What is the main difference between a module like this
var MODULE = (function () {
var my = {},
privateVariable = 1;
function privateMethod() {}
my.moduleProperty = 1;
my.moduleMethod = function () {};
return my;
}());
and a simple function like this
function MODULE_Func() {
var my = {},
privateVariable = 1;
function privateMethod() {}
my.moduleProperty = 1;
my.moduleMethod = function () {};
return my;
};
var MODULE = MODULE_Func();
I read an article about modules and in it an author describes a module's advantages as: "the module maintains private internal state using the closure of the anonymous function."
i.e, I think he means that 'privateVariable ' and 'privateMethod' is internal for the module and not acceptable from outside. But in the simple function 'privateVariable ' and 'privateMethod' are also internal and not acceptable from outside. The only difference I can see is that the module is a anonimous function so it: 1) doesn't pollute a global state 2)you can't invoke the module twice.
But the author describes a module pattern as a great thing but I can't see for what. And because you can't invoke the module twice, you can't have more than one instances of modules, I think in many cases it is even a disadvantages.
But the author describes a module pattern as a great thing but I can't see for what
Well, you've said it yourself: 1) doesn't pollute a global state 2) you can't invoke the module twice. Those are advantages if you want them.
And because you can't invoke the module twice, you can't have more than one instances of modules, I think in many cases it is even a disadvantages.
Those modules are static. Indeed, they should not have internal state but only local (internal) variables, e.g. for helper functions.
In cases where you need multiple instances, don't use a singleton-like module. Use a constructor ("class") instead, like in your second example. You might however still use a module as a namespace for your class.
the difference is that the first one
var MODULE = (function(){})();
MODULE refers to whatever an the anonymous function being executed will return. if it returns nothing then **MODULE will be set to undefined. the function being executed is an IIFE(Immediately Invoked Function Expression), More info here. It executes on page load since MODULE is referred by the global window.
and the second is a function MODULE_func(){}, MODULE_FUNC is the name of the function itself, this function is now a property of the global window meaning that it can be referred by the global window as so window.MODULE_func(){};, the other can be referred as well but note the difference, the other is an anonymous function without a name and has TWO referrers. This one has a name and one referrer..
var MODULE = (function(){})();
can be referred by
window.MODULE;
MODULE;
function MODULE_func(){}
can be referred by
window.MODULE_func; ONLY
Related
When I type this in node.js, I get undefined.
var testContext = 15;
function testFunction() {
console.log(this.testContext);
}
testFunction();
=>undefined
Without var keyword, it passes (=>15). It's working in the Chrome console (with and without var keyword).
It doesn't work in Node when using var because testContext is a local of the current module. You should reference it directly: console.log(testContext);.
When you don't type var, what happens is that testContext is now a global var in the entire Node process.
In Chrome (or any other browser - well, I'm unsure about oldIE...), it doesn't matter if you use var or not in your example, testContext will go to the global context, which is window.
By the way, the "global context" is the default this of function calls in JS.
The key difference is that all modules (script files) in Node.js are executed in their own closure while Chrome and other browsers execute all script files directly within the global scope.
This is mentioned in the Globals documentation:
Some of these objects aren't actually in the global scope but in the module scope - this will be noted.
The vars you declare in a Node module will be isolated to one of these closures, which is why you have to export members for other modules to reach them.
Though, when calling a function without a specific context, it will normally be defaulted to the global object -- which is conveniently called global in Node.
function testFunction() {
return this;
}
console.log(testFunction() === global); // true
And, without the var to declare it, testContext will default to being defined as a global.
testContext = 15;
console.log(global.testContext); // 15
As mentioned in the document
var something inside an Node.js module will be local to that module.
So, it is going to be different as the var testContext is in module context and the context of this is global.
You can alternatively, use:
global.testContext = 15;
function testFunction() {
console.log(this.testContext);
}
testFunction();
I believe the problem has to do with the this key word. If you do console.log(this) you will see that testContext is not defined. You may want to try:
this.testContext = 15;
function testFunction() {
console.log(this.testContext);
}
testFunction();
I read some JS module design patterns recently. I came across this small code snippet as below.
(function(window) {
var Module = {
data: "I'm happy now!"
};
window.Module = Module;
})(window);
Still not quite understand this code well, my questions are:
How to use/call this module outside this particluar JS file? Need I
assign a variable to this module? e.g. var module1 = (...)(...);
Could anyone explain what the window parameter here stands for?
Is it a good practice to have two/three such kind of modules in the
same file?
The main reason to create an anonymous function in this case is to prevent global object pollution. It's not really a module pattern.
The problem arise when you declare a variable. Without the function scope, the variable will be added to the global object (window). If you were to declare the variables within a function. It would add the variable to the function scope without polluting the global object window.
What happen is that a javascript file could add a variable named foo and on a different file use that variable named foo too. Unless you really want to have a variable shared by two javascript files, it would probably create conflicts and bug that are difficult to fix.
For example: a.js
var foo = "one"
b.js
var foo = "two"
c.js
alert(foo)
In this case, the alert box might show either "one" or "two", depending of the order in the javascript files are included.
But having this a.js:
(function () {
var foo = "one"
})()
b.js
(function () {
var foo = "two"
})()
c.js
(function () {
alert(foo)
})()
This would create an error as you cannot alert a non declared variable.
One way to detect undefined variables, is to make sure to execute the javascript code in strict mode.
To do that, add the string "use strict" at the top of the file or function.
function () {
"use strict"
...
}
Undeclared variable will raise errors and it should be possible to fix the code that way.
Also, if you forget to declare a variable with the var keyword, it might end up adding the variable to the global scope even if the code is scoped into a function. The only way to prevent global scope pollution is to run the code in strict mode.
In the code snippet that you provided, the module with name Module is explicitly added to the window object. You can access the window object from any place in javascript unless the window name is ghosted by an other variable.
Now, back to the modules. If you want to define modules, it can be done in many ways. As an exemple, you could create an object on the window object called modules. In this object, you'll insert your modules.
module.js
window.modules = {}
foo.js
(function (window) {
var module = {}
...
window.modules.foo = module
})(window)
This variant isn't super good as you have to manually add the module to the modules object. You have to manually modify the window object, and that can be subject to errors.
modules.js
window.modules = {}
function define(name, constructor) {
var module = {exports: {}}
constructor(module)
window.modules[name] = module.exports
}
function require(name) {
return window.modules[name]
}
foo.js
define("foo", function (module) {
module.exports.one = function () {
return 1
}
module.exports.plus = function (a, b) {
return a + b
}
})
bar.js
define("bar", function (module) {
module.exports = function () {
var foo = require("foo")
return foo.plus(foo.one(), foo.one())
}
})
This is a module definition that looks a bit like module defined with http://requirejs.org/. It is quite basic as it doesn't take into account module dependencies so if bar is loaded and used before foo. Then the require method won't be able to return the module.
Also, if you want to store modules without having them visible into the global scope, you can only define the require and define method on the window object and hide modules into an anonymous scope like this:
(function (window) {
var modules = {}
function define(name, constructor) {
var module = {exports: {}}
constructor(module)
modules[name] = module.exports
}
function require(name) {
return modules[name]
}
window.define = define
window.require = require
})(window)
This way, define and require are the only function that can give you access to modules. Other modules won't be able to modify other modules without requiring them first. This can be useful when using third parties script that could conflict with your module system.
In fact this is not a module, but a Self-Invoking Ananymous function or an Immediate function which gets an object in parameter and assign a Module property to it:
The page window is a parameter passed to this function.
So an object named Module containing a data property is assigned to window.
JavaScript Self-Invoking Functions:
A self-invoking expression is invoked (started) automatically, without being called.
Function expressions will execute automatically if the expression is
followed by ().
You cannot self-invoke a function declaration.
You have to add parentheses around the function to indicate that it is
a function expression
So As you can see Immediate Functions can't be called as its name states it will be immediately executed and by its self, no other function or scope can execute it.
For better reference take a look at :
Javascript Self Invoking Functions.
Self-Invoking Functions section in JavaScript Function Definitions.
And concerning your last question about its benefits and good practices as shown on the given Article reference:
Where to use self-executing functions?
One obvious situation is when you want to auto-run a function like I
showed in above example but that is trivial. If you are in a situation
where you want to run a piece of code repeatedly like updating
something in the database based on user interaction or fetching
records from database every 10 seconds or you want to load new stories
via ajax similar to how facebook does on its homepage or some other
similar situation, one would normally go for setInterval function
something like this:
setInterval(doStuff, 10000);
Above, doStuff function will get called every 10 seconds. That is the
normal approach most developers seem to go with. However, there is a
huge problem with that.
The setInterval will call doStuff function exactly at specified time of 10 seconds again and again irrespective
of whether doStuff function actually finished doing what it is
supposed to do. That is bad and will certainly get you into unexpected
results.
That is one example of where setInterval is "bad" and should be
avoided.
This is exactly where self-executing functions come in handy. We can
do the same task with the help of self-executing function along with
setTimeout like this:
function foo(){
// your other code here
setTimeout(foo, 10000);
}();
This code will also repeat itself again and again with one difference.
setTimeout will never get triggered unless doStuff is finished. A much
better approach than using setInterval in this situation.
Calling it from another file:
And if this function is on another file it will be called automatically if this file is included.
Why do we use Self-Invoking Functions in JavaScript?
And if you ask yourself why do we use these functions, self-invoked function are used to manage Variable Scope.
Take a look at the answer here for further information.
When I type this in node.js, I get undefined.
var testContext = 15;
function testFunction() {
console.log(this.testContext);
}
testFunction();
=>undefined
Without var keyword, it passes (=>15). It's working in the Chrome console (with and without var keyword).
It doesn't work in Node when using var because testContext is a local of the current module. You should reference it directly: console.log(testContext);.
When you don't type var, what happens is that testContext is now a global var in the entire Node process.
In Chrome (or any other browser - well, I'm unsure about oldIE...), it doesn't matter if you use var or not in your example, testContext will go to the global context, which is window.
By the way, the "global context" is the default this of function calls in JS.
The key difference is that all modules (script files) in Node.js are executed in their own closure while Chrome and other browsers execute all script files directly within the global scope.
This is mentioned in the Globals documentation:
Some of these objects aren't actually in the global scope but in the module scope - this will be noted.
The vars you declare in a Node module will be isolated to one of these closures, which is why you have to export members for other modules to reach them.
Though, when calling a function without a specific context, it will normally be defaulted to the global object -- which is conveniently called global in Node.
function testFunction() {
return this;
}
console.log(testFunction() === global); // true
And, without the var to declare it, testContext will default to being defined as a global.
testContext = 15;
console.log(global.testContext); // 15
As mentioned in the document
var something inside an Node.js module will be local to that module.
So, it is going to be different as the var testContext is in module context and the context of this is global.
You can alternatively, use:
global.testContext = 15;
function testFunction() {
console.log(this.testContext);
}
testFunction();
I believe the problem has to do with the this key word. If you do console.log(this) you will see that testContext is not defined. You may want to try:
this.testContext = 15;
function testFunction() {
console.log(this.testContext);
}
testFunction();
I have several script blocks depend on each other. I need to perform them in one scope.
My attempt:
var scopeWrapper = {};
with(scopeWrapper) {
(function() {
this.run = function(code) {
eval(code);
};
}).call(scopeWrapper);
}
scopeWrapper.run('function test() { alert("passed"); }');
scopeWrapper.run('test();');
I get 'test is not defined' error. It seems that the code is executed in different scopes.
Why is this happening?
Edit: Bergi pointed out my original answer was wrong, he is correct. Since eval runs in its own scope and the function constructor still runs in function scope according to the spec this is not possible with either.
While I have done this sort of thing myself several times with node.js using the vm module where you get much finer grain of control over where your code executes, it seems browsers require a different approach.
The only way you can share variables in such a way is to do so in the global scope of JavaScript execution (possibly, in an iframe). One way you could do this is script tag injection.
function run(code){
var sc = document.createElement("script");
sc.setAttribute("type","text/javascript");
sc.innerHTML = code;
document.body.appendChild(sc);
}
run("var x = 5");
run("document.write(x)");
(here is this code in action)
As for the scope wrapper, instead of injecting them in the same frame inject them in another iframe. That will scope their window object to that iframe and will allow you to share context.
I humbly apologize for my previous answer, I misread the spec. I hope this answer helps you.
I'm leaving my previous answer here because I still believe it provides some insight into how eval and the Function constructor work.
When running code in non-strict mode eval runs in the current context of your page
After your function declaration is done, the scope it was declared in dies, and with it the function.
Consider using the Function constructor and then .calling it
In your case that would be something like:
var scopeWrapper = {};
scopeWrapper.run = function(code){
var functionToRun = new Function(code);
functionToRun.call(scopeWrapper);
}
scopeWrapper.run('this.test = function() { alert("passed"); }');
scopeWrapper.run("this.test()")
Here is a reference directly from the spec:
If there is no calling context or if the eval code is not being evaluated by a direct call (15.1.2.1.1) to the eval function then,
Initialize the execution context as if it was a global execution context using the eval code as C as described in 10.4.1.1.
If this code is run in the node.js consider using the vm module. Also note that this approach is still not secure in the way it'll allow code you run to change your code.
test only exists in the scope of this.run and only at call time :
// global scope
(function(){
// local scope (equivalent of your "run" function scope)
eval('function f(){};');
console.log(f); // prints "function f(){}"
})();
console.log(f); // prints "ReferenceError: f is not defined"
Each call of run creates a new scope in which each code is evaluated separately.
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.