http://jsfiddle.net/ZLH7J/1/
What the jsFiddle and code below shows are two examples that essentially do the same thing. When trying to call first(); or this.first(); in either example, an undefined error is thrown. I can call the functions later through the instance, but not when trying to instantiate the object using init(){...}() like a constructor. I put init() at the bottom thinking it was an order of operations thing, but that is not the case. This does not work the way I thought it would work.
I am curious to understand how this is supposed to be done, and why this cannot be done.
//create and return an obj
var fishSticks = function(){
return {
first: function(){
document.getElementById('output').innerHTML="Success";
},
init: function(){
try{
first(); //err
this.first(); // also err
}catch(e){
document.getElementById('output').innerHTML=e.toString();
}
}()
}
}
//do function stuff and then return 'this'
var fishFillet = function(){
var first = function(){
document.getElementById('output2').innerHTML="Success";
}
var init = function(){
try{
first(); //err
this.first(); // also err
}catch(e){
document.getElementById('output2').innerHTML=e.toString();
}
}()
return this;
}
var test = new fishSticks();
var test2 = new fishFillet();
You need to understand two things:
1) JavaScript does not automatically insert this like Java does, so the first() call will only look through the lexical scope for a definition of first, it will nok look at the this object. Therefore the call to first() should work but this will be bound to something else than what you might expect inside first.
2) Local variables in a constructor do not become members of the constructed object.
In your second example, if you comment out the call in "init" to this.first() then you get the "Success" message.
The first version doesn't work because JavaScript simply does not allow for references to be made within an under-construction object to the object itself. There's just no way to do it.
The second one works (well the simple reference to "first" works) because "first" is declared as a local variable. Local variables are not properties of any object, and in particular they're not properties of the object allocated when the function is called with new. That's why this.first() doesn't work.
In the second one, you could make this.first() work by declaring things differently:
var fishFillet = function(){
this.first = function(){
document.getElementById('output2').innerHTML="Success";
}
var init = function(){
try{
this.first(); //will work
}catch(e){
document.getElementById('output2').innerHTML=e.toString();
}
}()
return this;
}
Also, for what it's worth, the weird anti-pattern of
var something = function() { ... }
is not as useful as
function something() { ... }
There's no reason to use the var declaration instead of the function declaration.
How about...
var fishFillet = function () {
var first = function () {
document.write( 'Success' );
};
var init = function () {
first();
};
init();
return {
first: first
};
};
And then:
var ff = fishFillet(); // calls init() which calls first()
ff.first(); // call first() manually
Live demo: http://jsfiddle.net/uaCnv/
So, first you define all your functions, next you manually invoke init, and last you return an object containing those functions which should be available through the resulting object (as methods).
Since you are using both as a constructor, format them as such:
function fishFillet(){
this.first = function(){
document.getElementById('output2').innerHTML="Success";
}
this.init = function(){
try{
this.first();
}catch(e){
document.getElementById('output2').innerHTML=e.toString();
}
}
}
var food = new fishFillet();
food.init();
The reason it wasn't working for you is b/c "first" is created as a local varaible, and is deleted after execultion. Init isn't being called until after the execution of the constructor has finished
Related
I'm a javascript newbie and trying to understand how functions work. I found a similar question here but it doesn't really answer my question.
Taking the following piece of javascript as an example
var test = function(){
console.log("kick off");
var insideTest = "variable inside test";
var init = function(){
var insideInit ="variable inside init";
console.log("inside init");
}
return{
init:init
}
}
test().init();
The above code prints the following:
kick off
inside init
But if I remove
return{
init:init
}
it gives me an error saying
Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'init' of undefined
Also, even though I'm calling init method using test().init() it doesn't print inside Init if the return statement is removed.
My question is why is it necessary to return init:init to execute init method.
EDIT:
To answer why my init function is inside the test() function here is the larger picture of what i'm trying to do.
var test = function() {
var init = function() {
var a = 0;
function1();
function2();
}
var function1() = function() {
//some code
}
var function1() = function() {
//some code
}
return {
init: init
}
}
Have added inline comments. Also the init inside test will have access to variable defined outside it(init) scope which is closure. test is returning an object to access it's inner function.This specific pattern is revealing module pattern
var test = function(){
console.log("kick off");
var insideTest = "variable inside test";
// Here init is a function which is private to test function
// Any function calling test will not have access to init unless it is 'exposed'
var init = function(){
var insideInit ="variable inside init";
console.log("inside init");
}
return{
init:init // exposing the private function
}
}
When you return, you're returning an Object with a single key of init, which you've assigned the "init" function that you defined within the test function. This allows you to return multiple functions if you'd like, so you can chain calls.
If you'd prefer a different way, you could just return the function without the curly braces, ie. return init;, and then assign the return of test() to a variable. var externalInitFnc = test();
Edit: Looking back it seems that you are fuzzy on the idea of scope in Javascript. When you defined init within the test function, it is only accessible within that function. Similar to how a private variable in a Java class is only available within that same class.
I am trying to understand the way that javascript passes functions around and am having a bit of a problem groking why a prototype function can NOT access a var defined in a function constructor while a function defined in the constructor can access the var. Here is code that works:
var model = function model() {
this.state = 1;
this.GetState = (function(scope){
return function(){ return scope.state;};
})(this);
}
var othermodel = function othermodel(mdl) {
this.GetStateFn = mdl.GetState;
}
othermodel.prototype.WriteState = function() {
console.log(this.GetStateFn.call());
};
var m = new model();
var o = new othermodel(m)
o.WriteState();
This works and makes sense - the GetState() function can access this.state.
However, if I create GetState as follows:
model.prototype.GetState = (function(scope){
return function(){ return scope.state;};
})(this);
The result will be an error that scope is not defined.
I would prefer to have this work with the prototype method as I do not want a copy of the function in ever model, but it would seem that prototype can't work because it can't access the specific instance of the model.
So, can someone provide me with a good explanation of a) what I need to do to get this to work with prototype (assuming I can) and b) if I can't get it to work with prototype, what is the reason so I can understand better the underpinnings of the issue.
Why not simply write the function this way
model.prototype.GetState = function() { return this.state; }
var othermodel = function othermodel(mdl) {
this.GetStateFn = mdl.GetState.bind(mdl);
}
othermodel.prototype.WriteState = function() {
console.log(this.GetStateFn.call());
};
The above code will work, as in most cases you will execute code like m.GetState(). That is an example of invoking a function as an object method. In that case, this is guaranteed to point to the object m. You seem to know how the prototype chains work, so I won't go there.
When assigning the function reference to the other model, we use the .bind to ensure that within GetState, this points to mdl. Reference for bind: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/bind
Your original IIFE's were in effect your implementation of bind. The issue was the value of this was wrong. Currently, every time you need to assign models function to some other function, you will need to use bind at all those times. You have tagged your question as node.js, bind is available on the Function prototype in node.js and any ES5 compatible browser. If you need to run the above code on older browsers or environments that do not support bind, replace bind with your IIFE.
As for why your code isn't working,
model.prototype.GetState = (function(scope){
return function(){ return scope.state;};
})(this);
Here, this doesn't refer to the eventual model object (m). this can refer to any one of 5 options in javascript. Refer: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/this
Lets assume the above code is in an html file inside some script tag. Then this will refer to the window object. window doesn't have any property called state, hence the undefined. If you were to console.log(this.m, this.o) at the end of you script, you would see the respective m and o objects.
When defined like this:
var model = function model() {
this.state = 1;
this.GetState = (function(scope){
return function(){ return scope.state;};
})(this);
}
the anonymous function is declared and immediately executed. this is passed as a parameter to that self-executing function. As a result - a new function is returned, but this function has scope parameter in its closure - so that it is accessible after the scope has exited. As a result - the function, when invoked, can still access state property of that "enclosed" this (the one that became scope and was closed upon).
If you define it like this:
model.prototype.GetState = (function(scope){
return function(){ return scope.state;};
})(this);
the mechanism is the same, it's just this is not. It is now the context of the scope you execute the above code in. Assuming it's done in global scope - it would be window object.
If you don't want to use bind because of its support with older browsers, you could try this:
http://jsfiddle.net/j7h97/1/
var model = function (state) {
this.state = state || new Date().getTime();
};
model.prototype.GetState = function () {
return this.state;
};
model.prototype.WriteState = function () {
console.log("model WriteState: " + this.GetState());
};
var othermodel = function othermodel (mdl) {
this.GetStateFn = function () {
return mdl.GetState.call(mdl);
};
};
othermodel.prototype.WriteState = function () {
console.log("othermodel WriteState: " + this.GetStateFn());
};
var model1 = new model();
model1.WriteState();
var othermodel1 = new othermodel(model1);
othermodel1.WriteState();
var model2 = new model();
model2.WriteState();
var othermodel2 = new othermodel(model2);
othermodel2.WriteState();
Seems to do what you want without bind. I created the model.prototype.WriteState for testing purposes.
It depends on where it is called. If it's in global scope, this will not refer the the model. If it's running in a browser it will refer to the global window object instead.
I'm trying to solve this puzzle minded Javascript OOP problem.
So I have the following class :
var ClassA = function() {
this.initialize();
}
ClassA.prototype = {
methods : ['alpha','beta','gama'],
initialize : function() {
for ( var i in this.methods ) {
this[this.methods[i]] = function() {
console.log(this.methods[i]);
}
}
}
}
var a = new ClassA();
When I call every method I expect to print the name of it, right? But here is what i get :
a.alpha(); // returns gama ?!?
a.beta(); // returns gama ?!?
a.gama(); // returns gama
But when my class looks like this :
var ClassB = function() {
this.initialize();
}
ClassB.prototype = {
methods : ['alpha', 'beta', 'gama'],
initialize: function() {
for ( var i in this.methods ) {
this.addMethod(this.methods[i]);
}
},
addMethod: function(method) {
this[method] = function() {
console.log(method);
}
}
}
var b = new ClassB();
b.alpha(); // returns alpha
b.beta(); // returns beta
b.gama(); // returns gama
Why is this happening ?
for ( var i in this.methods ) {
this[this.methods[i]] = function() {
console.log(this.methods[i]);
}
}
Your problem lies here. When this loop ends, i is the last element. Each function uses the same i, so they are all the last element.
When you use addMethod you are making a closure to "capture" the correct value.
EDIT: When you call addMethod you are "copying" the value, instead of using the i value, which changes with each loop iteration.
In your first version:
initialize : function() {
for ( var i in this.methods ) {
this[this.methods[i]] = function() {
console.log(this.methods[i]);
}
}
}
The methods that you create within initialize all refer to the same i variable from initialize - and after initialize runs i has the value "gama", so regardless of which of the methods you call that's the value of i that they'll log to the console. JS doesn't store the current value of i at the time the method is created.
JS creates a "closure" for each function - variables declared in your initialize function (i.e., i) continue to be in scope for the nested function(s) even after initialize has finished.
The second version calls addMethod to add each method:
addMethod: function(method) {
this[method] = function() {
console.log(method);
}
}
...and so when they run they'll refer to their own "copy" of the method parameter because then there is a separate closure for each of the methods.
Edit: See also this question: How do JavaScript closures work? (several answers there explain this more clearly than I did).
You can fix your first example by adding an anonymous closure:
initialize : function() {
for ( var i in this.methods ) {
(function (i) { // anonymous closure
this[this.methods[i]] = function() {
console.log(this.methods[i]);
}
}).call(this, i); // use .call() if you need "this" inside
}
}
Now it will work the same way as your second example. "Anonymous" means that the closure is made by function which doesn't have a name and is called instantly as it is "created".
Note sideways: use .call(this, ...) to preserve this inside the called function, or you can do var that = this, use that instead of this and call the function normally:
for ( var i in this.methods ) {
var that = this;
(function (i) { // anonymous closure
that[that.methods[i]] = function() {
console.log(that.methods[i]);
}
})(i); // Called normally so use "that" instead of "this"!
}
Well, first of all stop using for (property in object) loops on Arrays. It's all fun and games until somebody prototypes to the Array object which is both a perfectly reasonable and very useful/popular thing to do. This will result in custom methods getting added to your for x in array loops.
As for the problem, it's doing exactly what you told it to do in version 1. The problem is that by the time you get around to firing it, i is the last thing i was, 'gamma'. When you pass a reference into a function as an argument, the function holds on to the value's state as it was passed.
I'm having some issues calling a function on an object whose name is determined dynamically. The code below illustrates how my code is currently set up, and the problem that I'm having is occurring in the function called doSomethingElse().
var Obj = function(){
this.test = this.objMgr();
};
Obj.prototype.objMgr = function(){
var self = this;
function doSomething(){
//do some processing that seems unimportant to this particular prob
doSomethingElse();
}
function doSomethingElse(){
//The object that I need is determined at runtime, and is therefore dynamic
var callFuncOnThis = 'subObj';
//How the heck can I call function a on the object referenced in callFuncOnThis
this[callFuncOnThis].a(); //Doesn't work, this refers to dom window
self[callFuncOnThis].a(); //Doesn't work, self refers to obj
eval(callFuncOnThis).a(); //Works, but is there a better way?
}
var subObj = {
a:function(){
},
b:function(){
}
};
var subObj2 = {
a:function(){
},
b:function(){
}
};
doSomething();
return{
subObj:subObj,
subObj2:subObj2
}
};
var test = new Obj();
subObj is never assigned to a scope you can simply reference. That is why eval() is your best solution. Having said this, I'm looking at one weird bit of code. Can you elaborate on it a little? I feel like there is an architectural problem.
Also, since you're returning an object that contains subObj and subObj2, why not use that as your scope.
function doSomethingElse(){
// ...
retObj[callFuncOnThis].a()
}
var retObj = {'subObj': subObj, 'subObj2': subObj2};
doSomething();
return retObj;
I have the following code example to use an object that receives the action from the callback. Doesn't seem like this is a good design pattern. Or is it?
When setTimeOut() fires on the function after 1 second, it uses the objInstance global variable (DOM scope) to access the ClassExample object instance. Can someone recommend a better way to utilize callbacks within an object oriented design?
The whole idea is so I can use the callback to update data within my object instance (increment a variable for example).
function ClassExample{
this.initiate = function() {
setTimeOut(objInstance.afterTimeOut,1000); //using the objects global handle
}
this.afterTimeOut = function() {
alert("Received!");
}
}
var objInstance = new ClassExample(); //instance
objInstance.initiate();
No, you're not. You'll want to do this:
this.initiate = function() {
setTimeOut(objInstance.afterTimeOut,1000); //using the objects global handle
}
Now, if "afterTimeout" needs the proper object context, you could do this:
this.initiate = function() {
var instance = this;
setTimeout(function() { instance.afterTimeOut(); }, 1000);
}
OK well you changed the question considerably with that little edit :-) If I were you, I'd just do this (like my original second example):
this.initiate = function() {
var instance = this;
setTimeout(function() { instance.afterTimeOut(); }, 1000);
}
Then you don't need any ugly global variables around at all.
edit — Stackoverflow user #Christoph comments that this isn't particularly pretty. One thing that might help would be to use a "bind" facility, as provided by newer browsers natively (as a method on the Function prototype) or by some libraries (Prototype or Functional for example). What "bind" lets you do is create a little wrapper function like I've got above:
this.initiate = function() {
setTimeout(this.afterTimeOut.bind(this), 1000);
}
That call to "bind" returns a function that is effectively the same sort of thing as the little wrapper I coded explicitly in the example.
function ClassExample{
this.afterTimeOut = function() {
alert("Received!");
}; // Don't forget these
setTimeOut(afterTimeOut, 1000); // Don't use () if you're passing the function as an argument
}
var objInstance = new ClassExample(); //instance
That way you don't need the initiate() method.
If you really want the initiate() method, I'd do it like this:
function ClassExample{
var self = this;
self.afterTimeOut = function() {
alert("Received!");
};
self.initiate = function() {
setTimeOut(self.afterTimeOut, 1000);
};
}
var objInstance = new ClassExample(); //instance
objInstance.initiate();
This is how I'd do it to allow timer reuse and minimize the number of closures:
function Timer(timeout, callback) {
this.timeout = timeout;
this.callback = callback;
}
Timer.prototype.run = function(thisArg /*, args... */) {
var argArray = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 1);
var timer = this;
setTimeout(function() {
timer.callback.apply(thisArg, argArray);
}, timer.timeout);
};
var timer = new Timer(1000, alert);
timer.run(null, 'timer fired!');
And just for fun, a golfed version which is functionally equivalent, but replaces the object with a closure:
function delay(func, timeout) {
return function() {
var self = this, args = arguments;
setTimeout(function() { func.apply(self, args); }, timeout);
};
}
delay(alert, 1000).call(null, 'timer fired!');
You are right it is not the optimal way of doing what you are aiming for. however i have to wonder why you need to break the callstack as part of the initiation, it seems very academic.
apart from that if i had to do that, i'd probably use a closure like so:
function ClassExample{
this.initiate = function() {
setTimeOut((function(self) { return function() { self.afterTimeout();}})(this),1000); //using the objects global handle
}
this.afterTimeOut = function() {
alert("Received!");
}
}
var objInstance = new ClassExample(); //instance
objInstance.initiate()
this.initiate = function() {
var instance = this;
setTimeOut(function() {
instance.afterTimeOut();
}, 1000);
};
By saving this to a local variable, you can avoid using the global handle at all. Also this prevent the afterTimeout() from losing it's this.
Building on Znarkus answer...
I really don't know in which environment his code is running but for me the first approach just do not works. I got: 'ReferenceError: afterTimeOut is not defined'...
The second one, nevertheless, is really cool... I just changed setTimeOut for setTimeout (using lowercase 'o') and included parenthesis after the class name definition turning the first line of code into 'function ClassExample(){'; solved my problem.
My snippet of example code:
Oop with private behaviour, intern callback calling and etc.
function MyTry (name){
// keep this object pointer... that's the trick!
var self = this;
// create private variable
var d = new Date()toJSON().slice(0, 10);
// create a private function
function getName(){return name}
// create public access method
self.hello = function(){alert('Hello '+getName()+'!\nToday is: '+d)}
// note instance method hello passed as a callback function!
self.initiate = function(){setTimeout(self.hello, 3000)}
}