想到的这些方法,各有什么优缺点?
These methods that come to mind, what are the pros and cons of each?
方法一:增强原生实例
var _XMLHttpRequest = XMLHttpRequest;
XMLHttpRequest = function() {
var xhr = new _XMLHttpRequest();
// augment/wrap/modify here
var _open = xhr.open;
xhr.open = function() {
// custom stuff
return _open.apply(this, arguments);
}
return xhr;
}
方法2:子类"原生XMLHttpRequest
Method 2: Sub-"class" native XMLHttpRequest
var _XMLHttpRequest = XMLHttpRequest;
XMLHttpRequest = function() {
// definePropertys here etc
}
XMLHttpRequest.prototype = new _XMLHttpRequest());
// OR
XMLHttpRequest.prototype = Object.create(_XMLHttpRequest);
// custom wrapped methods on prototype here
XMLHttpRequest.prototype.open = function() {
// custom stuff
return _XMLHttpRequest.prototype.open.apply(this, arguments);
}
方法三:完全代理原生 XMLHttpRequest
Method 3: Full proxy to native XMLHttpRequest
var _XMLHttpRequest = XMLHttpRequest;
XMLHttpRequest = function() {
this.xhr = new _XMLHttpRequest();
}
// proxy ALL methods/properties
XMLHttpRequest.prototype.open = function() {
// custom stuff
return this.xhr.open.apply(this.xhr, arguments);
}
根据 JS 引擎,方法 1 会产生相当大的开销,因为每当实例化 XHR 时都会重新定义 xhr.open
.
Depending on the JS engine, method 1 produces considerable overhead, since xhr.open
is redefined whenever XHR is instantiated.
方法 2 让我想为什么首先需要 new _XMLHttpRequest
"?有轻微副作用的感觉,但似乎效果很好.
Method 2 makes me think "why would you need the new _XMLHttpRequest
in the first place"? There's a minor feeling of undesired side effects, but it appears to work just fine.
方法 3:简单、老派,但不会立即奏效.(考虑读取属性)
Method 3: simple, old-school, but it won't work straight-away. (Think about reading properties)
一般来说,我个人不太愿意覆盖浏览器对象,所以这对所有三种方法来说都是一个很大的缺点.最好使用其他变量,例如 ProxyXHR
(只是我的 2 美分)
In general, I'm personally reluctant when it comes to overwriting browser objects, so that would be a big con to all three methods. Better use some other variable like ProxyXHR
(just my 2 cents)
这篇关于如何创建 XMLHttpRequest 包装器/代理?的文章就介绍到这了,希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助,也希望大家多多支持跟版网!