I am trying to organize my code using the revealing module pattern.
I have a very basic question about how to set up a setter method.
$(document).ready(function() {
var designs = (function() {
var curRow,
setCurRow = function(val) {
curRow = val;
},
initTable = function() {
setCurRow(0);
};
return {
curRow : curRow,
setCurRow : setCurRow,
initTable : initTable
}
}) ();
designs.initTable();
designs.setCurRow(someNewVal);
console.log(designs.curRow);
});
The problem is that i dont get the someNewVal in the console output, I get undefined instead! I have a feeling I am doing something pretty silly here.
You can also solve this in another way by understanding the scopes of the variables and functions involved.
When you return your object constructor { curRow: curRow ... }, that just initializes the object member named curRow to the value of the variable curRow in the scope of the anonymous function; it doesn't create any persistent connection between them.
Once the anonymous function returns, calling designs.setCurRow is updating the curRow variable in that scope exactly as you expect, but that variable is now totally inaccessible to the outside world -- there is no connection between it and the curRow member of designs.
You can solve this by making the setCurRow method operate on this.curRow, as in the other solutions. In that case you don't need to make curRow a variable in the original scope, since it's entirely unused. The other solution is to add a 'getter' method to your current one:
var designs = (function() {
var curRow,
setCurRow = function(val) {
curRow = val;
},
getCurRow = function() {
return curRow;
},
initTable = function() {
setCurRow(0);
};
return {
getCurRow : getCurRow,
setCurRow : setCurRow,
initTable : initTable
};
}) ();
designs.initTable();
designs.setCurRow(someNewVal);
console.log(designs.getCurRow());
Because getCurRow and setCurRow are functions that are closed in the scope containing the variable varRow, they can reach back into that scope and access and change variables that are only accessible within it.
In this case making curRow a member of the object you return is probably simpler, but the other way is useful too since you can use it to create effectively private members and methods.
Looks like you want an object, not a module:
$(document).ready(function() {
var designs = {
setCurRow: function(val) {
this.curRow = val;
},
initTable: function() {
this.setCurRow(0);
},
curRow: 0
};
designs.initTable();
designs.setCurRow(someNewVal);
console.log(designs.curRow);
});
The problem is that setCurRow sets the value of the variable curRow after designs.curRow has already been set. Consider something like this:
var a = 1;
b = a; // sets b = a = 1
b = 2; // sets b = 2; leaves a = 1
Your code is doing the same thing, but with object-properties and setter methods to make it look complicated. :-)
As ruakh pointed out, you never re-assign curRow on the returned object, so it is always the default value. Change it to:
setCurRow = function(val) {
this.curRow = curRow = val;
},
And everything should work*.
* At least mostly - you won't be able to use call and apply on setCurRow (or pass it to setTimeout or setInterval without binding it first to your object (designs), since this is bound at call time in JavaScript.
Related
I have this code:
var createAllAreSelectedClickedHandler = function(selectablesArrayGetter) {
return function() {
var array = selectablesArrayGetter();
var desiredState = array.every(function(selectable) { return selectable.selected; }) ? false : true;
array.forEach(function(selectable) {
selectable.selected = desiredState;
});
};
};
Followed by this one:
function PromoViewModel() { this.registrations = [...] }
PromoViewModel.prototype.allEventsSelectedClickedHandler = createAllAreSelectedClickedHandler(function() { return this.registrations; }));
I can't manage to set the correct value of this. The "this" value when the function is created points to Window so I can't do .bind(this). I've tried doing .bind(PromoViewModel.prototype) but it lacks all the precious instance fields set inside the constructor.
I know I could simply set this.allEventsSelectedClickedHandler in the constructor function, but I'm trying to separate the methods creation from the variables.
The problem is the call selectablesArrayGetter(); which determines the this value for the callback.
You will need to "pass" the this value that the method (i.e. the closure you are returning) is invoked on, using call:
var array = selectablesArrayGetter.call(this);
I'd recommend defining your PromoViewModel.prototype.allEventsSelectedClickedHandler method as follows:
PromoViewModel.prototype.allEventsSelectedClickedHandler = function() {
var _array = this.registrations;
var desiredState = _array.every(function(selectable) { return selectable.selected; }) ? false : true;
_array.forEach(function(selectable) {
selectable.selected = desiredState;
});
};
the function that you're passing as callback uses this, but doesn't have the PromoViewModel context. You can ensure the method has the proper context by binding this to a variable.
function PromoViewModel()
{
var me = this;
this.registrations = [...];
this.allEventsSelectedClickedHandler = createAllAreSelectedClickedHandler(function() {
return me.registrations;
});
}
Working fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/michaschwab/coegnL5j/9/ also has Bergi's answer in there (commented out) to show that that works just as well.
Ok here is what I did.
In the prototype definition instead of directly associating it to createAllAreSelectedClickedHandler function, I actually define a function that returns the createAllAreSelectedClickedHandler function. By doing this, I can define a variable (in this case protoScope) that maps this context when defined.
When doing that, if you put a break-point in the createAllAreSelectedClickedHandler function you will see that the selectablesArrayGetter value is correct (the acutal registrations array).
PromoViewModel.prototype.allEventsSelectedClickedHandler = function (){
var protoScope = this;
return createAllAreSelectedClickedHandler(function() {
return protoScope.registrations;
});
}
The following script works correctly although I need to make few amends. In each function I am getting the values need for the different formulas. However I tend to replicate the same line of code in different functions.
Ex.
function one(){ var v1= document.getElementById('one').value; }
function two(){ var v1= document.getElementById('one').value; }
Full code
I would like to declare all of the variables once and than only use the ones I need for the specific functions. If I declare them right at the top than once they are called they still hold the original value so I need to update that value to the current one if changed of course.
Your code will be very hard to read if you do it like in your fiddle.
Instead do
var myVars;
window.onload=function() {
myVars = {
'list_price': document.getElementById('list_price'),
'negotiated': document.getElementById('negotiated'),
.
.
'lease_payment': document.getElementById('lease_payment')
}
now you can do
var price = myVars.list_price.value;
or perhaps add a function
function getVal(id) {
var val = document.getElementById(id).value;
if (val =="" || isNaN(val)) return 0;
return parsetInt(val,10);
}
now you can do
var price = getVal("list_price");
mplungjan's solution is a great one. If you're at all concerned by your global vars leaking into the window scope, wrap your code in an Immediately Invoked Function Expression to prevent that from happening:
(function(){
// code goes here
}());
There are two ways to go about this:
Update your variable when the value changes
Use a function that always returns the correct value
1) You can add a listener for the change event or the keyup event that changes your global variable:
// save initial value
var val = document.getElementById('one').value;
// update the value when input is changed
addEventListener(document.getElementById('one'), 'change', function() {
val = document.getElementById('one').value;
});
console.log(val);
2) You can use a function that always returns the current value:
var val = function() { return document.getElementById('one').value; };
console.log(val());
2b) If you hate parenthesis, you can define a property that uses the function above as a getter:
Object.defineProperty(window, 'one', {
get : function() { return document.getElementById('one').value; }
});
console.log(one);
I have some shared code in a single-page web application that is currently using a "globals" namespace to store a parameter as a global variable.
Using a namespace is an improvement over polluting the global "window" object, but it seems like this code is a good candidate for a closure to persist the value between invocations. I've messed around with some ideas but can't seem to get the syntax for a closure right.
Here's pseudo-code for the current version. All the code lives inside a "um" namespace. When my shared function is initially called by a new virtual page in my app, I need to store the contents of a JS object called 'extraData'. Subsequent invocations of the function don't have access to 'extraData', so I'm currently storing it in "um.globals.extraData" if underscore.js determines that the parameter is an object.
//***************************
// IMPLEMENTATION SAMPLE
//***************************
// Define namespaces (not showing: um.grid, um.ajax, um.classes, um.constants, etc.)
window.um = window.um || {};
um.globals = um.globals || {}; /* container for namespaced 'global' variables */
um.grid.loadOrUpdate = function (iOffset, isUpdate, extra) {
var ajaxParams = new um.classes.AjaxParams();
//-----
// If 'extra' is an object, store it in a global for subsequent invocations
if (_.isObject(extra)) {
// This seems like it could be a closure candidate...
um.globals.extraData = extra;
}
ajaxParams.values = [um.constants.urlPathParams.grid];
ajaxParams.verb = um.constants.httpVerbs.GET;
// Use the global variable 'extraData'
ajaxParams.extraData = um.globals.extraData;
um.ajax.callMessaging(ajaxParams);
};
And here's some pseudo-code for actually invoking the function:
//***************************
// INVOCATION SAMPLES
//***************************
// 1st invocation from virtual page 'Alpha'
um.grid.loadOrUpdate(0, false, { "alpha-key": "alpha-value" });
// 2nd invocation from virtual page 'Alpha'
um.grid.loadOrUpdate(1, true); // will re-use the "alpha" object
// 1st invocation from virtual page "Beta'
um.grid.loadOrUpdate(0, false, { "beta-key": "beta-value" });
// 2nd invocation from virtual page 'Beta'
um.grid.loadOrUpdate(1, true); // will re-use the "beta" object
How can I kill um.globals.extraData and replace this with some kind of closure inside of um.grid.loadOrUpdate?
EDIT
Here's some code from "JavaScript Patterns" that prompted me to ask this question:
var setup = function () {
var count = 0;
return function () {
return (count += 1);
}
};
// usage
var next = setup();
next(); // returns 1
next(); // returns 2
next(); // returns 3
To me, it's unclear what you're trying to achieve through closures. Closures allow you to encapsulate the state of variables within the current scope, which might be handy if you were trying to create various instances of your object, each with their own extra state.
You could do this by implementing loadOrUpdate in such a way that returns a reference to a function that can be called later. When said function is called, all the variables within that scope will be enclosed and retain the values from when the function was created.
For example:
um.grid.loadOrUpdate = function (iOffset, extra) {
var ajaxParams = new um.classes.AjaxParams();
//-----
ajaxParams.values = [um.constants.urlPathParams.grid];
ajaxParams.verb = um.constants.httpVerbs.GET;
um.ajax.callMessaging(ajaxParams);
// Return a function used to update this data later
return function (newOffset) // Update function
{
// From within here, you'll have access to iOffset and extra as they exist at this point
window.alert("Key: " + extra.key + " - Changing offset from " + iOffset + " to " + newOffset);
iOffset = newOffset;
};
};
You can then invoke your function like so, keeping in mind it will return a reference to a function:
var alpha = um.grid.loadOrUpdate(0, { "key": "alpha-value" });
var beta = um.grid.loadOrUpdate(0, { "key": "beta-value" });
When you call alpha() or beta(), the value of extra will be retained through a closure, thus there is no need to keep a global reference to it.
alpha(1); // Update from 0 to 1
alpha(2); // Update from 1 to 2
beta(3); // Update from 0 to 3
beta(4); // Update from 3 to 4
Example
However, if you're attempting to keep a single instance of extra that all calls to loadOrUpdate share, you'd probably be better off using your previous technique and just storing that current value as a property of the function itself, or anywhere else within the scope of that function.
Is this kind of approach what you're after?
var ns = {};
(function() {
var globals;
ns.func = function(update,opts) {
if(update)opts=globals;
else globals=opts;
console.log(opts);
}
})();
ns.func(false,"a");
ns.func(true);
ns.func(false,"b");
ns.func(true);
Output:
a
a
b
b
I've scoped the globals variable inside an anonymous function, and made a function declared in that function available on an object in the surrounding (in this case window) scope - so it has access to the 'globals' variable but it's not visible outside it.
Can anyone tell me why my 'showDiv_boo' is undefined inside the class´s method?
I also can´t access my class´s methods.
Here´s my class 'Blink' class with its properties and methods:
function Blink(div) {
this.div = div
}
Blink.prototype.counter = 0
Blink.prototype.showDiv_boo = true
Blink.prototype.showDiv = function() {
this.div.style.visibility = 'visible'
}
Blink.prototype.hideDiv = function() {
this.div.style.visibility = 'hidden'
}
Blink.prototype.startEngine = function() {
if (this.showDiv_boo) {
this.showDiv()
} else if (!this.showDiv_boo) {
this.hideDiv()
}
this.showDiv_boo = !this.showDiv_boo
this.counter++
}
Blink.prototype.startEffect = function() {
this.idEffect = setInterval(this.startEngine, 1000 / 45)
}
So, if I create:
_blink = new Blink(myDiv);
_blink.startEffect();
You can test... the variable 'showDiv_boo', is undefined inside the method.
Even, if I set the showDiv_boo inside the method to true, it won´t call my class´s methods showDiv or hideDiv.
Anyone?
Thanks :)
The reason why is that startEngine is called from setInterval. The way in which this callback is invoked causes startEngine to have a different value for this than startEffect. You need to save this in order to maintain it in the callback. For example.
Blink.prototype.startEffect = function () {
var self = this;
self.idEffect = setInterval(function () { self.startEngine(); }, 1000 / 45);
};
You need to:
use var self and call the method via self.startEngine()
use an anonymous function to wrap the call in [1] i.e. function(){ self.startEngine(); }
This is because when you just pass this.startEngine or self.startEngine you are just passing the function startEngine without specifying what this is, which in both cases is supplied by the global conext of DOMWindow.
To give an example...
function startEngine() {
...code omitted...
};
Blink.prototype.startEngine = startEngine;
Blink.prototype.start = function() {
setTimeout(startEngine, 0); // obviously wrong, what is this?
setTimeout(Blink.startEngine, 0); // actually the same as line above, although not as obvious
setTimeout(startEngine.bind(this), 0); // works correctly
}
works to add code to the prototype and if used in the anonymous function will work as expected, but if you just use Blink.startEngine as the callback it is exactly the same as using startEngine only the second is more obviously wrong because there's no object it is being called on so you'd expect this to be whatever is supplied by the context.
The other way you could do this without using the anonymous function would be
Blink.startEngine.bind(self)
Which returns a function that will call startEngine with the correct this same as explicitly creating the anonymous function and wrapping the call to self.startEngine()
Heres a link to a fiddle to play around with the differences: http://jsfiddle.net/bonza_labs/MdeTF/
If you do the following, you will find it is defined
var x = new Blink('hello');
x.showDiv_boo
Javascript uses prototypical inheritance. While showDiv_boo may not be explicitly defined within the instance of Blink that you now have, it does exist within the prototype that Blink inherits from. When you try referencing showDiv_boo from within the object, the Javascript engine realizes the object does not own a member by that name and then will check its prototype.
Along with setting a temporal variable to store this, you must call the startEngine() function with that variable:
Blink.prototype.startEffect = function(){
var self = this;
self.idEffect = setInterval(function(){ self.startEngine.call(self); }, 1000/45);
}
Note the .call(self), which basically calls the function with the variable self, so the variable this in startEngine will be the correct one.
Hi guys I am writing some code using the object literal pattern, I have function that returns a value:
'currentLocation': function() {
var cL = 0;
return cL;
},
I then need to update the variable 'cL' from another function like this:
teamStatus.currentLocation() = teamStatus.currentLocation() + teamStatus.scrollDistance();
This part is part of another function - however I get an error back stating: invalid assignment left-hand side
I am guessing I can not update the variable in this way, could anyone suggest a better method or point me in the right direction.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Going to add more code to highlight what I am trying to do:
'currentLocation': function() {
var cL = 0;
return cL;
},
'increaseTable': function() {
if (teamStatus.currentLocation() <= teamStatus.teamStatusTableHeight() ) {
teamStatus.currentLocation = teamStatus.currentLocation() + teamStatus.scrollDistance();
$("#tableTrackActual").animate({scrollTop: (teamStatus.currentLocation)});
$("#tableMembers").animate({scrollTop: (teamStatus.currentLocation) });
//console.log(teamStatus.currentLocation());
teamStatus.buttonRevealer();
}
}
As you can see increaseTable should update the value of currentLocation - help this sheds more light on what I am trying to achieve.
You're writing teamStatus.currentLocation() =, which calls the function teamStatus.currentLocation and tries to assign to the return value. That isn't valid. You want just teamStatus.currentLocation = — no function call.
The variable inside your function is completely private to that function (and any functions defined within it). If you need to create a number of functions that share a set of private variables, you can do that with a closure. For instance:
var Thing = (function() {
var thingWideData;
function getData() {
return thingWideData;
}
function setData(newData) {
thingWideData = newData;
}
return {
getData: getData,
setData: setData
};
})();
What that does is create a Thing object which has getData and setData functions available for it, which get and set the completely private thingWideData variable contained by the anonymous closure. More about this pattern here and here, although the latter of those is more about private methods than private data.
What your code produces is:
0 = 0 + <some number>
Which variable do you want to update? cL? You are declaring it in the function, you cannot assign a value to it from outside. Depending on the rest of your code, you might be better off with getters and setters:
var object = {
_cL = 0,
get currentLocation() {
return this._cL;
},
set currentLocation(value) {
this._cL = value;
}
}
then you can do:
teamStatus.currentLocation = teamStatus.currentLocation + teamStatus.scrollDistance();
Update:
Regarding IE: If currentLocation should actually be just a number, it might be sufficient to just declare it as property:
var obj = {
currentLocation: 0
}