We Keep Coding

What is happening in the creation and execution phase of an object?

I created a normal JavaScript object, like this:
let obj = {
name : "something",
print() {
console.log(this.name);
}
}
let res = obj.print()
console.log(res);
In this example obj has a name and a simple method. I am calling the method from the outside. After that I log the return value to the console, which is undefined.
I don't understand what is happening behind the scenes within the object. Please explain to me the creation and execution phase for this code.

Behind the scenes, the JavaScript interpreter creates an object in memory and refers to it through obj. When you call obj.print(), it refers to the same object and calls the method defined.
In the method, this refers to the object itself (obj), and is set by the JS interpreter as an implicit reference.
At last, you forgot to return the value from print(). So, nothing is assigned to res. Refer to the following example, as it prints the value of res correctly, when a value is returned from the function.
let obj = {
name: "something",
print() {
console.log(this.name);
return this.name;
}
}
let res = obj.print()
console.log(res);

I am going to write about the "behind the scenes" that you are asking for. Unfortunately this might confuse you, instead of making things clearer as JavaScript is quite a "different" language on its own.
In JavaScript a function is an object. Sometimes even called a first-class object. It has everything an object has (attributes and methods) and in addition can further more be invoked. Don't believe me? See for yourself:
function abracadabra()
{
return "this is magic";
}
console.log(abracadabra.name);
console.log(abracadabra.call());
Now a method is simply another function to which an attribute of an object is referring to. Let's take your example:
let obj = {
name : "something",
print() {
console.log(this.name);
}
}
Here obj is defined as an object with two attributes. A value type and a function. When you call the obj.print() function the following happens:
The function is called.
The so-called function context this is set to the object that the method is called upon. You can use this to access other attributes of the same object.
What exactly is this? As said it is the so-called function context that can refer to four different objects depending on how a function is called.
The function is called as a function. e.g. abracadabra() => this is referring to the global context, to which it is always referring by default.
The global context is dependent on the environment JavaScript is executed in. Remember JavaScript can not only run in a browser. It can also be used as a server-side scripting language. In the browser the global context is the current browser window. Don't believe me? See for yourself:
// We are not in any method, still "this" is available:
console.log(this.toString());
The function is called as a method. e.g. obj.print() => this is referring to the object the method is invoked on. I described this above.
The function is called as a constructor. e.g. new abracadabra() => A new empty object is created and this is referring to it. Now the function should extend the empty object with attributes.
The function is called using its apply or call methods => this is referring to whatever you pass as the very first argument of these methods.
So to sum it up: It can get tricky to really understand how these things work in JavaScript. This is because basically there are only objects and functions in the language. Methods look like methods, but are in reality only functions as well.
To get a really good in depth understanding I can recommend the book Secrets of the JavaScript Ninja.

Get name of instance of a class within the class

Here is what I want:
var Validator = function () {
this.do = function () {
alert(INTANCENAME); /// SHOULD BE 'FOO'
}
}
var FOO = new Validator().do();
Is it possibe to implement in Javascript?

The truth is there is no point of doing that, the only way I can hardly think is to loop all window or scope objects and check some kind of equality with the current object, something like
this.do = function () {
for(var key in window) {
if(this === window[key]) {
alert(key);
}
}
};
In order to work call it after you assign it.
var FOO = new Validator();
FOO.do();
Another issue that can come up is that an instance (a reference) can be stored in various variables so maybe will not get what you expect.

The literal answer to your question would be:
Use (new Error()).stack to get information on the line and the function where the do() method was called.
Use JS parser (e.g. Esprima) to find out what variable it was called on (if any, the method itself might be assigned to a variable).
I do not recommend doing this though.

There's no way to directly do what you're asking for here. Objects themselves are not in any defined by their matching variable name - in fact it's possible to have objects that exist that are not directly assigned to a variable, and multiple variables assigned to the same object.
The javascript interpreter uses our variable names as identifiers to help with the code execution, but once it's running the variable name makes no difference to the running javascript program, as it's probably been reduced to a memory reference by the time it's executing, completely separated from the original code that you wrote.
Edit: Answer by yannis does kind of simulate this, but it relies on working with variables available in a specific scope - what I ment was that there's no direct way to do this from within the object itself as per your example in the question.

JavaScript Proxy Pattern Explained

I study JavaScript Proxy Pattern, but I still do not get, where I can benefit from it. I would therefore like to provide you with two examples and kindly ask you to point at the difference between them.
Please, take a look at the code below:
What is the difference between the two addEventListener calls? One of them calls handleDrop in regular way. The other uses Proxy Pattern.
What will I gain using Proxy pattern approach?
I tested both functions, and they both call handleDrop successfully.
DndUpload.prototype.buildDropZone = function ()
{
var self = this,
this.dropZone.addEventListener('drop', function (e) { self.handleDrop.call(self, e) }, false);
this.dropZone.addEventListener('drop', self.handleDrop, false);
DndUpload.prototype.handleDrop = function (e)
{
alert("test");
...
};
}
You can provide me with good reference which contains very clear explanation of Proxy Pattern in JavaScript.

So what you're describing in your example isn't so much a demonstration of the Proxy pattern as much as a demonstration of confusion regarding the "calling object" and how it works in JavaScript.
In JavaScript, functions are "first-class." This essentially means that functions are data just like any other data. So let's consider the following situation:
var fn = (function () { return this.x; }),
a = {
x : 1,
fn : fn,
},
x = 2,
nothing = (function (z) { return z; });
So, we have an object a, which has two properties: fn and x. We also have variables x, fn (which is a function returning this.x), and nothing (which returns whatever it gets passed).
If we evaluate a.x, we get 1. If we evaluate x, we get 2. Pretty simple, eh? Now, if we evaluate nothing(a.x), then we get 1. That's also very simple. But it's important to realize that the value 1 associated with the property a.x is not in any way connected to the object a. It exists independently and can be passed around simply as a value.
In JavaScript, functions work the same way. Functions that are properties (often called "methods") can be passed as simple references. However, in doing so, they can become disconnected from their object. This becomes important when you use the this keyword inside a function.
The this keyword references the "calling object." That's the object that is associated with a function when that function is evaluated. There are three basic ways to set the calling object for a function:
If the function is called using the dot operator (e.g. a.fn()), the relevant object (in the example, a) is set as the calling object.
If the function is called using the function's call or apply properties, then you can explicitly set the calling object (we'll see why this is useful in a second).
If no calling object is set through method 1 or method 2, the global object is used (in a browser, this is typically called window).
So, back to our code. If we call a.fn(), it will evaluate as 1. That's expected because the this keyword in the function will be set to a due to the use of the dot operator. However, if we call simply fn(), it will return 2 because it is referencing the x property of the global object (meaning our global x is used).
Now, here's where things get tricky. What if you called: nothing(a.fn)()? You might be surprised that the result is 2. This is because passing a.fn into nothing() passes a reference to fn, but does not retain the calling object!
This is the same concept as what's going on in your coding example. If your function handleDrop were to use the this keyword, you would find it has a different value depending on which handler form you use. This is because in your second example, you're passing a reference to handleDrop, but as with our nothing(a.fn)() example, by the time it gets called, the calling object reference is lost.
So let's add something else to the puzzle:
var b = {
x : 3
};
You'll note that while b has an x property (and therefore satisfies the requirements for fn's use of this), it doesn't have a property referencing fn. So if we wanted to call the fn function with its this set to b, it might seem we need to add a new property to b. But instead we can use the aforementioned apply method on fn to explicitly set b as the calling object:
fn.apply(b); //is 3
This can be used to "permanently" bind a calling object to a function by creating a new function "wrapper." It's not really permanently binding, it's just creating a new function that calls the old function with the desired calling object. Such a tool is often written like so:
Function.prototype.bind = function (obj) {
var self = this;
return function() {
return self.apply(obj, arguments);
};
};
So after executing that code, we could do the following:
nothing(a.fn.bind(a))(); //is 1.
It's nothing tricky. In fact, the bind() property is built into ES5 and works pretty much like the simple code above. And our bind code is actually a really complicated way to do something that we can do more simply. Since a has fn as a property, we can use the dot operator to call it directly. We can skip all the confusing use of call and apply. We just need to make sure when the function gets called, it gets called using the dot operator. We can see how to do it above, but in practice, it's far simpler and more intuitive:
nothing(function () { return a.fn(); })(); //is 1
Once you have an understanding of how data references can be stored in closure scope, how functions are first-class objects, and how the calling object works, this all becomes very simple to understand and reasonably intuitive.
As for "proxies," those also exploit the same concepts to hook into functions. So, let's say that you wanted to count the number of times a.fn gets called. You can do that by inserting a proxy, like so (making use of some concepts from our bind code from above):
var numCalls = (function () {
var calls = 0, target = a.fn;
a.fn = (function () {
calls++;
return target.apply(a, arguments);
});
return (function () {
return calls;
});
}());
So now, whenever you call numCalls(), it will return the number of times a.fn() was called without actually modifying the functionality of a.fn! which is pretty cool. However, you must keep in mind that you did change the function referenced by a.fn, so looking way back to the beginning of our code, you'll notice that a.fn is no longer the same as fn and can't be used interchangeably anymore. But the reasons should now be pretty obvious!
I know that was basically a week of JavaScript education in a couple pages of text, but that's about as simple as it gets. Once you understand the concepts, the functionality, usefulness, and power of many JavaScript patterns become very simple to understand.
Hope that made things clearer!
UPDATE: Thanks to #pimvdb for pointing out my unnecessary use of [].slice.call(arguments, 0). I have removed it because it's, well, unnecessary.

Basically, passing self.handleDrop directly is functionally equivalent to passing the following function:
function() {
return self.handleDrop.apply(this, arguments);
}
because everything is passed through to the original function:
The this value
The arguments
The return value
With this in mind, compare your functions as follows:
function(e) { self.handleDrop.call(self, e) }
function() { return self.handleDrop.apply(this, arguments); }
The difference with your proxy way is:
It doesn't pass the return value through.
It doesn't pass all arguments through (only the first, e)
It doesn't pass the this value through, but uses a predefined one: self.
Now, the first two items don't make a difference here, because addEventListener doesn't care about the return value, and it also only passes one argument anyway.
But the third item is important: it sets a different this value in the function. By default, this is the element you bind the event to (it it set by the browser). Using the proxy way, you can set another this value.
Now, in your snippet it is not fully clear why you're setting a prototype function each time buildDropZone is called. Usually you define prototype functions only once. But when your handler handleDrop is called using the proxy way, this refers to the DndUpload instance, which is consistent with prototype functions in general.

Consider the code below:
function printThis() {
console.log(this);
}
var someObject = {
performTest : function() {
var self = this;
someOtherObject.higherOrderFunction(printThis);
someOtherObject.higherOrderFunction(function(){printThis.call(self)});
}
}
var someOtherObject = {
higherOrderFunction : function(f) {
f();
}
}
What will someOtherObject.higherOrderFunction(printThis) return?
How about someOtherObject.higherOrderFunction(function(){printThis.call(self)})
The answer to the first question depends on who and how you call someObject.performTest(). If I just call someObject.performTest() from a global context, it will probably print Window.
The second one will always print the someObject instance no matter what.
The closures or 'proxy pattern' as you call it comes in handy when you want to control exactly the execution context of a function.
Note: this in javascript does not behave like it does in other languages(in Java for example).

Method and variable scoping of private and instance variables in JavaScript

I have tried to figure this out or search for it on google, i can only find how to create objects, not exactly how functions work. If someone could explain to me how encapsulation works.
function myObject() {
this.variable1 = "tst";
this.function1 = function() {
//Now this function works. A 'this' function to a private function is ok
_PrivateFunction1();
//Here is error one, I cannot seem to call methods within the object
//from.
this.function2();
}
this.function2 = function() {
alert("look! function2!");
}
function _PrivateFunction1() {
//This does work though. I am confused.
_PrivateFunction2();
}
function _PrivateFunction2() {
alert("look! PrivateFunction1");
//this does not work.
alert(this.variable1);
}
}

I think I can explain this better if we go in reverse order. First, we define some functions:
function _PrivateFunction1() {
//This does work though. I am confused.
_PrivateFunction2();
}
function _PrivateFunction2() {
alert("look! PrivateFunction1");
//this does not work.
alert(this.variable1);
}
This is pretty normal stuff. The only thing that's weird is that they appear inside another function, but that's perfectly fine. JavaScript has function scope, which means that all variables defined inside a function are defined in a new scope. They do not trample on the global namespace. And functions are first-class objects in JavaScript, which means they can be used just like other data types. They can be nested, passed to functions, returned from functions, etc.
Then we run into some trouble:
function _PrivateFunction2() {
alert("look! PrivateFunction1");
//this does not work.
alert(this.variable1);
}
}
Functions in JavaScript are always executed in some context which is referred to by the this keyword. When you call a function directly (i.e. like this: functionName()) the context in which that function executes is the global window object. So, inside _PrivateFunction2, this.variable1 is equivalent to window.variable1 which is probably not what you meant.
You probably wanted to refer to the current instance of myobject which is what this refers to outside of _PrivateFunction2. You can preserve access to this in an inner scope by storing a reference to it in another variable:
var _this = this;
function _PrivateFunction2() {
alert("look! PrivateFunction1");
//this does not work.
alert(_this.variable1);
}
There's something subtle here you should notice. _PrivateFunction2 has access to the variables defined in its lexical scope, which is why it can access _this. This will be important later.
Next up:
function _PrivateFunction1() {
//This does work though. I am confused.
_PrivateFunction2();
}
This should be the most normal-looking section to you, I would think. There's nothing strange going on here. Just one regular function calling another one. Don't be confused by the fact that these are nested inside myObject. That changes the scope they're in, but not much else.
Next we define some instance variables and methods:
this.variable1 = "tst";
this.function1 = function() {
//Now this function works. A 'this' function to a private function is ok
_PrivateFunction1();
//Here is error one, I cannot seem to call methods within the object
//from.
this.function2();
}
this.function2 = function() {
alert("look! function2!");
}
Here this really does refer to myObject, assuming -- and it's an important assumption -- that myObject was called with the new operator, like this:
var obj = new myObject();
If it had been called like this:
var obj = myObject();
Then this would refer to the window object, just like it did for the functions we saw earlier. The key takeaway is that the value of this is not fixed. It's determined by the way in which the function is called. There are even ways to set it to an arbitrary object explicitly.
The value of this inside this.function1 will also be the current instance of myObject, because it will most likely be used like this:
var obj = new myObject();
obj.function1();
Writing object.method() sets this to object inside method.
So how is this.function1 able to call _PrivateFunction1()? Just as we saw earlier when saving the value of this for use inside a nested function, _PrivateFunction1() is just another object defined in this.function1's lexical scope, so it is available for its use, just as _this was earlier.
And it's because of closure that these private variables are still alive long after myObject has returned.
Footnote: Because failing to use new when instantiating objects breaks things so spectacularly without warning, it's considered good practice to capitalize the names of functions you intend to be used as a constructor. So myObject should really be MyObject.

You have to save a copy of the actual object like here note the var that = this
Tested in chrome and FF

for encapsulation I would prefer module pattern like
var someMethod = function(){
var i,
length,
// public method
public = function(num1, num2){
return num1+num2;
},
//private method
_private = function(){};
//exposing the public method
return{
public:public
}
};
var callPublic = someMethod();
callPublic.public(20, 30);// call the public method and return 50
now , if you try to call that private method like
callPublic._private();//it will return not a function since its not been exposed
There are lot of other pattern to encapsulate your methods but module pattern is most common. Hope ot will help you how to encapsulate data in javascript.

Accessing variables from other functions without using global variables

I've heard from a variety of places that global variables are inherently nasty and evil, but when doing some non-object oriented Javascript, I can't see how to avoid them. Say I have a function which generates a number using a complex algorithm using random numbers and stuff, but I need to keep using that particular number in some other function which is a callback or something and so can't be part of the same function.
If the originally generated number is a local variable, it won't be accessible from, there. If the functions were object methods, I could make the number a property but they're not and it seems somewhat overcomplicated to change the whole program structure to do this. Is a global variable really so bad?

I think your best bet here may be to define a single global-scoped variable, and dumping your variables there:
var MyApp = {}; // Globally scoped object
function foo(){
MyApp.color = 'green';
}
function bar(){
alert(MyApp.color); // Alerts 'green'
}
No one should yell at you for doing something like the above.

To make a variable calculated in function A visible in function B, you have three choices:
make it a global,
make it an object property, or
pass it as a parameter when calling B from A.
If your program is fairly small then globals are not so bad. Otherwise I would consider using the third method:
function A()
{
var rand_num = calculate_random_number();
B(rand_num);
}
function B(r)
{
use_rand_num(r);
}

Consider using namespaces:
(function() {
var local_var = 'foo';
global_var = 'bar'; // this.global_var and window.global_var also work
function local_function() {}
global_function = function() {};
})();
Both local_function and global_function have access to all local and global variables.
Edit: Another common pattern:
var ns = (function() {
// local stuff
function foo() {}
function bar() {}
function baz() {} // this one stays invisible
// stuff visible in namespace object
return {
foo : foo,
bar : bar
};
})();
The returned properties can now be accessed via the namespace object, e.g. ns.foo, while still retaining access to local definitions.

What you're looking for is technically known as currying.
function getMyCallback(randomValue)
{
return function(otherParam)
{
return randomValue * otherParam //or whatever it is you are doing.
}
}
var myCallback = getMyCallBack(getRand())
alert(myCallBack(1));
alert(myCallBack(2));
The above isn't exactly a curried function but it achieves the result of maintaining an existing value without adding variables to the global namespace or requiring some other object repository for it.

I found this to be extremely helpful in relation to the original question:
Return the value you wish to use in functionOne, then call functionOne within functionTwo, then place the result into a fresh var and reference this new var within functionTwo. This should enable you to use the var declared in functionOne, within functionTwo.
function functionOne() {
var variableThree = 3;
return variableThree;
}
function functionTwo() {
var variableOne = 1;
var var3 = functionOne();
var result = var3 - variableOne;
console.log(variableOne);
console.log(var3);
console.log('functional result: ' + result);
}
functionTwo();

If another function needs to use a variable you pass it to the function as an argument.
Also global variables are not inherently nasty and evil. As long as they are used properly there is no problem with them.

If there's a chance that you will reuse this code, then I would probably make the effort to go with an object-oriented perspective. Using the global namespace can be dangerous -- you run the risk of hard to find bugs due to variable names that get reused. Typically I start by using an object-oriented approach for anything more than a simple callback so that I don't have to do the re-write thing. Any time that you have a group of related functions in javascript, I think, it's a candidate for an object-oriented approach.

Another approach is one that I picked up from a Douglas Crockford forum post(http://bytes.com/topic/javascript/answers/512361-array-objects). Here it is...
Douglas Crockford wrote:
Jul 15 '06
"If you want to retrieve objects by id, then you should use an object, not an
array. Since functions are also objects, you could store the members in the
function itself."
function objFacility(id, name, adr, city, state, zip) {
return objFacility[id] = {
id: id,
name: name,
adr: adr,
city: city,
state: state,
zip: zip
}
}
objFacility('wlevine', 'Levine', '23 Skid Row', 'Springfield', 'Il', 10010);
"The object can be obtained with"
objFacility.wlevine
The objects properties are now accessable from within any other function.

I don't know specifics of your issue, but if the function needs the value then it can be a parameter passed through the call.
Globals are considered bad because globals state and multiple modifiers can create hard to follow code and strange errors. To many actors fiddling with something can create chaos.

You can completely control the execution of javascript functions (and pass variables between them) using custom jQuery events....I was told that this wasn't possible all over these forums, but I got something working that does exactly that (even using an ajax call).
Here's the answer (IMPORTANT: it's not the checked answer but rather the answer by me "Emile"):
How to get a variable returned across multiple functions - Javascript/jQuery