use the JavaScript new keyword with variable length arguments array - javascript

I am building a function that allows an object to be extended by any other object
Object.prototype.extend = function(constructor, args) {
var proto = this;
while(proto.__proto__.constructor !== Object) {
proto = proto.__proto__
}
proto.__proto__ = new constructor(args)
console.log(this);
}
the method would be called like this:
function ChildModelConstructor(1,2,3) {
this.extend(ParentModel, arguments)
}
or
instanceOfChildModel.extend(ParentModel, [1,2,3])
the problem is if I call new like this:
new constructor(args)
the constructor of the parent object receives argument which is an arguments object or array.
What I would like is to be able to call
new constructor.apply(args)
or something similar, I am not trying to change the context of this new, apply is the only method of calling a method using an args object or an array that I am aware of.
Thanks for the help :)
Update, I found a better way
Here's a better approach to Inheritance I came up with, it avoids using the depreciated proto
There are several advantages to this method, over other inheritance schemes I've found. The biggest is that it does not merge multiple levels of the proto chain. Many schemes mix the childClass's proto methods with the parent classes instance variables, or worse, all methods and properties from the parents initialization directly into the main body of the childClass.
The drawbacks are, it is single inheritance, and you cannot change the inheritance of a single instance, since the prototype property belongs to the Constructor.
Function.prototype.inherit = function(parentClass) {
var newPrototype = Object.create(Object.create(parentClass.prototype));
for(key in this.prototype){
newPrototype[key] = this.prototype[key];
}
this.prototype = newPrototype;
this.prototype.constructor = this;
this.prototype.parentClass = parentClass;
this.prototype.initParent = function(args) {
var proto = Object.getPrototypeOf(Object.getPrototypeOf(this))
this.parentClass.apply(proto, args);
}
this.prototype.uber = function() {
return Object.getPrototypeOf(Object.getPrototypeOf(this));
}
}
and you can set up the inheritance like this:
function Model(n) {
this.initParent(arguments)
this.test = n*2;
}
Model.inherit(BaseClass);
Here is a slightly more detailed version in JSFiddle http://jsfiddle.net/michaelghayes/2rHgK/​​

This is untested, but I think it will work. Replace:
proto.__proto__ = new constructor(args)
With:
proto.__proto__ = {};
proto.__proto__.prototype = constructor.prototype;
constructor.apply(proto.__proto__, args);
Take note that __proto__ is deprecated.

its better not to attach things to the object prototype and just set up the inheritance manually:
Model function() {
//init parent first because of chromes hidden classes
ParentClass.apply(this, [].slice.call(arguments))
//new instance properties
this.something = 'something'
}
Model.prototype = Object.create(ParentClass.prototype, {
constructor: {value: Model}
})
//Prototype props
Model.prototype.whatever = function(){return 'whatever'}
this also allows you to modify args before initing the parent since your new class shouldn't be restricted to using the exact same args as its parent

Related

Inheritance with Object.create() method in javascript [duplicate]

Javascript 1.9.3 / ECMAScript 5 introduces Object.create, which Douglas Crockford amongst others has been advocating for a long time. How do I replace new in the code below with Object.create?
var UserA = function(nameParam) {
this.id = MY_GLOBAL.nextId();
this.name = nameParam;
}
UserA.prototype.sayHello = function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
var bob = new UserA('bob');
bob.sayHello();
(Assume MY_GLOBAL.nextId exists).
The best I can come up with is:
var userB = {
init: function(nameParam) {
this.id = MY_GLOBAL.nextId();
this.name = nameParam;
},
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
var bob = Object.create(userB);
bob.init('Bob');
bob.sayHello();
There doesn't seem to be any advantage, so I think I'm not getting it. I'm probably being too neo-classical. How should I use Object.create to create user 'bob'?
With only one level of inheritance, your example may not let you see the real benefits of Object.create.
This methods allows you to easily implement differential inheritance, where objects can directly inherit from other objects.
On your userB example, I don't think that your init method should be public or even exist, if you call again this method on an existing object instance, the id and name properties will change.
Object.create lets you initialize object properties using its second argument, e.g.:
var userB = {
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
var bob = Object.create(userB, {
'id' : {
value: MY_GLOBAL.nextId(),
enumerable:true // writable:false, configurable(deletable):false by default
},
'name': {
value: 'Bob',
enumerable: true
}
});
As you can see, the properties can be initialized on the second argument of Object.create, with an object literal using a syntax similar to the used by the Object.defineProperties and Object.defineProperty methods.
It lets you set the property attributes (enumerable, writable, or configurable), which can be really useful.
There is really no advantage in using Object.create(...) over new object.
Those advocating this method generally state rather ambiguous advantages: "scalability", or "more natural to JavaScript" etc.
However, I have yet to see a concrete example that shows that Object.create has any advantages over using new. On the contrary there are known problems with it. Sam Elsamman describes what happens when there are nested objects and Object.create(...) is used:
var Animal = {
traits: {},
}
var lion = Object.create(Animal);
lion.traits.legs = 4;
var bird = Object.create(Animal);
bird.traits.legs = 2;
alert(lion.traits.legs) // shows 2!!!
This occurs because Object.create(...) advocates a practice where data is used to create new objects; here the Animal datum becomes part of the prototype of lion and bird, and causes problems as it is shared. When using new the prototypal inheritance is explicit:
function Animal() {
this.traits = {};
}
function Lion() { }
Lion.prototype = new Animal();
function Bird() { }
Bird.prototype = new Animal();
var lion = new Lion();
lion.traits.legs = 4;
var bird = new Bird();
bird.traits.legs = 2;
alert(lion.traits.legs) // now shows 4
Regarding, the optional property attributes that are passed into Object.create(...), these can be added using Object.defineProperties(...).
Object.create is not yet standard on several browsers, for example IE8, Opera v11.5, Konq 4.3 do not have it. You can use Douglas Crockford's version of Object.create for those browsers but this doesn't include the second 'initialisation object' parameter used in CMS's answer.
For cross browser code one way to get object initialisation in the meantime is to customise Crockford's Object.create. Here is one method:-
Object.build = function(o) {
var initArgs = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,1)
function F() {
if((typeof o.init === 'function') && initArgs.length) {
o.init.apply(this,initArgs)
}
}
F.prototype = o
return new F()
}
This maintains Crockford prototypal inheritance, and also checks for any init method in the object, then runs it with your parameter(s), like say new man('John','Smith'). Your code then becomes:-
MY_GLOBAL = {i: 1, nextId: function(){return this.i++}} // For example
var userB = {
init: function(nameParam) {
this.id = MY_GLOBAL.nextId();
this.name = nameParam;
},
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
var bob = Object.build(userB, 'Bob'); // Different from your code
bob.sayHello();
So bob inherits the sayHello method and now has own properties id=1 and name='Bob'. These properties are both writable and enumerable of course. This is also a much simpler way to initialise than for ECMA Object.create especially if you aren't concerned about the writable, enumerable and configurable attributes.
For initialisation without an init method the following Crockford mod could be used:-
Object.gen = function(o) {
var makeArgs = arguments
function F() {
var prop, i=1, arg, val
for(prop in o) {
if(!o.hasOwnProperty(prop)) continue
val = o[prop]
arg = makeArgs[i++]
if(typeof arg === 'undefined') break
this[prop] = arg
}
}
F.prototype = o
return new F()
}
This fills the userB own properties, in the order they are defined, using the Object.gen parameters from left to right after the userB parameter. It uses the for(prop in o) loop so, by ECMA standards, the order of property enumeration cannot be guaranteed the same as the order of property definition. However, several code examples tested on (4) major browsers show they are the same, provided the hasOwnProperty filter is used, and sometimes even if not.
MY_GLOBAL = {i: 1, nextId: function(){return this.i++}}; // For example
var userB = {
name: null,
id: null,
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
}
var bob = Object.gen(userB, 'Bob', MY_GLOBAL.nextId());
Somewhat simpler I would say than Object.build since userB does not need an init method. Also userB is not specifically a constructor but looks like a normal singleton object. So with this method you can construct and initialise from normal plain objects.
TL;DR:
new Computer() will invoke the constructor function Computer(){} for one time, while Object.create(Computer.prototype) won't.
All the advantages are based on this point.
Sidenote about performance: Constructor invoking like new Computer() is heavily optimized by the engine, so it may be even faster than Object.create.
You could make the init method return this, and then chain the calls together, like this:
var userB = {
init: function(nameParam) {
this.id = MY_GLOBAL.nextId();
this.name = nameParam;
return this;
},
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
var bob = Object.create(userB).init('Bob');
Another possible usage of Object.create is to clone immutable objects in a cheap and effective way.
var anObj = {
a: "test",
b: "jest"
};
var bObj = Object.create(anObj);
bObj.b = "gone"; // replace an existing (by masking prototype)
bObj.c = "brand"; // add a new to demonstrate it is actually a new obj
// now bObj is {a: test, b: gone, c: brand}
Notes: The above snippet creates a clone of an source object (aka not a reference, as in cObj = aObj). It benefits over the copy-properties method (see 1), in that it does not copy object member properties. Rather it creates another -destination- object with it's prototype set on the source object. Moreover when properties are modified on the dest object, they are created "on the fly", masking the prototype's (src's) properties.This constitutes a fast an effective way of cloning immutable objects.
The caveat here is that this applies to source objects that should not be modified after creation (immutable). If the source object is modified after creation, all the clone's unmasked properties will be modified, too.
Fiddle here(http://jsfiddle.net/y5b5q/1/) (needs Object.create capable browser).
I think the main point in question - is to understand difference between new and Object.create approaches. Accordingly to this answer and to this video new keyword does next things:
Creates new object.
Links new object to constructor function (prototype).
Makes this variable point to the new object.
Executes constructor function using the new object and implicit perform return this;
Assigns constructor function name to new object's property constructor.
Object.create performs only 1st and 2nd steps!!!
In code example provided in question it isn't big deal, but in next example it is:
var onlineUsers = [];
function SiteMember(name) {
this.name = name;
onlineUsers.push(name);
}
SiteMember.prototype.getName = function() {
return this.name;
}
function Guest(name) {
SiteMember.call(this, name);
}
Guest.prototype = new SiteMember();
var g = new Guest('James');
console.log(onlineUsers);
As side effect result will be:
[ undefined, 'James' ]
because of Guest.prototype = new SiteMember();
But we don't need to execute parent constructor method, we need only make method getName to be available in Guest.
Hence we have to use Object.create.
If replace Guest.prototype = new SiteMember();
to Guest.prototype = Object.create(SiteMember.prototype); result be:
[ 'James' ]
Sometimes you cannot create an object with NEW but are still able to invoke the CREATE method.
For example: if you want to define a Custom Element it must derive from HTMLElement.
proto = new HTMLElement //fail :(
proto = Object.create( HTMLElement.prototype ) //OK :)
document.registerElement( "custom-element", { prototype: proto } )
The advantage is that Object.create is typically slower than new on most browsers
In this jsperf example, in a Chromium, browser new is 30 times as fast as Object.create(obj) although both are pretty fast. This is all pretty strange because new does more things (like invoking a constructor) where Object.create should be just creating a new Object with the passed in object as a prototype (secret link in Crockford-speak)
Perhaps the browsers have not caught up in making Object.create more efficient (perhaps they are basing it on new under the covers ... even in native code)
Summary:
Object.create() is a Javascript function which takes 2 arguments and returns a new object.
The first argument is an object which will be the prototype of the newly created object
The second argument is an object which will be the properties of the newly created object
Example:
const proto = {
talk : () => console.log('hi')
}
const props = {
age: {
writable: true,
configurable: true,
value: 26
}
}
let Person = Object.create(proto, props)
console.log(Person.age);
Person.talk();
Practical applications:
The main advantage of creating an object in this manner is that the prototype can be explicitly defined. When using an object literal, or the new keyword you have no control over this (however, you can overwrite them of course).
If we want to have a prototype The new keyword invokes a constructor function. With Object.create() there is no need for invoking or even declaring a constructor function.
It can Basically be a helpful tool when you want create objects in a very dynamic manner. We can make an object factory function which creates objects with different prototypes depending on the arguments received.
You have to make a custom Object.create() function. One that addresses Crockfords concerns and also calls your init function.
This will work:
var userBPrototype = {
init: function(nameParam) {
this.name = nameParam;
},
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
function UserB(name) {
function F() {};
F.prototype = userBPrototype;
var f = new F;
f.init(name);
return f;
}
var bob = UserB('bob');
bob.sayHello();
Here UserB is like Object.create, but adjusted for our needs.
If you want, you can also call:
var bob = new UserB('bob');
While Douglas Crockford used to be a zealous advocate of Object.create() and he is basically the reason why this construct actually is in javascript, he no longer has this opinion.
He stopped using Object.create, because he stopped using this keyword altogether as it causes too much trouble. For example, if you are not careful it can easily point to the global object, which can have really bad consequences. And he claims that without using this Object.create does not make sense anymore.
You can check this video from 2014 where he talks at Nordic.js:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSGEjv3Tqo0
new and Object.create serve different purposes. new is intended to create a new instance of an object type. Object.create is intended to simply create a new object and set its prototype. Why is this useful? To implement inheritance without accessing the __proto__ property. An object instance's prototype referred to as [[Prototype]] is an internal property of the virtual machine and is not intended to be directly accessed. The only reason it is actually possible to directly access [[Prototype]] as the __proto__ property is because it has always been a de-facto standard of every major virtual machine's implementation of ECMAScript, and at this point removing it would break a lot of existing code.
In response to the answer above by 7ochem, objects should absolutely never have their prototype set to the result of a new statement, not only because there's no point calling the same prototype constructor multiple times but also because two instances of the same class can end up with different behavior if one's prototype is modified after being created. Both examples are simply bad code as a result of misunderstanding and breaking the intended behavior of the prototype inheritance chain.
Instead of accessing __proto__, an instance's prototype should be written to when an it is created with Object.create or afterward with Object.setPrototypeOf, and read with Object.getPrototypeOf or Object.isPrototypeOf.
Also, as the Mozilla documentation of Object.setPrototypeOf points out, it is a bad idea to modify the prototype of an object after it is created for performance reasons, in addition to the fact that modifying an object's prototype after it is created can cause undefined behavior if a given piece of code that accesses it can be executed before OR after the prototype is modified, unless that code is very careful to check the current prototype or not access any property that differs between the two.
Given
const X = function (v) { this.v = v };
X.prototype.whatAmI = 'X';
X.prototype.getWhatIAm = () => this.whatAmI;
X.prototype.getV = () => this.v;
the following VM pseudo-code is equivalent to the statement const x0 = new X(1);:
const x0 = {};
x0.[[Prototype]] = X.prototype;
X.prototype.constructor.call(x0, 1);
Note although the constructor can return any value, the new statement always ignores its return value and returns a reference to the newly created object.
And the following pseudo-code is equivalent to the statement const x1 = Object.create(X.prototype);:
const x0 = {};
x0.[[Prototype]] = X.prototype;
As you can see, the only difference between the two is that Object.create does not execute the constructor, which can actually return any value but simply returns the new object reference this if not otherwise specified.
Now, if we wanted to create a subclass Y with the following definition:
const Y = function(u) { this.u = u; }
Y.prototype.whatAmI = 'Y';
Y.prototype.getU = () => this.u;
Then we can make it inherit from X like this by writing to __proto__:
Y.prototype.__proto__ = X.prototype;
While the same thing could be accomplished without ever writing to __proto__ with:
Y.prototype = Object.create(X.prototype);
Y.prototype.constructor = Y;
In the latter case, it is necessary to set the constructor property of the prototype so that the correct constructor is called by the new Y statement, otherwise new Y will call the function X. If the programmer does want new Y to call X, it would be more properly done in Y's constructor with X.call(this, u)
new Operator
This is used to create object from a constructor function
The new keywords also executes the constructor function
function Car() {
console.log(this) // this points to myCar
this.name = "Honda";
}
var myCar = new Car()
console.log(myCar) // Car {name: "Honda", constructor: Object}
console.log(myCar.name) // Honda
console.log(myCar instanceof Car) // true
console.log(myCar.constructor) // function Car() {}
console.log(myCar.constructor === Car) // true
console.log(typeof myCar) // object
Object.create
You can also use Object.create to create a new object
But, it does not execute the constructor function
Object.create is used to create an object from another object
const Car = {
name: "Honda"
}
var myCar = Object.create(Car)
console.log(myCar) // Object {}
console.log(myCar.name) // Honda
console.log(myCar instanceof Car) // ERROR
console.log(myCar.constructor) // Anonymous function object
console.log(myCar.constructor === Car) // false
console.log(typeof myCar) // object
I prefer a closure approach.
I still use new.
I don't use Object.create.
I don't use this.
I still use new as I like the declarative nature of it.
Consider this for simple inheritance.
window.Quad = (function() {
function Quad() {
const wheels = 4;
const drivingWheels = 2;
let motorSize = 0;
function setMotorSize(_) {
motorSize = _;
}
function getMotorSize() {
return motorSize;
}
function getWheelCount() {
return wheels;
}
function getDrivingWheelCount() {
return drivingWheels;
}
return Object.freeze({
getWheelCount,
getDrivingWheelCount,
getMotorSize,
setMotorSize
});
}
return Object.freeze(Quad);
})();
window.Car4wd = (function() {
function Car4wd() {
const quad = new Quad();
const spareWheels = 1;
const extraDrivingWheels = 2;
function getSpareWheelCount() {
return spareWheels;
}
function getDrivingWheelCount() {
return quad.getDrivingWheelCount() + extraDrivingWheels;
}
return Object.freeze(Object.assign({}, quad, {
getSpareWheelCount,
getDrivingWheelCount
}));
}
return Object.freeze(Car4wd);
})();
let myQuad = new Quad();
let myCar = new Car4wd();
console.log(myQuad.getWheelCount()); // 4
console.log(myQuad.getDrivingWheelCount()); // 2
console.log(myCar.getWheelCount()); // 4
console.log(myCar.getDrivingWheelCount()); // 4 - The overridden method is called
console.log(myCar.getSpareWheelCount()); // 1
Feedback encouraged.

JavaScript: Adding a Namespace to Prototype Methods

I have a commercial application that has an existing JavaScript object structure using prototype chains. I have had success extending this API by adding more methods to the prototypes of objects. However, I realize that it would be best to add a namespace in front of my methods in case the application vendor decides to name a new method the same as one of my methods in a future release.
If I have an existing object called State, I would add a method called getPop like so:
State.prototype.getPop = function(){return this.pop;};
var Washington = new State('Washington',7000000);
Washington.getPop(); //returns 7000000
What I want to do is add a namespace called 'cjl' before my custom method to avoid name collision so that I can call it like so:
Washington.cjl.getPop();
I tried:
State.prototype.cjl = {};
State.prototype.cjl.getPop = function(){return this.pop;};
The problem is this. It doesn't point to the instance but instead points to the 'cjl' object.
I tried various methods, including using .bind() but none of them seemed to work. I finally found an answer here: Is it possible to organise methods on an object's prototype into namespaces? This works using the Object.defineProperty() method. The problem is the commercial application only works in compatibility mode in IE which doesn't support the Object.defineProperty() method for non-DOM elements.
Is there another way to accomplish this? I don't want to have to call multiple functions, which is the result of some techniques, e.g.:
Washington.cjl().getPop();
You could namespace in the following way, reading your comments I see that you can't change the original constructor so you'll have to replace the original with your own and save the original in a closure.
Every state instance will have it's own cjl instance but that only has a reference to current State instance, all the cjl functions are shared as they exist only once:
[UPDATE]
Forgot to get State.prototype in myState's prototype chain.
//the original constructor
function State(name, pop){
this.name=name;this.pop=pop;
}
State.org="original constructor";
//original constructor is available through
// closure and window.State is replaced with
// your constructor having the cjl namespace
(function(State){
//cjl namespace
function cjl(stateInstance){
this.stateInstance=stateInstance;
};
//cjl functions
cjl.prototype.getPopInThousands=function(){
//do not use this, instead use this.stateInstance
return this.stateInstance.pop/1000;
}
function myState(){
//apply State constructor
State.apply(this,arguments);
//create a clj instance, all methods
// are on cjl.prototype so they're shared
this.cjl = new cjl(this);
}
//inherit from State (use polyfil for older browsers)
myState.prototype = Object.create(State.prototype);
//replace window.State with your constructor
window.State=myState;
}(State))
var s = new State("Wasington", 7000000);
console.log(s.cjl.getPopInThousands());
//non standard, name
console.log("constructor name",s.constructor.name);
console.log("constructor tostring",s.constructor.toString());
More on constructor functions and prototype can be found here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/16063711/1641941
I have to agree with friend and cookie that pre fixing the function names may be the better solution but if you want to use the same methods for an object named Country then you may think of using the previous code as you can re use the cjl object.
Instead of defining State.prototype.cjl outside of the function, try to set the cjl "namespace" inside the constructor function.
function State(){
var thisObject = this;
this.cjl = {
getPop: function(){
return thisObject.pop;
}
};
}
Then you can do Washington.cjl.getPop();.
Try:
var State = function(name, pop) {
this.name = name;
this.pop = pop;
};
State.prototype.cjl = function(method) {
return this.cjlDefs[method].apply(this, Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 1) );
};
State.prototype.cjlDefs = {
getPop: function() {return this.pop;}
};
var Washington = new State('Washington', 80000);
console.log( Washington.cjl('getPop') );
https://jsfiddle.net/ghbjhxyh/
Or another shape if you prefer:
var State = function(name, pop) {
this.name = name;
this.pop = pop;
};
State.prototype.cjl = function(method) {
this.cjlDefs.obj = this;
return this.cjlDefs;
};
State.prototype.cjlDefs = {
assertObj: function() { /* Make sensible assertion */ },
getPop: function() { this.assertObj(); return this.obj.pop; }
};
var Washington = new State('Washington', 75000);
console.log( Washington.cjl().getPop() ); // 75000
https://jsfiddle.net/7vjrz2mn/

javascript inheritance pattern confusion

I find this is most recommended way to do inheritance in javascript.
function extend(Child, Parent) {
var F = function(){};
F.prototype = Parent.prototype;
Child.prototype = new F();
}
what if I already have methods in child's prototype, aren't they will overwrite, shouldn't we preserve them.
function extend(Child, Parent) {
var c = child.prototype;
var oldProto = new C();
var F = function(){};
F.prototype = Parent.prototype;
Child.prototype = new F();
for(var i in oldProto ){
Child.prototype[i] = oldProto[i]
}
}
I'm not sure if this is any good to you, but it's well important to remember: prototypes are not the same things as classes. What you're doing is trying to make JS behave like a traditional OO language, which is trying to teach a dolphin to dance ballet, or forcing a tiger to become vegan: Admirable, but destined to end in tears.
I can't really see why you'd want to use the extend function to do whatever it is you're trying to do. Why not simply use this:
function Parent()
{};
function Child()
{};
//augment parent proto
Parent.prototype.parentMethod1 = function()
{};
//set Child's proto to Parent
Child.prototype = new Parent();
Child.prototype.constructor = Child;
//Then augment the Child's prototype
Child.prototype.childMethod1 = function()
{};
var foo = new Child();
foo.parentMethod1();//works
foo.childMethod1();//works, too
IMO, this solves the problem entirely. Sure, it's a tad more verbose, but OOP always is.
The pattern you're trying to achieve is called multiple inheritance. And it's highly not recommended for the use because of the issue you're experiencing, called diamond problem. Just use mixin pattern instead.
The code below is the one of the best I have seen for doing inheritance in JavaScript.
Object.create(proto [, propertiesObject ]) is discussed on MDN here.
Below, Jon defines a base empty object called ExtendBase then adds a function property called extend which is not enumerable which takes as its argument a single new object.
That object should contain enumerable properties such as methods and data that will be added to the base object.
He gets all the enumerable properties from the passed object, then creates an array of the necessary descriptors to pass into Object.create using those properties' names. He then uses the parent object as the prototype and resultant descriptors as new properties to be added to the child object directly in the Object.create() call.
As you can see, you can use an object argument with properties, including methods, to extend a parent without losing that passed object's properties with the result being a child object with the parent as the prototype and the enumerable objects of the passed object added directly to the child.
However, this maintains a clean prototype chain while intending to extend parent objects using other objects which are created sanely to extend the parent into a new child in a way that makes sense:
Live sample here (Press F12 in Chrome for console output, or use FireBug in FireFox, etc.)
JavaScript:
// Original Author: FireFly - Jonas Höglund - ##javascript channel
// on irc.freenode.net - see THANKS File. Updated to private data
// members and passable initial parameters by Scott Sanbar
///////////////
// Library code
///////////////
var ExtendBase = {};
Object.defineProperty(ExtendBase, 'extend', {
enumerable:false, value:function (obj) {
'use strict';
var descs = {};
Object.getOwnPropertyNames(obj).forEach(function (key) {
descs[key] = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(obj, key)
});
return Object.create(this, descs);
}
});
///////////////
// Sample Usage
///////////////
function PersonObj(nam) {
return {
name:new function () {
var name = nam;
this.set = function (value) {
name = value;
};
this.get = function () {
return name;
}
},
// A person can tell you its name.
talk:function () {
return "Hello, I'm " + this.name.get();
}
}
}
;
function WorkingPersonObj(occ) {
return {
occupation:new function () {
var occupation = occ;
this.set = function (value) {
occupation = value;
};
this.get = function () {
return occupation;
}
},
// A working person also tells you their occupation when they talk.
talk:function () {
return Person.talk.call(this) + " and I am a " + this.occupation.get();
}
}
}
;
var hush = {
hush:function () {
return "I am supposed to be quiet";
}
};
var Person = ExtendBase.extend(new PersonObj('Harry'));
var WorkingPerson = Person.extend(new WorkingPersonObj('wizard'));
var wp1 = WorkingPerson.extend(hush);
console.log(wp1.talk()); // "Hello, I'm Harry and I am a wizard"
console.log(wp1.hush()); // "I am supposed to be quiet"
wp1.name.set("Elijah");
wp1.occupation.set("prophet");
console.log(wp1.talk()); // "Hello, I'm Elijah and I am a prophet"
console.log(wp1.name.get());
console.log(wp1.occupation.get());

How to Add Static Members in EcmaScript 5

I want to add a static function to a class in EcmaScript 5 JavaScript. My class definition looks as follows:
var Account = {};
Object.defineProperty(Account, 'id', {
value : null
});
And I would create a new instance like this:
var theAccount = Object.create(Account);
theAccount.id = 123456;
Now I want to add a static function to the Account class. If I had created the Account class using a constructor function and the prototype property like this:
var Account = function () {
this.id = null;
};
...I could just do:
Account.instances = {};
Account.createInstance = function () {
var account = new Account();
account.id = uuid.v4();
Account.instances[account.id] = account;
return account;
};
But since I am using Object.defineProperty and not the prototype property to add members, Account.instances and Account.createInstance would also be instantiated when calling Object.create and therefore be properties of the instance.
How do i add a static member to a class when using EcmaScript 5 style object creation?
For ES 5 if you want static methods:
// A static method; this method only
// exists on the class and doesn't exist
// on child objects
Person.sayName = function() {
alert("I am a Person object ;)");
};
// An instance method;
// All Person objects will have this method
Person.prototype.setName = function(nameIn) {
this.name = nameIn;
}
see #https://abdulapopoola.com/2013/03/30/static-and-instance-methods-in-javascript/
You can't.
My class definition looks as follows var Account = {};
That's not a class (if we would call the classical model like that), but just a prototoype object. And as you only have that, you will need to use other variables for static members like an instances-cache or a create function:
var Account = {...};
var instances = [];
function createAccount(){...}
You could namespace them, of course:
var Account = {
proto: {...},
instances: [],
instantiate: function create(){...}
};
...but that looks very close to the classical pattern, doesn't it? The only difference would be that you had a create function on a namespace object instead of a constructor function as the namespace object.
You might also be interested in the question Object.create Prototype Chains, where I have discussed a full inheritance model working like that, with create and inherit methods that all "class objects" inherit from a base.
Further answer on your question in the comments:
Doesn't Object.create make the new operator obsolete in EcmaScript 5?
No. The new keyword does two things: Set up the prototype chain of the new instance, and apply the the constructor function. Object.create does only the first thing, so you can use it when you dont need a function (or dont want it to execute).
In your case, you have such a function, so the classical model wouldn't be wrong here as well. See also Using "Object.create" instead of "new".
You seem to have some different things mixed up. The prototype is going to be shared fallback properties. If you want to define a static (I assume by what you're doing you mean non-writable property?) you can use defineProperty in the constructor.
function Account(){
Object.defineProperty(this, 'id', {
value: uuid.v4()
});
Account.instances[this.id] = this;
}
Account.instances = {};
Account.prototype.id = null;
var account = new Account;
But since I am using Object.defineProperty and not the prototype
property to add members, Account.instances and Account.createInstance
would also be instantiated when calling Object.create and therefore be
properties of the instance.
Any static properties or methods declared on the source object will not be deemed properties of the instance - they will be read from the prototype.
var obj = {};
obj.static = function() { alert('hello'); }
var instance = Object.create(obj);
instance.ownProperty = 'hello';
alert(!!instance.static); //true - it has .static
alert(instance.hasOwnProperty('static')); //false - but it's not its own
alert(instance.hasOwnProperty('ownProperty')); //true

Javavscript change sub-class property on instantiation

if I have
myClass.prototype.subClass=
{
foo:false
}
when I create a new instance on an object how can I set foo to a different value each time, so how do I refer to that sub-class here
var newObj = new myclass();
Objects and arrays are not something which should be added to the prototype unless you want to share them with all instances.
As soon as you want properties of these objects to be different for each instances, you have to assign the object in the constructor (or in any other function) to the specific instance:
this.subClass = {
foo: true
// potentially other properties
};
That said, there might be cases were having a "default" object in the prototype might be reasonable, but you should not write to it.
Assigning the object in the constructor instead does not duplicate code and allows you to change it for each instance individually.
Update:
If you don't want to change the original constructor, you can either just add a new function to the prototype and call it whenever you instantiate an object:
MyClass.prototype.init = function() {
this.subClass = {
//...
};
};
and
var obj = new MyClass();
obj.init();
Or you really create a new constructor function:
function MySubClass() {
MyClass.apply(this, arguments);
// now create that object for each instance
this.subClass = {
foo: someValue
};
}
inherits(MySubClass, MyClass);
where inherits is defined as:
function inherits(Child, Parent) {
var Tmp_ = function() {};
Tmp_.prototype = Parent.prototype;
Child.prototype = new Tmp_();
Child.prototype.constructor = Child;
}
Then you will use MySubClass instead of MyClass to create the instances.
I think you missunderstand how prototype inheritence works because this question is a bit odd. But you should be able to access the foo property like any other:
newObj.subClass.foo = newValue

Categories