var user = {
Name: "Some user",
Methods: {
ShowGreetings: function() {
// at this point i want to access variable "Name",
//i dont want to use user.Name
// **please suggest me how??**
},
GetUserName: function() { }
}
}
You can't.
There is no upwards relationship in JavaScript.
Take for example:
var foo = {
bar: [1,2,3]
}
var baz = {};
baz.bar = foo.bar;
The single array object now has two "parents".
What you could do is something like:
var User = function User(name) {
this.name = name;
};
User.prototype = {};
User.prototype.ShowGreetings = function () {
alert(this.name);
};
var user = new User('For Example');
user.ShowGreetings();
var user = {
Name: "Some user",
Methods: {
ShowGreetings: function() {
alert(this.Parent.Name); // "this" is the Methods object
},
GetUserName: function() { }
},
Init: function() {
this.Methods.Parent = this; // it allows the Methods object to know who its Parent is
delete this.Init; // if you don't need the Init method anymore after the you instanced the object you can remove it
return this; // it gives back the object itself to instance it
}
}.Init();
Crockford:
"A privileged method is able to access the private variables and
methods, and is itself accessible to the public methods and the
outside"
For example:
function user(name) {
var username = name;
this.showGreetings = function()
{
alert(username);
}
}
You can try another approach using a closure:
function userFn(name){
return {
Methods: {
ShowGreetings: function() {
alert(name);
}
}
}
}
var user = new userFn('some user');
user.Methods.ShowGreetings();
Old question but why can't you just do something like this :
var user = {
Name: "Some user",
Methods: {
ShowGreetings: function() {
// at this point i want to access variable "Name",
//i dont want to use user.Name
// **please suggest me how??**
var thisName = user.Name; //<<<<<<<<<
},
GetUserName: function() { }
}
}
Because you will only call user.Methods.ShowGreetings() after the user has been instantiated. So you will know about the variable 'user' when you want to use its name ?
As others have said, with a plain object it is not possible to lookup a parent from a nested child.
However, it is possible if you employ recursive ES6 Proxies as helpers.
I've written a library called ObservableSlim that, among other things, allows you to traverse up from a child object to the parent.
Here's a simple example (jsFiddle demo):
var test = {"hello":{"foo":{"bar":"world"}}};
var proxy = ObservableSlim.create(test, true, function() { return false });
function traverseUp(childObj) {
console.log(JSON.stringify(childObj.__getParent())); // returns test.hello: {"foo":{"bar":"world"}}
console.log(childObj.__getParent(2)); // attempts to traverse up two levels, returns undefined because test.hello does not have a parent object
};
traverseUp(proxy.hello.foo);
Very late to the party, but this works
var user = {
Name: "Some user",
Methods() {
return {
that: this,
ShowGreetings: function() {
console.log(this.that.Name)
},
GetUserName: function() { }
}
}
}
user.Methods().ShowGreetings() // Some user
David Dorward's right here. The easiest solution, tho, would be to access user.Name, since user is effectively a singleton.
ES6 Classes
One simple solution would be to create a Class with methods!
class User {
// Assign properties when an instance
// is created using the `new` keyword
constructor(name) {
this.name = name;
}
// Methods:
showGreetings() {
console.log(`Hello, ${this.name}!`);
}
getUserName() {
return this.name;
}
// Or rather, use Getters:
get username() {
return this.name;
}
}
// Create a new user:
const user = new User("Praveen");
// Use methods:
user.showGreetings(); // "Hello, Praveen!"
console.log(user.getUserName()); // "Praveen"
console.log(user.username); // "Praveen"
Why the above suggestion? Mostly because:
you cannot reference a parent Object from a child Object directly
const User = {
name: "Some user", // hardcoded stuff? Is this an intentional Singleton?
methods: { // <<< Child Object of User
sayName() {
// Sadly, `this` refers to `methods`, not to `user`:
console.log(this); // methods{}
console.log(User.name); // "Some user" // Get Singleton's name
// ... but that's not what you want.
}
}
};
User.methods.sayName();
// ^^^^^^^ Why would you want this `methods` anyways?!
and it makes no sense to hardcode Strings (like "Some user") inside an Object Singleton — which could actually be a reusable function Object.
If you want to associate a child Node to a parent Node — read this answer (Get value of parent Object).
How about this way?
user.Methods.ShowGreetings.call(user, args);
So you can access user.Name in ShowGreetings
var user = {
Name: "Some user",
Methods: {
ShowGreetings: function(arg) {
console.log(arg, this.Name);
},
GetUserName: function() { }
},
Init: function() {
this.Methods.ShowGreetings.call(this, 1);
}
};
user.Init(); // => 1 "Some user"
As a variant:
var user = (obj => {
Object.keys(obj.Methods).map(option => {
const currOpt = obj.Methods[option];
if (currOpt instanceof Function) {
obj.Methods[option] = currOpt.bind(obj);
};
});
return obj;
})({
Name: "Some user",
Methods: {
Greeting: function () { return this.Name },
GetUserName: function() { console.log(this) }
},
});
But I don't know why somebody can use this strange approach
I know I'm very late.
I wrote this simple method. Let's say you have:
{
subObj: {
x:'hello_world';
}
}
Then, if you want a reference to the bigger object from subObj, you can convert it to a function, and utilize this.
var tmpVal=reference_to_subObj; //keep value of subObj safe
reference_to_subObj=function(){return this;}//this returns the scope, here the parent
var parent=reference_to_subObj(); //call the function
reference_to_subObj=tmpVal; delete tmpVal; //set things back to normal
//Now you have variable 'parent'.
I used a Function() constructor because it let me create the function as a string, so I could pass a string as code.
function findParent(stringReference) {
Function(/*same as above, except filled in all reference_to_subObj with stringReference.*/
//stringReference is a stringified version of dot or bracket notation.
So I could call findParent('obj.subObj').
// Make user global
window.user = {
name: "Some user",
methods: {
showGreetings: function () {
window.alert("Hello " + this.getUserName());
},
getUserName: function () {
return this.getParent().name;
}
}
};
// Add some JavaScript magic
(function () {
var makeClass = function (className) {
createClass.call(this, className);
for (key in this[className]) {
if (typeof this[className][key] === "object") {
makeClass.call(this[className], key);
}
}
}
var createClass = function (className) {
// private
var _parent = this;
var _namespace = className;
// public
this[className] = this[className] || {};
this[className].getType = function () {
var o = this,
ret = "";
while (typeof o.getParent === "function") {
ret = o.getNamespace() + (ret.length === 0 ? "" : ".") + ret;
o = o.getParent();
}
return ret;
};
this[className].getParent = function () {
return _parent;
};
this[className].getNamespace = function () {
return _namespace;
}
};
makeClass.call(window, "user");
})();
user.methods.showGreetings();
I ran across this old post trying to remember how to solve the problem. Here is the solution I used. This is derived from Pro JavaScript Design Patterns by Harmes and Diaz (Apress 2008) on page 8. You need to declare a function and then create a new instance of it as shown below. Notice the Store method can access "this".
function Test() {
this.x = 1;
}
Test.prototype = {
Store: function (y) { this.x = y; },
}
var t1 = new Test();
var t2 = new Test();
t1.Store(3);
t2.Store(5);
console.log(t1);
console.log(t2);
Like #Quentin said, there is no upwards relationship in JS. However try this workaround;
foo = { bar: {parent: foo} };
console.log(foo);
console.log(foo.bar.parent);
which is also similar to;
function Foo(){
this.bar = {parent: this}
}
foo = new Foo();
console.log(foo);
console.log(foo.bar.parent);
hey guys i am just trying to understand the REVEALING MODULAR PATTERN, i see the following simple depiction of the revealing modular pattern:
var myRevealingModule = (function () {
var privateCounter = 0;
function privateFunction() {
privateCounter++;
}
function publicFunction() {
publicIncrement();
}
function publicIncrement() {
privateFunction();
}
function publicGetCount(){
return privateCounter;
}
// Reveal public pointers to
// private functions and properties
return {
start: publicFunction,
increment: publicIncrement,
count: publicGetCount
};
})();
myRevealingModule.start();
now the following disadvantages are stated of the revealing moduar pattern ::
A disadvantage of this pattern is that if a private function refers to
a public function, that public function can't be overridden if a patch
is necessary. This is because the private function will continue to
refer to the private implementation and the pattern doesn't apply to
public members, only to functions.
i don't quite understand what the above para means , can somebody explain ? private function refers to the public function , did't quite get that , can somebody break it down ?
Consider:
Mod = function() {
function inc() {
return value() + 1;
}
var value = function() { return 42 }
var valuePlusOne = function() { return inc() }
return {
value: value,
valuePlusOne: valuePlusOne
}
}()
document.write(Mod.valuePlusOne()) // 43
Mod.value = function() {
return 999
}
document.write(Mod.valuePlusOne()) // still 43, not 1000
The problem is that inc uses var value from its containing scope, not the value property of the module object. When you change the module, this doesn't affect var value from the scope.
A workaround is to bind private functions to the object being returned:
Mod = function() {
var value = function() { return 42 }
var valuePlusOne = function() { return inc() }
var me = {
value: value,
valuePlusOne: valuePlusOne
}
function inc() {
return me.value() + 1;
}
return me;
}()
document.write(Mod.valuePlusOne()) // 43
Mod.value = function() {
return 999
}
document.write(Mod.valuePlusOne()) // 1000
Lets say I have this class:
function classA(n){
this.name = n
}
classA.prototype.getName = function(){
return this.name
}
var x = new classA('john')
console.log(x.getName())
My question is: can I group multiple methods inside a namespace? So I would like to do that:
var x = new classA('john')
console.log(x.CONSTANT.getName())
So I would like to call some methods as x.someMethod() and others as x.CONSTANT.otherMethod()
PS: I'm looking for a cross-browser method. Bind is not working in Safari and IE9.
You can do it, for example, via bind. Google es5 shim for implementation of bind in browsers, which don't support it natively.
function MyClass(name) {
this.name = name;
this.CONSTANT.otherMethod = this.CONSTANT.otherMethod.bind(this);
}
MyClass.prototype.CONSTANT = {
otherMethod: function() {
alert(this.name);
}
};
As far as I know a constant is just a property and it can't contain methods, you need to separate your objects and use methods to have the same effect:
function A (id) {
this.id = id;
this.showId = function () { return this.id; }
};
function B (a) {
this.a = a;
this.getA = function () { return this.a; }
}
var a = new A(12);
var b = new B(a);
b.getA().showId();
edit:
You can use a literal object as follow
function B (id) {
this.id = id;
this.CONSTANT = { otherMethod: function () { alert("..."); } };
someMethod = function () { return this.id; }
}
but the literal CONSTANT object can't access B-object methods,
Consider the #kirilloid post to round this.
You can, but you have to be careful because it won't act like you think it will. The this for the method will be the namespace, not the root object.
For example, in x.CONSTANT.getName(), the this object will be x.CONSTANT, and not x.
Here's some sample code which kinda does what you ask (or in jsfiddle):
function MyClass() {}
MyClass.prototype.CONSTANT = {
getName: function() {
alert('Foo');
}
};
var c = new MyClass();
c.CONSTANT.getName();
To make sure the this is right, you need to do much more.
You can use getters/setters (read this article) to achieve this. For example you may define it like this:
classA.prototype.__defineGetter__('CONSTANT', function() {
var that = this;
return {
getName: function() {
return that.name;
}
};
});
Note that holding reference to the object. It will work now
x = new classA('test');
x.CONSTANT.getName();
// result - test
Is it possible to have private properties in a model? Like the locally declared variables in a (constructor) function, not attached to this, but declared locally and visible only by whatever is defined in the (constructor)function.
Example without BB View:
function MyView(aModel){
var $internalInput = $('<input>');
this.render: function($where){
$internalInput.val(aModel.get('SomeProperty'));
$where.append($('<div class="inputWraper">').append($internalInput));
};
this.toggleReadonly: function() {
toggle $internalInputs readonly attribute
}
...
+ Code to bind input.val to some aModel property(ies) and setup events
...
}
Note that internalInput is not accessible to outside world and aModel is also not accessible (through MyView at least).
So if I want to use Backbone.View to implement the above MyView, how would i do it and keep $internalInput 'private'?
You should be able to achieve private data by passing an IIFE to extend when defining your Backbone objects, rather than just a plain object. For example:
var Thing = Backbone.Model.extend((function () {
var foo = "Private data!";
return {
bar: function () {
console.log(foo);
}
};
})());
You'd better off with
var Thing = Backbone.Model.extend(
{
constructor : function ()
{
var _value = "Private data!";
this.getValue = function ()
{
return _value;
};
this.setValue = function (value)
{
_value = value;
};
}
});
Javascript is fun!
var Thing = (function () {
var number_of_things = 0;
return function (options) {
var value = "Private data!";
return new ( Backbone.Model.extend({
constructor: function constructor () {
number_of_things += 1;
},
getValue: function getValue () {
return value;
}
}) )();
};
}());
I'm a little concerned by the fact that every instance of this "Thing" is also a subclass, in the OOP lingo.
In the context of using Broserify.js with Backbone (and really any above medium project) I found the following way to have private vars and functions:
myView.js
'use strict';
var config = require('../config.js'),
private_var = 'private variable',
my_private_fn = function() {
...
};
module.exports = Backbone.Model.extend({
initialize: function() {
this.my_public = 'public variable');
console.log('This is my' + this.my_public);
console.log('This is my' + my_private);
},
});
The idea to take here is go with Browserify :P
The simplest way is the following:
...
initialize:function(properites){
// Init the logic with private and public methods/variable
this.logic.initFirst(this);
// Use public methods
this.logic.doSomething();
},
logic:{
initFirst:function(modelOrView){
// Do not continue if already initiated
if( this.instance !== undefined ) return;
// Write all logic here
this.instance = (function(logic, modelOrView){
// Private variables
var private = "private";
// Public methods
logic.doSomething = function(){
console.log(private, modelOrView);
};
// Private methods
function hidden(){
}
}(this, modelOrView));
}
},
I'm defining a class in javascript as
Class = (function() {
var privateFunction = function() { return "private"; }
return { publicFunction: function() { return privateFunction("public"); } };
)();
Here user can access Class.publicFunction, but not Class.privateFunction.
Now I want to provide the user an interface to extend this Class. So I added a public function extend.
Class = (function() {
var privateFunction = function() { return "private"; }
return {
publicFunction: function() { return privateFunction("public"); }
extend: function(source) {
dest=this;
for(var prop in source)dest[prop] = source[prop]
}
};
)();
My aim was to use the extend attribute as follows
Class.extend({
someFunc: function() { return privateFunction("hooray"); }
});
and access it as
Class.someFunc()
The problem I face is the call to the privateFunction() in the extended function someFunc is not available for it. I can understand that it is the problem of the scope, but, is there anyway to solve my need.
While it's a horrible violation of encapsulation, you could do what you describe by passing the function you want to add as a string and evaling it in extend:
Class.extend({
someFunc: 'function() { return privateFunction("hooray"); }'
});
and in the extend function, change
for(var prop in source)dest[prop] = source[prop]
to
for(var prop in source)dest[prop] = eval(source[prop])
this.before = function(){return "public"};
this.publicFucntion = function(){privateFunction(this.before());}
Then just override this.before.