I have a clarification in using IIFs in javascript .
I have downloaded a javascript file called called test.js as follows and I have got following questions after googling IIFs:
define(function () {
(function (window) {
this.test = function() {};
Test.prototype.function1 = function(){
//Do something
},
function Delete(){
//Code to Delete
}
window.Delete = Delete;
})(window);
});
I do have the following questions:
Is the line,
this.test = function() {}; a constructor?
If so can I have 2 constructors in a single file like for example:
this.test = function() {};
this.test2 = function() {};
And also, why would I need a constructor when I know that this is an automatically invoked file where everything gets executed initially itself.
Is this a private function?
Test.prototype.function1 = function(){
//Do something
},
Does this not get automatically? Should I need to create an object of the test and then invoke it?
Is this a public function?
function Delete(){
//Code to Delete
}
window.Delete = Delete;
The last line of the above says that . If it is so then whats the difference between first and second function?
What is keyword window here?
It's worth noting that this code will fail with an error, as Test is undefined, and you can't set the prototype property on undefined.
In JavaScript, any function can be a constructor. It's up to how you use it. You can add functions and properties to the .prototype property of any function, and any objects created from it using new will get them from the prototype chain. In your case, this.test = function(){} doesn't look like a prototype.
There's no such things a "public" or "private" functions in JavaScript, there's only what's exposed via return out of the function (or in your case, by using the global window object, which is considered bad practice) If the Test function is exposed somewhere, then Test.prototype.function1 is also exposed. All prototype methods are "public".
Yes, sort of. Like I said, "public" or "private" isn't a thing in JavaScript. You created a function and placed it on the window object, which is global. Essentially, you've made the function global.
window is the global browser object. Although when used like this (function(window) { ... })(window), the first window is the name of the parameter, (and any instances of window inside the function reference to that parameter, and the second one (passed to the function call), is the global window object.
Further reading:
The Revealing Module Pattern
Related
I have a function, functionWithDifferentScope, that takes an object, myobject.options, as a parameter. One of the pairs in the options object is a callback which points to a function defined in myObject: myCallback.
What I'm trying to achieve is injection of the myObject namespace into the callback of a function that is defined (by a 3rd party) at the global level.
A simplified example:
var myObject = {
options: {
callback: this.myCallback(this),
...,
},
init: function() {
// functionWithDifferentScope operates in the 'window' context
functionWithDifferentScope(this.options);
},
myCallback: function(namespace) {
// 'this' is window
// 'namespace' is myObject
}
}
myObject.init();
When executing this script, this.myCallback(this) appears to be executed at definition (due to the parenthesis?); as well as once myObject.init(); is caled. During the first executions this is myObject, but subsequent calls through the functionWithDifferentScope identify this as window.
Is there a way to pass the myObject namespace to the myObject.options.callback value as a parameter?
Do you mean this?
var myObject = new (function() {
var t = this;
vac callback = function() {
// t equals to the myObject-instance
// this equals to window
}
this.init = function() {
funcWithDifferencScope(callback);
}
})();
myObject.init();
I think what you are looking for is prototype style "bind"
Basically "this.myCallback(this)" is a call to the function.
this.myCallback is the function itself. (It is an object with the type function).
You can call it using the method 'call' or 'apply' that you can use on functions. Which will call these functions.
See:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/call
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/apply?redirectlocale=en-US&redirectslug=JavaScript%2FReference%2FGlobal_Objects%2FFunction%2Fapply
The first argument is the object context to work in. What I think you mean by object namespace.
so: a.callback(5) is the same as a.callback.call(a,5)
However please note that these days if you are working with most javascript libraries you probably have a 'bind' function that will do the work for you.
http://prototypejs.org/doc/latest/language/Function/prototype/bind/
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/bind
the idea is that this.callback.bind(this) returns a Function object you can call that will inject the correct context automatically so you can pass the return value of bind alone as a callback and be assured that the method will be executed on the correct object.
I have defined the following module globally:
var module = (function () {
console.log(this);
this.fn = function () {
console.log(this);
}
return this;
})();
http://www.quirksmode.org/js/this.html :
In JavaScript |this| always refers to the “owner” of the function we're executing, or rather, to the object that a function is a method of.
The first call to console.log logs Window as the value of this, and that I understand. But, so does also the second call to console.log.
Since this refers to the owner of the function, why does module.fn log Window and not module?
When I call fn I still have to write module.fn, I can't write Window.fn. Since this refers to Window I find this confusing.
EDIT: I forgot to return this in my example.
Since this refers to the owner of the function, why does module.fn log Window and not module?
The return value of the outer function is window because it doesn't get called in any particular context, so module ends up being window as well.
It seems that the way you have applied the module pattern is wrong. It should be returning the public interface that gets used in the rest of your code:
var module = (function () {
console.log(this);
// public interface
return {
fn: function () {
console.log(this);
}
}
})();
module.fn(); // "Object {fn: function}"
In your example, the global object receives the fn. It is the window object in case of browsers. That is because you are calling the function in place (effectively constructing a new scope) without specific context.
On the end, your module object is just a reference to the window (because of return this;).
What is this?
In JavaScript, this is the current context, the object on which the function was called that particular time. It is not the "holder" of the function. You can always "steal" the method from other objects and apply (literally) it to your own.
Assume you want to slice the arguments object for some reason. It looks just like an array, but it is NOT an array. arguments.slice(2,4) does not work (assuming ECMAScript < 5). What to do?
Array.prototype.slice.apply(arguments, [2,4]);
You need to steal the slice function from the Array prototype, and use if on your arguments. Inside the slice call, the "this" is the arguments object that particular time.
How to construct a valid module?
Your job is to return the module object. You do not want do mess with the context. It is not relevant, as long as you are not applying the function directly on module object.
The easiest solution is the simplest.
var module = (function() {
// do something internally, great for "private" stuff
// then return the "public" interface
return {
doSomething: function() {
// do something
},
introduce: function() {
console.log(this);
}
};
})();
module.introduce(); // Object {doSomething: function, introduce: function}
module.doSomething();
The other way.
Alternatively, you could use the this to do your job, using the apply, if you really want to.
var module = {};
(function(){
this.doSomething = function() {
// do something
};
this.introduce = function() {
console.log(this);
};
}).apply(module);
module.introduce(); // Object {doSomething: function, introduce: function}
module.doSomething();
Note this is almost equal to the "new" call.
There are more equally valid ways to do it, but the first presented one is frequently used and very clear. Anyway, everything really depends on your code conventions.
Your pattern is wrong what you are doing to make a closed scope and setting module to the return from that scope:
// This is the design pattern:
var module = (function () {
var module = {};
var localVar = 1;
module.moduleVar = 2;
module.fn = function () {
console.log(this);
}
return module;
})();
console.log(module.fn); // function() { console.log(this) ;}
console.log(module.moduleVar); // 2
console.log(module.localVar); // undefined
I'm using the FB.Event.subscribe() observer model to find out when a user logs in. This method takes two arguments, a string containing the thing to watch, and callback function.
I'm following several events that handle the event the same way, so I've set up the callback function as a pre defined method and passed this to FB.Event.subscribe() like this:
Controller.prototype.go = function() {
FB.Event.subscribe('auth.login', this.fbHandleStatusChange);
FB.Event.subscribe('auth.logout', this.fbHandleStatusChange);
}
Controller.prototype.fbHandleStatusChange = function(response) {
// Doesn't work
this.otherFunction();
}
Controller.prototype.otherFunction = function() {
alert('hello');
}
Unfortunately this means that I loose access to 'this' within the scope of fbHandleStatusChange, obviously I don't want to start coding references to concrete versions of Controller!
I'm guessing I'm passing the function incorrectly?
Thanks.
In JavaScript, this is defined entirely by how a function is called, not where it's defined. This is different than some other languages. (JavaScript doesn't have methods, it just has functions and some syntactic sugar that makes them look like methods sometimes.) So although you're passing in your function correctly, Facebook doesn't know about your object instance and can't set this correctly when calling your function.
Check the FB.Event.subscribe docs to see if it offers a way to say what "context" to use to call the event handler function. It may offer a way to do that. (This will usually be a context or thisArg parameter.)
If not, you can readily solve the problem with a closure:
Controller.prototype.go = function() {
var self = this;
FB.Event.subscribe('auth.login', handleChange);
FB.Event.subscribe('auth.logout', handleChange);
function handleChange() {
return self.fbHandleStatusChange();
}
}
That grabs a copy of this into a variable called self, which is used by the handleChange function (which is a closure over the scope containing the self variable) to call your function with the correct context. More about closures here: Closures are not complicated More about this here: You must remember this
Alternately, though, are you really going to have multiple instances of Controller? People coming to JavaScript from class-based languages tend to use constructor functions (a rough "class" analogue) unnecessarily. They're the right choice if you need to have more than one instance of an object, but if you're only ever going to have a single Controller object on the page, then using a constructor function and fiddling about with this is overkill.
If you don't need multiple, independent Controller instances, then:
var controllerObject = (function() {
var inst = {};
inst.go = go; // Make `go` a publicly-accessible function of the object
function go() {
FB.Event.subscribe('auth.login', fbHandleStatusChange);
FB.Event.subscribe('auth.logout', fbHandleStatusChange);
}
// This is private to us, so we don't expose it as a property on the object
function fbHandleStatusChange(response) {
// Doesn't work
otherFunction();
}
// This is also private to us
function otherFunction() {
alert('hello');
}
return inst;
})();
That creates a private scope via the outer anonymous function, and within that scope creates an instance (inst) which we then return and refer to as controllerObject. controllerObject in the above only has one property, the function go. All of our other functions are truly private. (I've also taken the liberty of ensuring that the functions have names, because that helps your tools help you.)
Note that we don't actually refer to inst anywhere in our function calls, because they're all local to the closure scope. We can even have private data, by having other vars within the outer closure.
Consider this:
window.onload = function () {
myObj.init();
};
var myObj = {
init: function () {
console.log("init: Let's call the callMe method...");
//callMe is not defined...
callMe();
//Works fine!
this.callMe();
},
callMe: function () {
console.log('callMe');
}
};
Since the init function gets called this way (myObj.init), I expect this to be myObj in the init function. And if that is the case, why the callMe function fails? How am I supposed to call the callMe function without using the this context in the init body? (Actually, it's too annoying to call the object methods using this over and over again through the functions. So what's the point of having a single object?)
I would like to know how can I fix this so that the callMe method gets called using the first invocation in the code above?
this is never implicit in JavaScript as it is in some other languages. Although there are ways to do it, like this using the with statement:
init: function () {
console.log("init: Let's call the callMe method...");
// Make `this` implicit (SEE BELOW, not recommended)
with (this) {
// Works
callMe();
}
},
...it's generally a bad idea. Douglas Crockford probably wrote one of the better descriptions of why it's a bad idea, which you can find here. Basically, using with makes it nearly impossible to tell what the code's going to do (and slows the code down, if you do anything else in that with statement that doesn't come from the this object).
This isn't the only way that JavaScript's this is not the same as it is in some other languages. In JavaScript, this is defined entirely by how a function is called, not where the function is defined. When you do this.callMe() (or the equivalent this["callMe"](), or of course foo.callMe(), etc.), two things happen: The function reference is retrieved from the property, and the function is called in a special way to set this to be the object that property came from. If you don't call a function through a property that way, the call doesn't set any particular this value and you get the default (which is the global object; window on browsers). It's the act of making the call that sets what this is. I've explored this in depth in a couple of articles on my blog, here and here.
This (no pun) can be made even clearer if you look at JavaScript's call and apply functions, which are available on all function objects. If I do this:
callMe.call({});
...it'll call the callMe function with a blank object ({}) as this.
So basically, just get used to typing this. :-) It's still useful to have properties and methods associated with an object, even without the syntactic convenience (and confusion!) of an implicit this.
You can also use the module pattern, which captures all private variables inside a closure, so you are free to use them without this, as they're in the same scope. You then pick and choose which methods/variables you want to make public:
var myObj = (function () {
var init = function () {
callMe(); // This now works
};
var callMe = function () {
...
};
// Now choose your public methods (they can even be renamed):
return {
init: init, // Same name
callMyName: callMe // Different name
};
}) ();
Now:
myObj.init(); // Works
myObj.callMyName(); // Works
myObj.callMe(); // Error
this thing almost works:
function myClass(url) {
this.source = url;
this.rq = null;
this.someOtherProperty = "hello";
// open connection to the ajax server
this.start = function() {
if (window.XMLHttpRequest) {
this.rq = new XMLHttpRequest();
if (this.rq.overrideMimeType)
this.rq.overrideMimeType("text/xml");
} else
this.rq = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP");
try {
this.rq.onreadystatechange = connectionEvent;
this.rq.open("GET", this.source, true);
this.rq.send(null);
this.state = 1;
} catch (err) {
// some error handler here
}
}
function connectionEvent() {
alert("i'm here");
alert("this doesnt work: " + this.someOtherProperty);
}
} // myClass
so it's nothing more than having the XMLHttpRequest object as a member of my class, instead of globally defined, and invoking it in the traditional way. however, inside my connectionEvent callback function, the meaning of "this" is lost, even though the function itself is scoped inside myClass. i also made sure that the object that i instantiate from myClass is kept alive long enough (declared global in the script).
in all the examples of using javascript classes that i saw, "this" was still available inside the inner functions. for me, it is not, even if i take my function outside and make it a myClass.prototype.connectionEvent. what am i doing wrong? thank you.
The reason it's not working is that in Javascript, this is defined entirely by how a function is called, not where it's defined. This is different than some other languages.
To have this mean what you expect, you'd have to ensure that explicitly by "binding" it:
this.start = function() {
var self = this; // Set up something that survives into the closure
/* ...lots of stuff omitted... */
this.rq.onreadystatechange = function() {
// Call `connectionEvent`, setting `self` as `this` within the call
connnectionEvent.call(self);
};
There's more information about this management in this blog post, but basically: When a function is called without any particular effort made to set this, this within the function will always be the global object (window, on browsers). There are two ways to set this when making a call:
Using Function#call (or Function#apply) as I did above, passing in the object reference to use as this as the first parameter. That calls the function and sets this to whatever you passed in. The difference between #call and #apply is how you supply further arguments to pass into the function. With #call you supply them as further arguments to the #call call (e.g. func.call(thisArg, arg0, arg1, arg2)), whereas with #apply you supply them as an array in the second argument (func.apply(thisArg, [arg0, arg1, arg2])).
Using dotted notation: If you have an object that has a property with a function assigned to it (like your start property), calling it by using the object instance, a dot, and the property name (this.start() or foo.start(), etc.) will call the function and set this to the object instance within the call. So the dotted notation does two entirely distinct things: Looks up the property and finds a function as its value, and calls the function such that this is set to the object during the call. Literally it's like: var f = obj.func; f.call(obj).
Slightly off-topic, but: Barring a really good reason to, I wouldn't reinvent this wheel. There are lots of libraries out there to simply XHR calls. jQuery, Prototype, Closure, and nearly all the rest.