additional commits depending on the resolution.
mgol repliedFeb 14, 2014
These kinds of things should be handled by our linters, otherwise mistakes will always keep happening.
markelog repliedFeb 14, 2014
I'm sorry if i wasn't
i'm not saying we should do the revert now, i was just expression my position on this.
I probably went a little over the board, but still, review for this amount of code should have happened, if we would decided to land it, we could have discuss the code, maybe it's presented with a new bug or it could be simplified, now we can do only damage control.
From the old days, reviews was a solution for it, i don't see why it couldn't be now
mgol repliedFeb 14, 2014
It was premature on my part, I agree for +59 bytes I should have created a PR and waited for feedback a little longer.
dmethvin repliedFeb 14, 2014
Discussing it last night with @mzgol I wondered whether we should just go back to our own string replace for all browsers. It seems like the only place where we might process a big string would be globalEval.
gibson042 repliedFeb 16, 2014
And even there, explicit regex anchoring means we'll stay pretty darn efficient. I'm sold on abandoning
String.trimfor Android<4.1, but doing it ourselves will still be costly even without the test.markelog repliedFeb 18, 2014
Is there a reason why we do this? See https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/1449/files
dmethvin repliedFeb 18, 2014
It wouldn't seem that trimming is even needed there, I agree.
gibson042 repliedFeb 18, 2014
#1449 aside, the performance hit of non-native
jQuery.trimshould be negligible in both places where we might process big strings:jQuery.globalEval(where it's followed by interpretation and execution of the string)jQuery.parseJSON(where it's followed by.replace( <global JSON token regex>, function ):jquery/src/ajax/parseJSON.js
Line 17 in a96ff1c
If there is a performance penalty, we're actually more likely to see it when processing shorter strings in a loop:
jquery/src/attributes/classes.js
Line 43 in a96ff1c
jquery/src/attributes/classes.js
Line 86 in a96ff1c
jquery/src/css.js
Line 402 in a96ff1c