We Keep Coding

Constructor function - in simple namespace - Javascript

In want to define a function-constructor inside a namespace. The way in which I defined the constructor till now was a simple constructor function without NS, combined with prototypal inheritance.
The code looked kind of like:
function mySuperObject() {
var self = this;
self.p1 = "";
self.p2 = "jkejie";
// and others
}
mySuperObject.prototype.func1 = function(){...}
// and others
Introducing namespace:
After reading many articles I decided to start up with a very simple way to define a namespace, maybe the most simplest.
Basically it is just about defining a variable which points to an object-literal and the content is the object (the "mySuperObject" in the code-snippet above). The constructor function is following: mySuperObjectInNS.
The code of the object:
var MYNAMESPACE = {
//some variable outside the object
file : "ConstructorInNamespace_obj.js: ",
//Defining contructor function inside a namespace
mySuperObjectInNS : function(propOne, propTwo){
var self = this;
self.objectName = "mySuperObject";
self.propertyOne = propOne;
self.propertyTwo = propTwo;
self.doSomething = function(){
console.log(file + " doSomething called - function of object");
};
///many more functions and attributes
}
}
MYNAMESPACE.mySuperObjectInNS.prototype.specialFunction = function(){
console.log(file + " specialFunction called - prototypical inheritance defined in file of object, outside of namespace");
};
///many more functions and attributes
In another file it is possible to intantiate the object, as follows:
...
var objOne = new MYNAMESPACE.mySuperObjectInNS("param11", "40");
//following line works just fine
objOne.doSomething();
....
Questions:
It seems to me that this all is about defining an Object-Literal and
I will come into trouble the latest I am trying to define "private"
properties of that object. Is this correct?
Is that mySuperObjectInNS still a constructor function? (For me it
seems it is something else,even if I can intantiate objects from it.
Is is a very bad very bad way of namespacing or is kind of ok?

It seems to me that this all is about defining an Object-Literal and I will come into trouble the latest I am trying to define "private" properties of that object. Is this correct?
"Private properties" have nothing to do with using an object for namespacing. In fact, originally when answering this question, I read that as "private functions" because that would be relevant.
There are lots of ways to do private and semi-private properties in JavaScript, but they relate to how you create the constructor function and the methods it gives the object, not how you expose the constructor function. "Namespace" objects are about how you expose the constructor.
One common pattern for creating "private" properties is to define methods that need to access them within the constructor, and make the "properties" local variables within the constructor (so they aren't really properties at all), like this:
function SuperObject() {
var privateInformation;
this.method = function() {
// This can access `privateInformation`, which is completely
// hidden from outside the constructor
};
}
It doesn't matter at all if you do that within a "namespacing" pattern or on its own.
Private functions, on the other hand, affect the pattern. I'll show both below.
A fairly common variant that provides for private functions is to use a function to create the object, which also gives you the opportunity to create private functions:
var TheNamespace = function() {
function privateFunction() {
}
function SuperObject() {
var privateInformation;
this.method = function() {
// This can access `privateInformation`, which is completely
// hidden from outside the constructor
};
}
SuperObject.prototype.otherMethod = function() {
// Can't access `privateInformation`, but has the advantage
// that the function is shared between instances
};
return {
SuperObject: SuperObject
};
}();
// usage
var s = new TheNamespace.SuperObject();
Is that mySuperObjectInNS still a constructor function? (For me it seems it is something else,even if I can intantiate objects from it.
Yes. A constructor function is any function that expect you to use new with it.
Is is a very bad very bad way of namespacing or is kind of ok?
Using objects as pseudo-namespaces is common practice. You might also consider various asynchronous module definition (AMD) technologies, which largely make "namespace" objects largely unnecessary.
Re your comment:
You defined a self-invoking function....which returns an an object?
It's not a self-invoking function, it's an inline-invoked function, but yes, it's a function that returns an object.
(if so I think parantheses are missing)
No, we don't need any parens that aren't there because the only reason for the outer parens other places you've seen this are to tell the parser that the word function starts an expression rather than declaration; we don't need that in the above because we're already on the right-hand side of an assignment, so there's no ambiguity when function is encountered.
Due to you proposed this way, is it a better way to define the ns?
"Better" is a subjective term. It gives you a scope in which you can define private functions, which you'd asked about.
Whereas I often also saw the option: var = {} | someNSName; What is this all about?
If you have several files that will add things to the "namespace" (as is common), then you frequently see this in each of them:
var TheNamespace = TheNamespace || {};
What that does is declare the variable if it hasn't been declared before, and assign an empty object to it if it doesn't already have one. In the first file that gets loaded, this happens:
The var is processed and creates a new variable, TheNamespace, with the value undefined.
The TheNameSpace = TheNameSpace || {} assignment is processed: Since undefined is falsey, the curiously-powerful || operator results in the new {}, which gets assigned to TheNamespace.
When the next file loads, this happens:
The var is a no-op, because the variable already exists.
The TheNameSpace = TheNameSpace || {} assignment is processed: Since TheNamespace has a non-null object reference, it's truthy, and the curiously-powerful || operator results in a reference to the object TheNamespace refers to.
That is, it has no effect at all.
This is used so you can load the files in any order, or load just one file in isolation.
Here's an example:
thingy.js:
var TheNamespace = TheNamespace || {};
TheNamespace.Nifty = function() {
function privateFunction() {
}
function Nifty() {
var privateInformation;
this.method = function() {
// Can access `privateInformation` here
};
}
Nifty.prototype.otherMethod = function() {
// ...
};
return Nifty;
}();
thingy.js:
var TheNamespace = TheNamespace || {};
TheNamespace.Thingy = function() {
function privateFunction() {
}
function Thingy() {
var privateInformation;
this.method = function() {
// Can access `privateInformation` here
};
}
Thingy.prototype.otherMethod = function() {
// ...
};
return Thingy;
}();
There are lots of variations on that basic pattern, particularly if one file may add multiple things to TheNamespace. Here's one that supports doing so fairly concisely:
var TheNamespace = function(exports) {
function privateFunction() {
}
function Nifty() {
var privateInformation;
this.method = function() {
// Can access `privateInformation` here
};
}
Nifty.prototype.otherMethod = function() {
// ...
};
exports.Nifty = Nifty;
function Thingy() {
var privateInformation;
this.method = function() {
// Can access `privateInformation` here
};
}
Thingy.prototype.otherMethod = function() {
// ...
};
exports.Thingy = Thingy;
}(TheNamespace || {});

How to change function inside constructor in JavaScript?

I need to edit the function which locates inside of the constructor.
Example:
some.thing = function() {
this.somefn = function() { // this is the function that I need to fix
...
}
}
But function should be edited not just only for a single object (new obj = some.thing();) but also for any created objects by this constructor.
So is there any way to edit such inner-functions?

Here is a solution based on prototype:
var Something = function () {
this.f = function () {
console.log("Something");
};
};
var Old = Something;
var Something = function () {
Old.apply(this);
this.f = function () {
console.log("New");
};
};
Something.prototype = new Old();
var s = new Something();
s.f(); // prints "New"

The solutions seem just a little too obvious, so I'm wondering if the trouble is that you don't have access to the original code, and you need a more dynamic solution.
If so, one option may be to override the constructor with your own constructor, and have it call the original, and then update the object.
Original code:
some.thing = function() {
this.somefn = function() { // this is the function that I need to fix
...
}
}
Your code:
// cache a reference to the original constructor
var _thing = some.thing;
// your constructor
some.thing = function() {
// invoke the original constructor on the new object.
_thing.apply(this, arguments);
this.somefn = function() { /*your updated function*/ };
};
// maintain inheritance
some.thing.prototype = Object.create(some.thing.prototype);
// make an instance
var theThing = new some.thing();
Now you're getting the benefit of the original constructor and prototype chain, but you're injecting your own function on to the objects being created.
Only trouble may be that the original function you replaced could make special use of the original constructor's variable scope. If that's the case, there would be an issue to resolve.
It would be possible to retain and invoke the original method that you overwrote before invoking yours. Not sure if this situation calls for that or not.

I exactly know your need cause last week I passed through it. I just implemented a complete inheritance model in javascript and as far as I remember, I had a problem with overriding constructors and calling the parent class's ctor when child class is initializing.
So I just solved the problem with modifing some points in my design and it's now working like a charm! (something like C# but in Javascript)
By the way, I don't suggest you to change a method contents this way, but here is a way to do that (I myself did not do that this way and AGIAIN I DO NOT RECOMMEND IT. THERE ARE MANY OTHER WAYS, BUT THIS IS THE EASIEST):
var test = function() { /*InjectionPlace*/ };
eval("var newTest = " + test.toString().replace(
"/*InjectionPlace*/",
"var i = 10; alert(i);"
));
test();
newTest();
Cheers

I don't understand why the "this" keyword doesn't work as I expect

What I want to do is to execute the create_tag function when a specified condition is satisfied. I am referring to this function as a method of an object, in this case document.body, by setting as its method an external function, "create_tag(..)". The problem is inside this function I have a "this" keyword which I would expect to refer to the method's parent, document.body. Instead it doesn't seem to work. I tried replacing "this" with "document.body" in the function so the problem should be caused by "this".
Here is the code:
xmlDom=xmlhttp.responseXML;
hint_ul=document.getElementById("hint_ul");
personaggi=xmlDom.documentElement.getElementsByTagName("personaggio");
for(i=0;i<personaggi.length;i++){
personaggio=personaggi.item(i);
name=personaggio.childNodes[1].firstChild.nodeValue;
if(name.substr(0, str.length).toLowerCase()==str.toLowerCase()){
document.body.crea_li=create_tag(name);
}
}
}
function create_tag(inner){
a=document.createElement("a");
a.innerHTML=inner;
this.appendChild(a); }

this will be window when called like that.
To get its this as the body element, call it like so...
document.body.crea_li = create_tag.call(document.body, name);

Nowhere in your code is create_tag assigned as a method of document.body. The closest you get is with the line document.body.crea_li=create_tag(name);, but what's actually happening here is that you are executing create_tag as a member of the global object, and the result of that operation is assigned to document.body.crea_li.

You could make a reference to this outside the function body - referencing it within the scope later:
var self = this;
function create_tag(inner){
a=document.createElement("a");
a.innerHTML=inner;
self.appendChild(a);
}
This could be a nice trick. When I make complicated javascript objects involving many objects and functions, at the top of the object I create:
var self = this;
as that will live within the scope, the root object is always accessible.
Here is a working example of how I would implement this:
SomeReallyComplexThing = function() {
var self = this;
var foo = 'bar'
this.fooThing = 'Other thing'
this.setSomeData = function(){
console.log('Some data set', arguments)
}
this.makeMassiveCall = function() {
var completeFunc = function(){};
var url = '/some/endpoint.json';
var requestData = {};
jQuery.get(url, requestData, function(data) {
/*
* Data has come back
*/
self.setSomeData(data)
completeFunc(data);
});
}
}
//outside the scope
s = new SomeReallyComplexThing()
s.fooThing() //visible
s.self //undefined

this in javascript is a sqirrely fellow. The idea is this refers to the current function context.
This means that when your running code inside the function this refers to that function's context, which does not have an appendChild method.
Normally you use a closure to keep a reference to the calling context around, something like this
var _self = this;
var result = func();
function func()
{
// _self is the calling context, this is the current context
}
Or you could pass a reference to the calling context:
document.body.crea_li=create_tag(name,this);
function create_tag(inner, context) { context.body.appendChild(...) }

this is referring to the function's parent, but its parent is actually the window object, not the document object or document.body. this actually refers to wherever context the function is called from, and in my opinion you should avoid using it to call methods just for that reason because it can be difficult to see what this is actually referring to. For example, if you called a function using this from another function, it would refer to the context within that function.
This example might help show what's going on:
var hello = function() {
alert( this.message );
}
window.message = "hello!";
hello()
You could document.body directly in the code like you suggested before, or you could pass another parameter that tells the function where to append the created tag:
function create_tag(inner, elementToAddTag){
a=document.createElement("a");
a.innerHTML=inner;
elementToAddTagTo.appendChild(a);
}

This pointer from internal function

i have JavaScript components, that has following architecture:
var MyComponent = function(params)
{
setup(params);
this.doSomething()
{
// doing something
};
function setup(params)
{
// Setup
// Interaction logic
var _this = this; // "this" points to DOMWindow, not to created object
$(".some-element").click(function(){
_this.doSomething(); // it craches here, because of above
});
}
};
When something, being controlled by interaction logic, happens, sometimes i must forward execution to "public" methods of component.
In this situation, i have a problem with "this" pointer.
Sample code demonstrates it:
var Item = function()
{
this.say = function()
{
alert("hello");
};
this.sayInternal = function()
{
_sayInternal();
};
function _sayInternal()
{
this.say();
};
};
To test it,
Create an object:
var o = new Item();
This works fine:
o.say(); // alerts "hello"
This crashes:
o.sayInternal();
I get an error:
TypeError: Result of expression 'this.say' [undefined] is not a function.
I think, such a behaviour takes place, because _sayInternal() function is declared (and not assigned to object, like "this.say = function()"). This way, it is shared across all created objects and acts like a static function in C++.
Is this true ?

No, sayInternal is not shared between created objects. But you are right, the created objects don't have access to sayInternal as it is not assigned to them. This function is only local to the constructor function.
this always refers to the context a function is invoked in. If you call it like func(), then this refers to the global object (which is window in browser). If you set the function as property of an object and call it with obj.func(), then this will refer to obj.
If you assign a "bound" function to a variable and call it:
var method = obj.func;
method();
then this will again refer to the global object. In JavaScript, functions are like any other value, they don't have a special relationship to the object they are assigned to.
You can explicitly set the context with call or apply:
var MyComponent = function(params)
{
setup.call(this, params); // <- using `call`
this.doSomething()
{
// doing something
};
function setup(params)
{
// Setup
// Interaction logic
var _this = this; // "this" to new created object
$(".some-element").click(function(){
_this.doSomething();
});
}
};
or in you other example:
var Item = function()
{
this.say = function()
{
alert("hello");
};
this.sayInternal = function()
{
_sayInternal.call(this);
};
function _sayInternal()
{
this.say();
};
};
That said, this approach to assign functions to objects is not good, because every instance will have its own this.sayInternal function. So for the Item code above, every creation of an instance involves creating three functions too, which is a waste of memory.
Making use of prototype inheritance would be a better way:
var Item = function() {
};
Item.prototype = (function() {
function _sayInternal() {
this.say();
};
return {
say: function() {
alert("hello");
},
sayInternal: function(){
_sayInternal.call(this);
}
}
}());
This way, _sayInternal is only created once and all instances inherit (refer to) the prototype, so say and sayInternal also exist only once. The "trick" with the immediate function makes _sayInternal only accessible by say and sayInternal.

Confusing JavaScript statement: "var x = new this();"

I thought I understood the concept of the JavaScript prototype object, as well as [[proto]] until I saw a few posts regarding class inheritance.
Firstly, "JavaScript OOP - the smart way" at http://amix.dk/blog/viewEntry/19038
See the implementation section:
var parent = new this('no_init');
And also "Simple JavaScript Inheritance" on John Resig's great blog.
var prototype = new this();
What does new this(); actually mean?
This statement makes no sense to me because my understand has been that this points to an object and not a constructor function. I've also tried testing statements in Firebug to figure this one out and all I receive is syntax errors.
My head has gone off into a complete spin.
Could someone please explain this in detail?

In a javascript static function, you can call new this() like so,
var Class = function(){}; // constructor
Class.foo = function(){return this;} // will return the Class function which is also an object
Therefore,
Class.foo = function(){ return new this();} // Will invoke the global Class func as a constructor
This way you get a static factory method. The moral of the story is, not to forget functions are just like any other objects when you are not calling them.

What is confusing you, I think, is just where "this" is really coming from. So bear with me-- here is a very brief explanation that I hope will make it quite clear.
In JavaScript, what "this" refers to within a function is always determined at the time the function is called. When you do:
jimmy.nap();
The nap function (method) runs and receives jimmy as "this".
What objects have references to nap is irrelevant. For example:
var jimmy = {}, billy = {};
jimmy.nap = function(){ alert("zzz"); };
var jimmy_nap = jimmy.nap;
jimmy_nap(); // during this function's execution, this is *NOT* jimmy!
// it is the global object ("window" in browsers), which is given as the
// context ("this") to all functions which are not given another context.
billy.sleep = jimmy.nap;
billy.sleep(); // during this function's excution, this is billy, *NOT* jimmy
jimmy.nap(); //okay, this time, this is jimmy!
In other words, whenever you have:
var some_func = function(arg1, arg2){ /*....*/ };
// let's say obj and other_obj are some objects that came from somewhere or another
obj.some_meth = some_func;
other_obj.some_meth = some_func;
obj.some_meth(2, 3);
other_obj.some_meth(2, 3);
What it's getting "translated" into (not literally-- this is pedagogical, not about how javascript interpreters actually work at all) is something like:
var some_func = function(this, arg1, arg2){ /* ...*/ };
// let's say obj and other_obj are some objects that came from somewhere or another
obj.some_meth = some_func;
other_obj.some_meth = some_func;
obj.some_meth(obj, 2, 3);
other_obj.some_meth(other_obj, 2, 3);
So, notice how extend is used in the example on that page:
UniversityPerson = Person.extend({ /* ... */ });
Pop quiz: When extend runs, what does it think "this" refers to?
Answer: That's right. "Person".
So the puzzling code above really is the same as (in that particular case):
var prototype = new Person('no_init');
Not so mysterious anymore, eh? This is possible because unlike in some languages,
a JavaScript variable-- including "this"-- can hold any value, including a function such as Person.
(There is nothing that makes Person specifically a constructor. Any function can be invoked with the new keyword. If I recall the exact semantics, I think they are that when a function is called with the new keyword, it is automatically given an empty object ({}) as its context ("this") and when the function returns, the return value is that same object unless (maybe?) the function returns something else)
This is a cool question because it speaks to a pretty essential part of JavaScript's neatness or oddness (depending on how you see it).
Does that answer your question? I can clarify if necessary.

AJS.Class effectively* translates this:
var Person = new AJS.Class({
init: function(name) {
this.name = name;
Person.count++;
},
getName: function() {
return this.name;
}
});
Person.count = 0;
into this:
var Person = function (name) {
this.name = name;
Person.count++;
};
Person.prototype = {
getName: function() {
return this.name;
}
};
Person.extend = AJS.Class.prototype.extend;
Person.implement = AJS.Class.prototype.implement;
Person.count = 0;
Therefore, in this case, this in AJS.Class.prototype.extend refers to Person, because:
Person.extend(...);
// is the same as
Person.extend.call(Person, ...);
// is the same as
AJS.Class.prototype.extend.call(Person, ...);
* There are a lot of cases I don't go over; this rewrite is for simplicity in understanding the problem.

Imagine the following situation :
var inner = function () {
var obj = new this;
console.log(obj.myProperty);
};
var f1 = function () {
this.myProperty = "my Property"
}
f1.f2 = inner;
f1.f2();
Here the calling object is itself a function, so this will return a function, and we can instantiate it.
In order to use this()(not this) the outer function(the context) must itself return smth that can be instantiated(another function):
var inner = function () {
var obj = new this();
console.log(obj.myProperty);
};
var f1 = function () {
var func = function () {};
func.myProperty = 'my property';
return func;
};
f1.f2 = inner;
f1.f2();

A simpler code explaination:
class User {
constructor() {
this.name = '';
this.age = '';
}
static getInfo() {
let user = new this();
console.log(user);
}
}
User.getInfo()
Output:
Object {
age: "",
name: ""
}

see this link http://www.quirksmode.org/js/this.html It will tell you about the this keyword, but I am not sure what this() is, may be its some kind of user defined function...... that you are not aware of...

"this" means the context of the function currently running.
The code you are posting surely appears in a function that act as a method for an object.
So the object is the context of the function.
"new this()" will return a clone of the current object after running its constructor function with the passed arguments.

this() refers to the the function that the code is in, but this() would have to be within that function. Calling new this(); within a function would create a never ending loop. Calling it outside of a function would be redundant because there is no function/class set as this().