I'm looking for something that will import the contents of an object to the global scope:
var y = {}
y.x = 5
//do some magic here
console.log(x); //5
I want to do this is so I can make an easy to use module with memorable function names without having to worry about things accidentally getting overridden by other modules.
Consider this example:
funModule = {};
funModule.washClothes = function(clothes){...}
funModule.walkDog = function(dogName){...}
//etc
funModule.UNITED_STATES_DEFICIT = ...;
Here I've created a module that has some useful functions and constants (implementations and values were replaced with "...").
I don't want my users to have to type out the module name every time they call function or use a constant. That would result with really messy code:
funModule.walkDog(funModule.UNITED_STATES_DEFICIT);
I could try it again by defining everything globally:
washClothes = function(clothes){...}
walkDog = function(dogName){...}
//etc
UNITED_STATES_DEFICIT = ...;
but if a different module has also defined the commonly named function washClothes we've got trouble. (in my actual case the commonly named function is run)
Removed from technical context, here is the problem I'm faced with:
Firstly I want to use simple and memorable names to make the module easy to learn and fun to use.
Secondly I don't want the easy names to make the module impossible to use with others. Especially as it grows, a lot of common names will be used. It would be great if the users could decide whether or not import the names directly.
Thirdly I realized as I'm typing this that what I'm describing is something that definitely already exists, in python. See http://effbot.org/zone/import-confusion.htm for more detail.
tl;dr How can python-like imports be done with javascript?
EDIT:
It seems there is not a universal way to do this.
Using Window won't work in all environments (but will work in any common browser).
Apparently ES6 Modules are not available to web browsers directly.
This question is different from this one because its not about Node.js. I was looking for a universal way to do it, but that doesn't seem possible, so I'll limit it to web browsers, (namely chrome, firefox, safari, opera, and maybe ie)
EDIT:
This general article about Scope could be useful for anyone with a similar question as mine: https://toddmotto.com/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-javascript-scope/
Object.prototype.makeglobal=function(){
for(key in this){
if(window[key]){//replace window if youre not in a browser
//already exist, error handling
console.error(key+' already exist in window');
}else{
window[key]=this[key];
}}};
Use like this:
funModule.makeglobal();
//now you can
washClothes();
But this is bad as it pollutes the global object.
2.Your user should create his own namespace:
function(){
this.washClothes();
//more of his content
}.call(funModule);
3.You could also add a loader:
funModule.load=function(func){
console.log(func);
console.log(this);
func.call(this,this);
};
Now you can do:
funModule.load(function(fun){
this.washClothes();
fun.washClothes();
});
4.If youre concerned about readability you may use function chaining (?):
funModule.washClothes=function(){
//your code
return this;
}
now you can do:
funModule.washClothes("tshirts").washClothes("trousers").washClothes();
ES6 Modules are what you want.
If you will define your object as es6 module you could do this (using the names in your example):
import { washClothes } from "fun-module";
and then washClothes will be globally available on the file that imported it, just like you want.
Read about it here.
If you really want a magic solution like in the comment in your post and don't want to use ES6 and you run in the browser you can put it on the window object:
window.x = 5
In JavaScript, at least in a browser, global variables are properties of the window object: that is, window.x and x (where x is global) reference the same value. So, in theory, you could use Object.assign() to copy your object's properties to the window object making them global variables. This is roughly equivalent to globals().update(myobj.__dict__) in Python.
But just as import * is usually a bad idea in Python, so too this sounds like a bad idea, except even worse because window has a lot of other properties that you probably don't want to clobber.
After some additional research I found a way, without polluting the global namespace, to allow users to directly access module contents.
This solution allows the user to:
Write code that directly references the module's functions/properties
Define precedence if there are multiple modules written in this same style
Still access the module's functions/properties by module name*
*This feature comes with a catch
Here's the code
Module
funModule = {};
//This stuff is the arbitrary contents of the module:
funModule.washClothes = function(clothes){...}
funModule.walkDog = function(dogName){...}
//etc
funModule.UNITED_STATES_DEFICIT = ...;
//etc
//This part is necessary:
funModule.run(userApp)
{
for(key in this){
eval(key + " = " + this[key] + ";");
}
userApp();
}
The only way (that I could find) to dynamically define functions both in funModule.run's scope and in funModule is to use Eval. Using call, apply, or bind to manipulate scope would still require use of the this keyword and the whole point of this unusual style is to make client code as simple and non-repetitive as possible.
Client Code 1
function myApp()
{
washClothes(UNITED_STATES_DEFICIT);
}
funModule.run(myApp);
Here in the client code it is possible to directly access everything except for funModule.run. So the global namespace is kept clean but the user's code does not need unnecessary repetition.
Client Code 2
function myApp()
{
washClothes(UNITED_STATES_DEFICIT);
}
funModule.run( otherModule.run.bind({},myApp) ); //otherModule has precedence here
Assume otherModule is a different module that features the same run function. funModule will load its contents then call its first argument. The first argument will load otherModule's contents, overriding anything from funModule with the same name.
Client Code 3
function myApp()
{
//directly access stuff from funModule
walkDog()
var big = UNITED_STATES_DEFICIT * 3.14;
//explicitly access stuff from specific modules
clothes = new otherModule.Clothes();
funModule.washClothes(otherModule.washClothes(clothes));
}
funModule.run(myApp)
This is the feature that makes use of eval necessary. The user can opt out of ambiguity of direct access. They can still access properties/methods by naming the module they come from.
But Why?
Some StackOverflow users were understandably concerned about the unusual set of constraints in the question, so I figured I would answer the following question:
Why don't you use a short alias for your module.
I tried to answer that question in this article, which pulls from this question and answer.
Related
I'm working on a JS script to render a guitar fretboard. I need to declare two static vars in my class. One object to map note names like "C#" onto their integer MIDI note the other an array of objects providing details for each midi mote. It looks like I have to declare these after the class/function itself but I want to be sure I can refer to them in the constructor function.
Complicating matters is that I want to namespace my code inside an anonymous function to prevent name collisions--I understand these are best practices.
I've been puttering around with some code and have something like this, but I don't think the stuff at the end is going to work.
(function(){
// object to encapsulate this module
var MyClass = function() {
this.foo = "foo";
this.bar = "bar";
};
MyClass.nameToMidiNumber = {"C0":0,"C#0":1,"Db0":1,"D0":2,"D#0":3,"Eb0":3}; // and so on
MyClass.midiData = [{"octave":0,"utf8_name":"C","ascii_name":"C","frequency":8.1757989156},{"octave":0,"utf8_name":"C♯\/D♭","ascii_name":"C#\/Db","frequency":8.661957218}]; // etc
if(typeof window!="undefined"){
window.MYNAMESPACE || (window.MYNAMESPACE = {});
if(window.MYNAMESPACE.MyClass){
for(var prop in MyClass){
window.MYNAMESPACE.MyClass[prop]=MyClass[prop]
}
}else{
window.MYNAMESPACE.MyClass=MyClass
}
} else {
throw "'window' not defined. Unable to attach MyClass.";
}
})();
Am I doing this right? Ideally, after including this script with an HTML tag:
<script type="text/javascript" src="myscript.js"></script>
then I could just instantiate the object like so:
var gtr = new MYNAMESPACE.MyClass(prm1, prm2, prm3);
I'm also aware that a transition is currently underway to ES6 which has the class and static keywords. Should I be using that instead?
Feel free to use ES6 and classes if you don't have to support IE9. Otherwise, you'll have to use babel to transpile from ES6 to ES5 -- "nonsense," as you so eloquently put it.
Window should normally be available in a browser window at any time you're running javascript, so I don't think you have to check whether the window is defined or not. Some info here:
Is window.document ever null or undefined?
I think the code you use to iterate over keys in an object is OK. ES6 has much cleaner ways of doing similar things, and it's worth taking a look.
Finally, yes, you can use ES6 functionality for classes, or the NEW keyword works, too. One is classical, and one is prototypal, and purists might prefer sticking with the latter despite being older.
I have variables in app.js:
var G = {};
module.exports = G;
var DATA = G.DATA = 'DATA';
var F1 = G.F1 = function(val)
{
return val;
};
In this manner, I can export variables under the object G, and at the same time, can access the variable directly writing DATA without G. prefix.
So far so good.
Now, I want to run a test for app.js in test.js:
var G = require('./app.js');
console.log(G.DATA); // -> DATA
This works, but I also want to access the variable directly writing DATA without G. prefix like console.log(DATA); // -> DATA
Surely, I could do like
var DATA = G.DATA; for every variables(property) export&required module G object, but obviously it's a tedious process to add every variable to the test file manually to correspond the G objects.
Is there any way to do this automatically?
So far, I'm pessmistic since
JS function encloses var in the own scope, so in theory there's no way to have a helper function to var for every object property.
Thanks.
PS. I would like to avoid any eval or VM of node solution. I have tried them in past, and too much problems.
I could assign a local variables for every property export&required module G object, but obviously it's a tedious process to add every variable to the test file manually to correspond the G objects.
No, that's how it is supposed to work. You - and only you - are in charge of what local variables exist in your module scope. No changes in the "export variables" of an included module should break your code.
Accessing properties on the imported module (with a self-chosen name) is the way to go. This is quite equivalent to Python's import app or import app as g.
If you want some particular properties as local variables, you will usually choose them manually, as in Python's from app import DATA, F1. In JS, you will need a multiple var statement like the one you've shown in your question. However, there is a syntax feature called destructuring assignment which will make this more fluid. You can use this in JavaScript 1.7+ (Gecko), CoffeeScript, or EcmaScript 6:
var {DATA, F1} = require("app.js");
Is there any way to do this automatically?
Yes and No. You should not do this, but you can - just like Python's frowned-upon from app import *. To cite what they say, which is equally true for JavaScript:
[It] introduces an unknown set of names into the interpreter, possibly
hiding some things you have already defined.
Note that in general the practice of importing * from a module or
package is frowned upon, since it often causes poorly readable code.
However, it is okay to use it to save typing in interactive sessions.
In JavaScript, you can[1] use the with-statement:
with (require("app.js")) {
…
}
[1]: Not in ES5.1 strict mode, though - which is recommended for optimisation
I noticed that Google Closure Compiler did not rename document to something like d to reduce space.
I cannot think of a case where this would break the code (ie where document points to something else down the road). Actually the same goes for window.
Is there a reason for protecting document this way?
== EDIT ==
By renaming it I was thinking reassigning it. Example below.
var d=document;
var obj1=d.getElementById("obj1");
var obj2=d.getElementById("obj2");
... // with enough uses of document so it makes to reassign it size-wise.
Closure-compiler does not perform this "optimization" by default for the simple reason that it produces LARGER source when used with gzip. You can enable this optimization by turning on the AliasExternals pass using either the Java API or a custom build.
See https://code.google.com/p/closure-compiler/source/browse/src/com/google/javascript/jscomp/AliasExternals.java#38
What happens?
ProblemFactory's guess is correct.
This is a //TODO in the closure compiler source code. If we didn't preserve document and window and instead ran them over with d for example, at the moment the closure compiler does not know if it's overriding a global from another file. Like the comments say this will be resolved in the future at which point.
Enough words, show me the source!
If we check the closure compiler source code inside VariableReferenceCheck.java we can find the following:
private class ReferenceCheckingBehavior implements Behavior {
#Override
public void afterExitScope(NodeTraversal t, ReferenceMap referenceMap) {
// TODO(bashir) In hot-swap version this means that for global scope we
// only go through all global variables accessed in the modified file not
// all global variables. This should be fixed.
// Check all vars after finishing a scope
for (Iterator<Var> it = t.getScope().getVars(); it.hasNext();) {
Var v = it.next();
checkVar(v, referenceMap.getReferences(v).references);
}
}
If we check the hot-swap algorithm itself we can see that:
// Note we use the global scope to prevent wrong "undefined-var errors" on
// variables that are defined in other JS files.
So, we can see that this is just the closure compiler not understanding the code of globals across multiple files well enough to make that replacement. You can always do the replacement yourself :)
I think document is standardized, always-global variable. To use the same way d it has to be global also, thus global namespace will have another "junk" variable.
It could be dangerous for not aware developers (which wont be aware of that thus it is not standard variable).
I've recently tested UglifyJS and YUI Compressor and noticed something odd.
Both minifiers don't seem to change the names of object properties, only the names of variables and functions.
for instance if I have the following code:
var objName = {first:2, second:4};
alert(objName.first + " " + objName.second);
the names first and second remain unchanged in the minified version.
Why is that?
Since in javascript a new scope is created in a function, you can scope your code in an immediately invoked function.
// scoped
(function() {
var objName = {first:2, second:4};
alert(objName.first + " " + objName.second);
})();
Then using Google's Closure Compiler, if you turn on the "Advanced" optimization it will see that the properties are only used locally, and will obfuscate them.
// result
var a={a:2,b:4};alert(a.a+" "+a.b);
It's because it doesn't know where the object is going to be used. It could be used externally by other code and you wouldn't want your other code to have to change whenever you obfuscate it.
Edit So basically, it's like that to prevent obfuscation from breaking external/internal references to properties that may not be possible to figure out while obfuscating.
Since there are no well defined scoping rules around objects in JavaScript it's impossible to obfuscate the names in a way that is guaranteed to be correct.
For example, if you had the following function:
function f() {
return { first: 'foo', second: 'bar' };
}
In order to obfuscate the property names you would have to nail down all the places that f is called from. Since functions are first-class in JavaScript they can be assigned and passed around in arbitrary ways making it impossible to pin down where f is referenced without actually running the program.
Additionally, JavaScript doesn't have any way for you to specify intent around what's public API and what isn't. Even if the minimizer could reliably determine where the function is called from in the code you give it, there would be no way for it to make the same changes to code that it hasn't seen.
I guess that's because the minifiers would break the object properties. Consider this:
function getProp(ob,name) {
return ob[name];
}
var objName = {first: 2, second: 4};
var prop = getProp(objName, "second");
There's no way for the minifier to know the string literal "second" being an object property. The minified code could look like this then:
function a(b,c){return b[c]}var d={p1:2,p2:4};var e=a(d,"second")
Broken now.
The latest release of uglify (today) has object property mangling, see v2.4.19. It also supports reserved files for excluding both object properties and variables that you don't want mangled. Check it out.
The only public tool so far to obfuscate property and function names (afaik) is the Closure Compiler's Advanced mode. There are a lot of limitations and restrictions, but the end result is generally worth it.
As a passing note: the Dojo Toolkit is compatible (with some minor modifications) with the Closure Compiler in Advanced mode -- arguably the only large-scale public JavaScript library that can be fully obfuscated. So if you are looking at obfuscation to protect your IP, you should look into using Dojo for the task.
http://dojo-toolkit.33424.n3.nabble.com/file/n2636749/Using_the_Dojo_Toolkit_with_the_Closure_Compiler.pdf?by-user=t
Stephen
What about doing something like:
// scoped
(function() {
var objName = {first:2, second:4};
var vA = 'first';
var vB = 'second';
alert(objName[vA] + " " + objName[vB]);
})();
Once objName.first and/or objName.second are referenced enough times, this technique will start to save characters. I can't think of any reason that wouldn't work, but I can't find any minifiers that do it.
I'm sure, this question has been answered somewhere before but I just couldn't find it.
If within a function a variable has been defined, what is the best practice to save it for later use? 1. Saving it "globally"?
foo = 'bar';...function bar(){
...
foo = 'bat';
return foo;
}...
Here, the variable will be altered later on.
2. Or saving it within a hidden form field within the HTML-DOM?
`Thanxs!
Saving it as a global JavaScript variable is by far the most efficient.
EDIT: If the data you want to save is associated with an element on the page (for example, each row in a table has a bit of data associated with it), and you are using jQuery, there is a data() method which is more efficient than setting an attribute on the element or something similar.
It depends on the context, but probably: In a variable defined at the top level of a closure that wraps the set of functions to which it applies.
i.e.
var exports = function () {
var stored_data;
function set_data(foo) {
stored_data = foo;
}
function get_data() {
return stored_data;
}
return { get: get_data, set: set_data };
}();
This avoids the risk of other scripts (or other parts of your own, potentially very large, script) overwriting it by accident.
The HTML5 spec has defined a solution to this question: If you are using HTML5, you can specify data attributes in your DOM.
See this page for more info: http://ejohn.org/blog/html-5-data-attributes/
This is now the standardised way of doing it, so I guess that it's considered best practice. Also John Resig, who wrote the blog I linked to above, is the author of JQuery, so if it's good enough for him, who am I to argue.
The really good news is that you don't even have to be using an HTML5-compatible browser for this technique to work - it already works in older browsers; it's just that now it's been encoded into the standard, and there's a defined way to do it.
That said, there's nothing wrong with a global variable in your Javascript as long as you avoid polluting the namespace too much, and it would be more efficient from a performance perspective, so there's plenty of merit in that approach as well.