re: jQuery; binding global ajax events to non-DOM objects - javascript

Basic module question here: I can get the global handlers to work fine if I abandon my module pattern, but this test code doesn't work and I'm having great difficulty figuring out why:
var MyModule = (function($, my) {
$(my).ajaxStart(function() { window.alert("ajax start"); });
$(document).ready(function() {
$.ajax(SOME_AJAX_SETTINGS_HERE);
});
return my;
}(jQuery, MyModule || {}));
The handler attached to the MyModule instance never runs when the ajax call executes.
If I instead attach the handler to $(document) it works just fine, but i'm curious why that global event doesn't seem to be binding correctly to the module object.
EDIT: Here's an even simpler example:
var x = {};
$(x).ajaxStart(function() { window.alert("foo"); } );
$.ajax(SOME_AJAX_SETTINGS);
If I replace $(x) with $(document), it works... it just seems that I can't bind ajaxStart (or the other global ajax events) to non-DOM objects?
#Nucleon, this doesn't seem completely correct to me, and here's an example of why:
var item = {foo: function() { window.alert("shorthand"); } };
$(item).bind("foo", function () { window.alert("longhand"); } );
window.alert("about to trigger (locally)");
$(item).trigger("foo");
window.alert("now we triggerHandler (locally)");
$(item).triggerHandler("foo");
here, the (custom) event "foo" is bound via two patterns, and the different trigger methods show the pattern specificity... you'll get the "longhand" alert twice and the "shorthand" alert once.
now, you can also fire off a global event with $.event.trigger("foo") (BUT, no equivalent global triggerHandler exists).
the problem is if you add this code to the end:
window.alert("now we trigger (globally)");
$.event.trigger("foo");
neither handler is run for this global event triggering.
IF, however, you replace item with some DOM-type element -- as you suggest above -- then both the local AND global events are handled, with the caveat that the "shorthand" handler now won't work*. so it appears that while local handling works with non-DOM objects, it's specifically global handling that doesn't work.
-m
*the shorthand handler stops working because the shorthand pattern ONLY applies to non-DOM objects. i personally think this "shorthand" behavior of non-DOM objects should be removed from jQuery. very few people know about it, and it's only documented in one obscure sentence on the global jQuery object page... it's behavior could drive people who aren't aware of it crazy since it implicitly does a binding step that folks are likely not aware of.
ah, okay... the $.event.trigger functionality isn't public, though it's used by the underlying event-firing mechanisms. i guess i just shouldn't be using it.
turns out this behavior has been challenging for the jQuery devs to implement correctly, and it looks like they're abandoning it completely (or that's what i gathered from this bug report being marked "fixed": DEPRECATE AJAX "GLOBAL" EVENT BEHAVIOR).
but i'm still a bit confused about .trigger being documented as behaving the same way for DOM or non-DOM objects, as only one of the following alerts are run:
var plain = {foo: function() { window.alert("plain"); } };
var dom = $("<div></div>");
dom.foo = function() { window.alert("dom"); };
console.log(plain.foo); // make sure we see function foo on the plain object.
console.log(dom.foo); // now make sure we see function foo on the DOM object.
$(plain).trigger("foo"); // raises the "plain" window alert.
$(dom).trigger("foo"); // raises no alert.
i guess this means the foo property set on dom isn't actually a "proper" JS property in the traditional sense (despite it showing up correctly when inspecting the object on the console)?
note: this is all now for the sake of knowledge -- as i'll just take the advice of the "fix" in the bug link above and just attach all my AJAX (and other global) events to document, since it appears it'll be the enforced behavior in jQuery 1.9.
but i've already taken the blue pill and feel like i'm too far down the rabbit hole to climb back out.

Simply replace
var x = {};
with
var x = $("<div></div>");
Javascript events require binding to valid DOM objects (not just javascript objects). Now, it is not required that the DOM objects are actually attached anywhere. Javascript's event system is based off of bubbling events up and down a hierarchy chain of the available and relevant DOM objects. A simple {} does not qualify.

Related

ES6 object dies [duplicate]

I know ECMAScript 6 has constructors but is there such a thing as destructors for ECMAScript 6?
For example if I register some of my object's methods as event listeners in the constructor, I want to remove them when my object is deleted.
One solution is to have a convention of creating a destructor method for every class that needs this kind of behaviour and manually call it. This will remove the references to the event handlers, hence my object will truly be ready for garbage collection. Otherwise it'll stay in memory because of those methods.
But I was hoping if ECMAScript 6 has something native that will be called right before the object is garbage collected.
If there is no such mechanism, what is a pattern/convention for such problems?
Is there such a thing as destructors for ECMAScript 6?
No. EcmaScript 6 does not specify any garbage collection semantics at all[1], so there is nothing like a "destruction" either.
If I register some of my object's methods as event listeners in the constructor, I want to remove them when my object is deleted
A destructor wouldn't even help you here. It's the event listeners themselves that still reference your object, so it would not be able to get garbage-collected before they are unregistered.
What you are actually looking for is a method of registering listeners without marking them as live root objects. (Ask your local eventsource manufacturer for such a feature).
1): Well, there is a beginning with the specification of WeakMap and WeakSet objects. However, true weak references are still in the pipeline [1][2].
I just came across this question in a search about destructors and I thought there was an unanswered part of your question in your comments, so I thought I would address that.
thank you guys. But what would be a good convention if ECMAScript
doesn't have destructors? Should I create a method called destructor
and call it manually when I'm done with the object? Any other idea?
If you want to tell your object that you are now done with it and it should specifically release any event listeners it has, then you can just create an ordinary method for doing that. You can call the method something like release() or deregister() or unhook() or anything of that ilk. The idea is that you're telling the object to disconnect itself from anything else it is hooked up to (deregister event listeners, clear external object references, etc...). You will have to call it manually at the appropriate time.
If, at the same time you also make sure there are no other references to that object, then your object will become eligible for garbage collection at that point.
ES6 does have weakMap and weakSet which are ways of keeping track of a set of objects that are still alive without affecting when they can be garbage collected, but it does not provide any sort of notification when they are garbage collected. They just disappear from the weakMap or weakSet at some point (when they are GCed).
FYI, the issue with this type of destructor you ask for (and probably why there isn't much of a call for it) is that because of garbage collection, an item is not eligible for garbage collection when it has an open event handler against a live object so even if there was such a destructor, it would never get called in your circumstance until you actually removed the event listeners. And, once you've removed the event listeners, there's no need for the destructor for this purpose.
I suppose there's a possible weakListener() that would not prevent garbage collection, but such a thing does not exist either.
FYI, here's another relevant question Why is the object destructor paradigm in garbage collected languages pervasively absent?. This discussion covers finalizer, destructor and disposer design patterns. I found it useful to see the distinction between the three.
Edit in 2020 - proposal for object finalizer
There is a Stage 3 EMCAScript proposal to add a user-defined finalizer function after an object is garbage collected.
A canonical example of something that would benefit from a feature like this is an object that contains a handle to an open file. If the object is garbage collected (because no other code still has a reference to it), then this finalizer scheme allows one to at least put a message to the console that an external resource has just been leaked and code elsewhere should be fixed to prevent this leak.
If you read the proposal thoroughly, you will see that it's nothing like a full-blown destructor in a language like C++. This finalizer is called after the object has already been destroyed and you have to predetermine what part of the instance data needs to be passed to the finalizer for it to do its work. Further, this feature is not meant to be relied upon for normal operation, but rather as a debugging aid and as a backstop against certain types of bugs. You can read the full explanation for these limitations in the proposal.
You have to manually "destruct" objects in JS. Creating a destroy function is common in JS. In other languages this might be called free, release, dispose, close, etc. In my experience though it tends to be destroy which will unhook internal references, events and possibly propagates destroy calls to child objects as well.
WeakMaps are largely useless as they cannot be iterated and this probably wont be available until ECMA 7 if at all. All WeakMaps let you do is have invisible properties detached from the object itself except for lookup by the object reference and GC so that they don't disturb it. This can be useful for caching, extending and dealing with plurality but it doesn't really help with memory management for observables and observers. WeakSet is a subset of WeakMap (like a WeakMap with a default value of boolean true).
There are various arguments on whether to use various implementations of weak references for this or destructors. Both have potential problems and destructors are more limited.
Destructors are actually potentially useless for observers/listeners as well because typically the listener will hold references to the observer either directly or indirectly. A destructor only really works in a proxy fashion without weak references. If your Observer is really just a proxy taking something else's Listeners and putting them on an observable then it can do something there but this sort of thing is rarely useful. Destructors are more for IO related things or doing things outside of the scope of containment (IE, linking up two instances that it created).
The specific case that I started looking into this for is because I have class A instance that takes class B in the constructor, then creates class C instance which listens to B. I always keep the B instance around somewhere high above. A I sometimes throw away, create new ones, create many, etc. In this situation a Destructor would actually work for me but with a nasty side effect that in the parent if I passed the C instance around but removed all A references then the C and B binding would be broken (C has the ground removed from beneath it).
In JS having no automatic solution is painful but I don't think it's easily solvable. Consider these classes (pseudo):
function Filter(stream) {
stream.on('data', function() {
this.emit('data', data.toString().replace('somenoise', '')); // Pretend chunks/multibyte are not a problem.
});
}
Filter.prototype.__proto__ = EventEmitter.prototype;
function View(df, stream) {
df.on('data', function(data) {
stream.write(data.toUpper()); // Shout.
});
}
On a side note, it's hard to make things work without anonymous/unique functions which will be covered later.
In a normal case instantiation would be as so (pseudo):
var df = new Filter(stdin),
v1 = new View(df, stdout),
v2 = new View(df, stderr);
To GC these normally you would set them to null but it wont work because they've created a tree with stdin at the root. This is basically what event systems do. You give a parent to a child, the child adds itself to the parent and then may or may not maintain a reference to the parent. A tree is a simple example but in reality you may also find yourself with complex graphs albeit rarely.
In this case, Filter adds a reference to itself to stdin in the form of an anonymous function which indirectly references Filter by scope. Scope references are something to be aware of and that can be quite complex. A powerful GC can do some interesting things to carve away at items in scope variables but that's another topic. What is critical to understand is that when you create an anonymous function and add it to something as a listener to ab observable, the observable will maintain a reference to the function and anything the function references in the scopes above it (that it was defined in) will also be maintained. The views do the same but after the execution of their constructors the children do not maintain a reference to their parents.
If I set any or all of the vars declared above to null it isn't going to make a difference to anything (similarly when it finished that "main" scope). They will still be active and pipe data from stdin to stdout and stderr.
If I set them all to null it would be impossible to have them removed or GCed without clearing out the events on stdin or setting stdin to null (assuming it can be freed like this). You basically have a memory leak that way with in effect orphaned objects if the rest of the code needs stdin and has other important events on it prohibiting you from doing the aforementioned.
To get rid of df, v1 and v2 I need to call a destroy method on each of them. In terms of implementation this means that both the Filter and View methods need to keep the reference to the anonymous listener function they create as well as the observable and pass that to removeListener.
On a side note, alternatively you can have an obserable that returns an index to keep track of listeners so that you can add prototyped functions which at least to my understanding should be much better on performance and memory. You still have to keep track of the returned identifier though and pass your object to ensure that the listener is bound to it when called.
A destroy function adds several pains. First is that I would have to call it and free the reference:
df.destroy();
v1.destroy();
v2.destroy();
df = v1 = v2 = null;
This is a minor annoyance as it's a bit more code but that is not the real problem. When I hand these references around to many objects. In this case when exactly do you call destroy? You cannot simply hand these off to other objects. You'll end up with chains of destroys and manual implementation of tracking either through program flow or some other means. You can't fire and forget.
An example of this kind of problem is if I decide that View will also call destroy on df when it is destroyed. If v2 is still around destroying df will break it so destroy cannot simply be relayed to df. Instead when v1 takes df to use it, it would need to then tell df it is used which would raise some counter or similar to df. df's destroy function would decrease than counter and only actually destroy if it is 0. This sort of thing adds a lot of complexity and adds a lot that can go wrong the most obvious of which is destroying something while there is still a reference around somewhere that will be used and circular references (at this point it's no longer a case of managing a counter but a map of referencing objects). When you're thinking of implementing your own reference counters, MM and so on in JS then it's probably deficient.
If WeakSets were iterable, this could be used:
function Observable() {
this.events = {open: new WeakSet(), close: new WeakSet()};
}
Observable.prototype.on = function(type, f) {
this.events[type].add(f);
};
Observable.prototype.emit = function(type, ...args) {
this.events[type].forEach(f => f(...args));
};
Observable.prototype.off = function(type, f) {
this.events[type].delete(f);
};
In this case the owning class must also keep a token reference to f otherwise it will go poof.
If Observable were used instead of EventListener then memory management would be automatic in regards to the event listeners.
Instead of calling destroy on each object this would be enough to fully remove them:
df = v1 = v2 = null;
If you didn't set df to null it would still exist but v1 and v2 would automatically be unhooked.
There are two problems with this approach however.
Problem one is that it adds a new complexity. Sometimes people do not actually want this behaviour. I could create a very large chain of objects linked to each other by events rather than containment (references in constructor scopes or object properties). Eventually a tree and I would only have to pass around the root and worry about that. Freeing the root would conveniently free the entire thing. Both behaviours depending on coding style, etc are useful and when creating reusable objects it's going to be hard to either know what people want, what they have done, what you have done and a pain to work around what has been done. If I use Observable instead of EventListener then either df will need to reference v1 and v2 or I'll have to pass them all if I want to transfer ownership of the reference to something else out of scope. A weak reference like thing would mitigate the problem a little by transferring control from Observable to an observer but would not solve it entirely (and needs check on every emit or event on itself). This problem can be fixed I suppose if the behaviour only applies to isolated graphs which would complicate the GC severely and would not apply to cases where there are references outside the graph that are in practice noops (only consume CPU cycles, no changes made).
Problem two is that either it is unpredictable in certain cases or forces the JS engine to traverse the GC graph for those objects on demand which can have a horrific performance impact (although if it is clever it can avoid doing it per member by doing it per WeakMap loop instead). The GC may never run if memory usage does not reach a certain threshold and the object with its events wont be removed. If I set v1 to null it may still relay to stdout forever. Even if it does get GCed this will be arbitrary, it may continue to relay to stdout for any amount of time (1 lines, 10 lines, 2.5 lines, etc).
The reason WeakMap gets away with not caring about the GC when non-iterable is that to access an object you have to have a reference to it anyway so either it hasn't been GCed or hasn't been added to the map.
I am not sure what I think about this kind of thing. You're sort of breaking memory management to fix it with the iterable WeakMap approach. Problem two can also exist for destructors as well.
All of this invokes several levels of hell so I would suggest to try to work around it with good program design, good practices, avoiding certain things, etc. It can be frustrating in JS however because of how flexible it is in certain aspects and because it is more naturally asynchronous and event based with heavy inversion of control.
There is one other solution that is fairly elegant but again still has some potentially serious hangups. If you have a class that extends an observable class you can override the event functions. Add your events to other observables only when events are added to yourself. When all events are removed from you then remove your events from children. You can also make a class to extend your observable class to do this for you. Such a class could provide hooks for empty and non-empty so in a since you would be Observing yourself. This approach isn't bad but also has hangups. There is a complexity increase as well as performance decrease. You'll have to keep a reference to object you observe. Critically, it also will not work for leaves but at least the intermediates will self destruct if you destroy the leaf. It's like chaining destroy but hidden behind calls that you already have to chain. A large performance problem is with this however is that you may have to reinitialise internal data from the Observable everytime your class becomes active. If this process takes a very long time then you might be in trouble.
If you could iterate WeakMap then you could perhaps combine things (switch to Weak when no events, Strong when events) but all that is really doing is putting the performance problem on someone else.
There are also immediate annoyances with iterable WeakMap when it comes to behaviour. I mentioned briefly before about functions having scope references and carving. If I instantiate a child that in the constructor that hooks the listener 'console.log(param)' to parent and fails to persist the parent then when I remove all references to the child it could be freed entirely as the anonymous function added to the parent references nothing from within the child. This leaves the question of what to do about parent.weakmap.add(child, (param) => console.log(param)). To my knowledge the key is weak but not the value so weakmap.add(object, object) is persistent. This is something I need to reevaluate though. To me that looks like a memory leak if I dispose all other object references but I suspect in reality it manages that basically by seeing it as a circular reference. Either the anonymous function maintains an implicit reference to objects resulting from parent scopes for consistency wasting a lot of memory or you have behaviour varying based on circumstances which is hard to predict or manage. I think the former is actually impossible. In the latter case if I have a method on a class that simply takes an object and adds console.log it would be freed when I clear the references to the class even if I returned the function and maintained a reference. To be fair this particular scenario is rarely needed legitimately but eventually someone will find an angle and will be asking for a HalfWeakMap which is iterable (free on key and value refs released) but that is unpredictable as well (obj = null magically ending IO, f = null magically ending IO, both doable at incredible distances).
If there is no such mechanism, what is a pattern/convention for such problems?
The term 'cleanup' might be more appropriate, but will use 'destructor' to match OP
Suppose you write some javascript entirely with 'function's and 'var's.
Then you can use the pattern of writing all the functions code within the framework of a try/catch/finally lattice. Within finally perform the destruction code.
Instead of the C++ style of writing object classes with unspecified lifetimes, and then specifying the lifetime by arbitrary scopes and the implicit call to ~() at scope end (~() is destructor in C++), in this javascript pattern the object is the function, the scope is exactly the function scope, and the destructor is the finally block.
If you are now thinking this pattern is inherently flawed because try/catch/finally doesn't encompass asynchronous execution which is essential to javascript, then you are correct. Fortunately, since 2018 the asynchronous programming helper object Promise has had a prototype function finally added to the already existing resolve and catch prototype functions. That means that that asynchronous scopes requiring destructors can be written with a Promise object, using finally as the destructor. Furthermore you can use try/catch/finally in an async function calling Promises with or without await, but must be aware that Promises called without await will be execute asynchronously outside the scope and so handle the desctructor code in a final then.
In the following code PromiseA and PromiseB are some legacy API level promises which don't have finally function arguments specified. PromiseC DOES have a finally argument defined.
async function afunc(a,b){
try {
function resolveB(r){ ... }
function catchB(e){ ... }
function cleanupB(){ ... }
function resolveC(r){ ... }
function catchC(e){ ... }
function cleanupC(){ ... }
...
// PromiseA preced by await sp will finish before finally block.
// If no rush then safe to handle PromiseA cleanup in finally block
var x = await PromiseA(a);
// PromiseB,PromiseC not preceded by await - will execute asynchronously
// so might finish after finally block so we must provide
// explicit cleanup (if necessary)
PromiseB(b).then(resolveB,catchB).then(cleanupB,cleanupB);
PromiseC(c).then(resolveC,catchC,cleanupC);
}
catch(e) { ... }
finally { /* scope destructor/cleanup code here */ }
}
I am not advocating that every object in javascript be written as a function. Instead, consider the case where you have a scope identified which really 'wants' a destructor to be called at its end of life. Formulate that scope as a function object, using the pattern's finally block (or finally function in the case of an asynchronous scope) as the destructor. It is quite like likely that formulating that functional object obviated the need for a non-function class which would otherwise have been written - no extra code was required, aligning scope and class might even be cleaner.
Note: As others have written, we should not confuse destructors and garbage collection. As it happens C++ destructors are often or mainly concerned with manual garbage collection, but not exclusively so. Javascript has no need for manual garbage collection, but asynchronous scope end-of-life is often a place for (de)registering event listeners, etc..
Here you go. The Subscribe/Publish object will unsubscribe a callback function automatically if it goes out of scope and gets garbage collected.
const createWeakPublisher = () => {
const weakSet = new WeakSet();
const subscriptions = new Set();
return {
subscribe(callback) {
if (!weakSet.has(callback)) {
weakSet.add(callback);
subscriptions.add(new WeakRef(callback));
}
return callback;
},
publish() {
for (const weakRef of subscriptions) {
const callback = weakRef.deref();
console.log(callback?.toString());
if (callback) callback();
else subscriptions.delete(weakRef);
}
},
};
};
Although it might not happen immediately after the callback function goes out of scope, or it might not happen at all. See weakRef documentation for more details. But it works like a charm for my use case.
You might also want to check out the FinalizationRegistry API for a different approach.
"A destructor wouldn't even help you here. It's the event listeners
themselves that still reference your object, so it would not be able
to get garbage-collected before they are unregistered."
Not so. The purpose of a destructor is to allow the item that registered the listeners to unregister them. Once an object has no other references to it, it will be garbage collected.
For instance, in AngularJS, when a controller is destroyed, it can listen for a destroy event and respond to it. This isn't the same as having a destructor automatically called, but it's close, and gives us the opportunity to remove listeners that were set when the controller was initialized.
// Set event listeners, hanging onto the returned listener removal functions
function initialize() {
$scope.listenerCleanup = [];
$scope.listenerCleanup.push( $scope.$on( EVENTS.DESTROY, instance.onDestroy) );
$scope.listenerCleanup.push( $scope.$on( AUTH_SERVICE_RESPONSES.CREATE_USER.SUCCESS, instance.onCreateUserResponse ) );
$scope.listenerCleanup.push( $scope.$on( AUTH_SERVICE_RESPONSES.CREATE_USER.FAILURE, instance.onCreateUserResponse ) );
}
// Remove event listeners when the controller is destroyed
function onDestroy(){
$scope.listenerCleanup.forEach( remove => remove() );
}
Javascript does not have destructures the same way C++ does. Instead, alternative design patterns should be used to manage resources. Here are a couple of examples:
You can restrict users to using the instance for the duration of a callback, after which it'll automatically be cleaned up. (This pattern is similar to the beloved "with" statement in Python)
connectToDatabase(async db => {
const resource = await db.doSomeRequest()
await useResource(resource)
}) // The db connection is closed once the callback ends
When the above example is too restrictive, another alternative is to just create explicit cleanup functions.
const db = makeDatabaseConnection()
const resource = await db.doSomeRequest()
updatePageWithResource(resource)
pageChangeEvent.addListener(() => {
db.destroy()
})
The other answers already explained in detail that there is no destructor. But your actual goal seems to be event related. You have an object which is connected to some event and you want this connection to go away automatically when the object is garbage collected. But this won't happen because the event subscription itself references the listener function. Well, UNLESS you use this nifty new WeakRef stuff.
Here is an example:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<body>
<button onclick="subscribe()">Subscribe</button>
<button id="emitter">Emit</button>
<button onclick="free()">Free</button>
<script>
const emitter = document.getElementById("emitter");
let listener = null;
function addWeakEventListener(element, event, callback) {
// Weakrefs only can store objects, so we put the callback into an object
const weakRef = new WeakRef({ callback });
const listener = () => {
const obj = weakRef.deref();
if (obj == null) {
console.log("Removing garbage collected event listener");
element.removeEventListener(event, listener);
} else {
obj.callback();
}
};
element.addEventListener(event, listener);
}
function subscribe() {
listener = () => console.log("Event fired!");
addWeakEventListener(emitter, "click", listener);
console.log("Listener created and subscribed to emitter");
}
function free() {
listener = null;
console.log("Reference cleared. Now force garbage collection in dev console or wait some time before clicking Emit again.");
}
</script>
</body>
</html>
(JSFiddle)
Clicking the Subscribe button creates a new listener function and registers it at the click event of the Emit button. So clicking the Emit button after that prints a message to the console. Now click the Free button which simply sets the listener variable to null so the garbage collector can remove the listener. Wait some time or force gargabe collection in the developer console and then click the Emit button again. The wrapper listener function now sees that the actual listener (wrapped in a WeakRef) is no longer there and then unsubscribes itself from the button.
WeakRefs are quite powerful but note that there is no guarantee if and when your stuff is garbage collected.
The answer to the question as-stated in the title is FinalizationRegistry, available since Firefox 79 (June 2020), Chrome 84 and derivatives (July 2020), Safari 14.1 (April 2021), and Node 14.6.0 (July 2020)… however, a native JS destructor is probably not the right solution for your use-case.
function create_eval_worker(f) {
let src_worker_blob = new Blob([f.toString()], {type: 'application/javascript'});
let src_worker_url = URL.createObjectURL(src_worker_blob);
async function g() {
let w = new Worker(src_worker_url);
…
}
// Run URL.revokeObjectURL(src_worker_url) as a destructor of g
let registry = new FinalizationRegistry(u => URL.revokeObjectURL(u));
registry.register(g, src_worker_url);
return g;
}
}
Caveat:
Avoid where possible
Correct use of FinalizationRegistry takes careful thought, and it's best avoided if possible. When, how, and whether garbage collection occurs is down to the implementation of any given JavaScript engine. Any behavior you observe in one engine may be different in another engine, in another version of the same engine, or even in a slightly different situation with the same version of the same engine.
…
Developers shouldn't rely on cleanup callbacks for essential program logic. Cleanup callbacks may be useful for reducing memory usage across the course of a program, but are unlikely to be useful otherwise.
A conforming JavaScript implementation, even one that does garbage collection, is not required to call cleanup callbacks. When and whether it does so is entirely down to the implementation of the JavaScript engine. When a registered object is reclaimed, any cleanup callbacks for it may be called then, or some time later, or not at all.
–Mozilla Developer Network

Can I replace s standard DOM functions like removeChild?

Can I replace s standard DOM functions like removeChild to show for example alert before some node removed from parent? Something like that but my example is with errors
var original = node.removeChild;
node.removeChild = function(node, original){
alert('message');
original(node);
}
If you want to apply this across the document do this
var original = Node.prototype.removeChild;
Node.prototype.removeChild = function(node) {
//custom logic
original.apply(this, arguments);
}
If you want to apply the change only to a selected node then
var original = node.removeChild;
node.removeChild = function(node){
//custom logic
original.apply(this, arguments);
}
First of all, the usage of the new keyword is completely incorrect. That will severely change the behaviour. function is an instance of Function, the "mothership" of all JavaScript functions.
When using the new keyword, the function will be immediately executed and the behaviour very different from what you expect. See Section 13 of the ECMA Language Specification for more details on how to create function objects. Read it here, at page 98.
Second, it is strongly discouraged to alter any native object prototype. It leads to the most tedious and painful bugs in human history. Anybody coming in after you to edit the code will spend a long time before figuring out where that alert originates from.
Keep those two actions separate, they are completely unrelated. Wrapping them up in a prototype function is very bad design, for the above reason any many more, such as:
Using for in loops. You will iterate through more properties that you should if you forget to use hasOwnProperty.
Yourself and other developers will have a hard time figuring out why random things are happing with a basic DOM Node remove operation occurs.(you will forget, happens to everybody).
I am going to be radical an just say no. While it may technically work on the browsers you care about and be the basis for prototype.js, you should never modify DOM objects, or their prototypes, like this.
There is a long post on the topic: http://perfectionkills.com/whats-wrong-with-extending-the-dom/ but the TL;DR is that these are "hosted objects" and modification to their behavior is not guaranteed. It may work today on browser x but there's no guarantee about browser y or even x tomorrow.
Your implementation looks fine, except that you don't need to pass original as an argument there.
var original = node.removeChild;
node.removeChild = function(node) {
alert('message');
original(node);
}

Why "$().ready(handler)" is not recommended?

From the jQuery API docs site for ready
All three of the following syntaxes are equivalent:
$(document).ready(handler)
$().ready(handler) (this is not recommended)
$(handler)
After doing homework - reading and playing with the source code, I have no idea why
$().ready(handler)
is not recommended. The first and third ways, are exactly the same, the third option calls the ready function on a cached jQuery object with document:
rootjQuery = jQuery(document);
...
...
// HANDLE: $(function)
// Shortcut for document ready
} else if ( jQuery.isFunction( selector ) ) {
return rootjQuery.ready( selector );
}
But the ready function has no interaction with the selector of the selected node elements, The ready source code:
ready: function( fn ) {
// Attach the listeners
jQuery.bindReady();
// Add the callback
readyList.add( fn );
return this;
},
As you can see, it justs add the callback to an internal queue( readyList) and doesn't change or use the elements in the set. This lets you call the ready function on every jQuery object.
Like:
regular selector: $('a').ready(handler) DEMO
Nonsense selector: $('fdhjhjkdafdsjkjriohfjdnfj').ready(handler) DEMO
Undefined selector:$().ready(handler) DEMO
Finally... to my question: Why $().ready(handler) is not recommended?
I got an official answer from one of the jQuery developers:
$().ready(fn) only works because $() used to be a shortcut to $(document) (jQuery <1.4)
So $().ready(fn) was a readable code.
But people used to do things like $().mouseover() and all sorts of other madness.
and people had to do $([]) to get an empty jQuery object
So in 1.4 we changed it so $() gives an empty jQuery and we just made $().ready(fn) work so as not to break a lot of code
$().ready(fn) is literally now just patched in core to make it work properly for the legacy case.
The best place for the ready function is $.ready(fn), but it's a really old design decision and that is what we have now.
I asked him:
Do you think that $(fn) is more readable than $().ready(fn) ?!
His answer was:
I always do $(document).ready(fn) in actual apps and typically there's only one doc ready block in the app it's not exactly like a maintenance thing.
I think $(fn) is pretty unreadable too, it's just A Thing That You Have To Know Works™...
Since the different options do pretty much the same thing as you point out, it's time to put on the library writer hat and make some guesses.
Perhaps the jQuery people would like to have $() available for future use (doubtful since $().ready is documented to work, even if not recommended; it would also pollute the semantics of $ if special-cased).
A much more practical reason: the second version is the only one that does not end up wrapping document, so it's easier to break when maintaining the code. Example:
// BEFORE
$(document).ready(foo);
// AFTER: works
$(document).ready(foo).on("click", "a", function() {});
Contrast this with
// BEFORE
$().ready(foo);
// AFTER: breaks
$().ready(foo).on("click", "a", function() {});
Related to the above: ready is a freak in the sense that it's (the only?) method that will work the same no matter what the jQuery object wraps (even if it does not wrap anything as is the case here). This is a major difference from the semantics of other jQuery methods, so specifically relying on this is rightly discouraged.
Update: As Esailija's comment points out, from an engineering perspective ready should really be a static method exactly because it works like this.
Update #2: Digging at the source, it seems that at some point in the 1.4 branch $() was changed to match $([]), while in 1.3 it behaved like $(document). This change would reinforce the above justifications.
I would say its simply the fact that $() returns an empty object whereas $(document) does not so your applying ready() to different things; it still works, but I would say its not intuitive.
$(document).ready(function(){}).prop("title") // the title
$().ready(function(){}).prop("title") //null - no backing document
More than likely this is just a documentation bug and should be fixed, the only downside to using $().ready(handler) is it's readability. Sure, argue that $(handler) is just as unreadable. I agree, that's why I don't use it.
You can also argue that one method is faster than another. However, how often do you call this method enough times in a row on a single page to notice a difference?
Ultimately it comes down to personal preference. There is no downside to using $().ready(handler) other than the readability argument. I think the documentation is miss-leading in this case.
Just to make it patently obvious that there is some inconsistency in the three, plus I added the fourth often used form: (function($) {}(jQuery));
With this markup:
<div >one</div>
<div>two</div>
<div id='t'/>
and this code:
var howmanyEmpty = $().ready().find('*').length;
var howmanyHandler = $(function() {}).find('*').length;
var howmanyDoc = $(document).ready().find('*').length;
var howmanyPassed = (function($) { return $('*').length; }(jQuery));
var howmanyYuck = (function($) {}(jQuery));
var howmanyYuckType = (typeof howmanyYuck);
$(document).ready(function() {
$('#t').text(howmanyEmpty + ":" + howmanyHandler + ":"
+ howmanyDoc + ":" + howmanyPassed + ":" + howmanyYuckType);
});
The displayed results of the div from the last statement are: 0:9:9:9:undefined
SO, only the Handler and Doc versions are consistent with the jQuery convention of returning something of use as they get the document selector and with the Passed form you must return something (I wouldn't do this I would think, but put it in just to show "inside" it has something).
Here is a fiddle version of this for the curious: http://jsfiddle.net/az85G/
I think this is really more for readability than anything else.
This one isn't as expressive
$().ready(handler);
as
$(document).ready(handler)
Perhaps they are trying to promote some form of idiomatic jQuery.

Namespacing jQuery plugins

Let's assume that we have following jQuery plugins (each of them in separate files):
$.fn.foo
$.fn.foo.bar
$.fn.foo.baz
I use standard jQuery plugin pattern. The first one is actually a proxy or "facade" to the rest plugins of it's namespace.
For example, when I call $('#el').foo(), under the hood I also call:
var context = this; // context is equal to $('#el')
$(context).foo['bar'].apply(context);
$(context).foo['baz'].apply(context);
There are two problem when I want to call only (without $.fn.foo) $('#el').foo.bar(). The first problem is that there are no $.fn.foo namespace but I can create it, so this is actually no problem. The second problem is that this inside $.fn.foo.bar is equal to document object but I want to be equal to $('#el'). How can I do that?
So, making a long story short, both should work:
$('#el').foo(); // This also calls foo.bar and foo.baz under the hood
$('#el').foo.bar(); // I'm calling foo.bar explicitly
I think you might just need to follow a different plugin pattern. Here is a nice repository of jQuery plugin patterns, but the one you might want to look at would be the namespace pattern - you'll see how the namespace gets defined initially if it doesn't already exist, and this allows you to more easily extend from a single namespace across multiple scripts.
Update: Hmm, I'm still learning so I wouldn't say I'm an expert at this, but trying to get this $('#el').aaa.bbb.ccc() to work got really messy for me. Maybe it would be better to not use that format, but instead do this (demo):
$.aaa.bbb.ccc( $("#el") );
because then it is relatively easy to set up:
(function() {
if (!$.aaa) {
$.aaa = {
bbb : {
ccc: function(el, options){
alert(el[0].id);
}
}
};
};
})(jQuery);
$(function() {
$.aaa.bbb.ccc( $("#el") ); // alerts "el"
});

Javascript plugins design pattern like jQuery

Could someone write down a very simple basic example in javascript to conceptualize (and hopefully make me understand) how the jQuery plugin design pattern is done and how it works?
I'm not interested in how creating plugin for jQuery (so no jQuery code here at all).
I'm interested in a simple explanation (maybe with a bit of Javascript code) to explain how it is done the plugin concept.
Plz do not reply me to go and read jQuery code, I tried, but I it's too complex, otherwise I would have not post a question here.
Thanks!
jQuery has a library of functions stored in an internal object named fn. These are the ones that you can call on every jQuery object.
When you do $("div.someClass") you get a jQuery object containing all <div> elements of that class. Now you can do $("div.someClass").each( someFunction ) to apply someFunction to each of them. This means, that each() is one of the functions stored in fn (a built-in one in this case).
If you extend (add to) the internal fn object, then you automatically make available your custom function to the same syntax. Lets assume you have a function that logs all elements to the console, called log(). You could append this function to $.fn, and then use it as $("div.someClass").log().
Every function appended to the fn object will be called in such a way that inside the function body, the this keyword will point to the jQuery object you've used.
Common practice is to return this at the end of the custom function, so that method chaining does not break: $("div.someClass").log().each( someFunction ).
There are several ways to append functions to the $.fn object, some safer than others. A pretty safe one is to do:
jQuery.fn.extend({
foo: function() {
this.each( function() { console.log(this.tagName); } );
return this;
}
})
Tomalak already posted almost everything You need to know.
There is one last thing that helps jQuery do the trick with the this keyword.
it's amethod called apply()
var somefunction=function(){
alert(this.text);
}
var anObject={text:"hello"};
somefunction.apply(anObject);
//alert "hello" will happen
It really helps in creating abstractions so that framework/plugin users would just use this as intuition tells them, whatever there is inside Your code
It works, as many other js frameworks, using javascript prototype orientation.
For instance you can declare a simple function
var alertHelloWorld = function() {
alert('hello world');
}
And then tie it to an existing object (including DOM nodes)
document.doMyAlert = alertHelloWorld;
If you do this
document.doMyAlert();
The alertHelloWorld function will be executed
You can read more about javascript object prototyping here

Categories