We Keep Coding

Getter functions

I've peeked into many plugins' code (for educational purposes) and basically every one of them (which deals with prototypes), has bunch of functions like this:
myMarker.prototype.getPosition = function() {
return this.latlng;
};
//OR
myMarker.prototype.getObject = function() {
return this;
};
What's the reason behind this?
Why not just to use someObject.latlng instead of someObject.getPosition()?

One common reason for doing this is to avoid coupling the object's internal data storage to the API; in this example you could change the way the position is stored internally, and then add some processing to getPosition() to return a backwards compatible result.
For example, version 1.1 of this library might look like this, and calling code wouldn't need to be changed:
myMarker.prototype.getPosition = function() {
return this.latitude + this.longitude;
};
It is possible to accomplish this using computed properties with ES5 get and set, but only if the code doesn't need to run on Internet Explorer 8 and below.

When you say like this.
myMarker.prototype.getPosition = function() {
return this.latlng;
};
You are defining function getPosition which available to all instance to class myMarker.
So,all object of this class share this method without replication.
For someObject.latlng,there is nothing wrong.
But assume, this object is accessible to all which are in the current scope.So,it can be modified/accessible to anyone.
When you go through prototype you are trying to define some pattern,which gives restriction for access and modification of property

Firefox add-on: function not available after juggling scopes

As of Firefox 36, Function.__exposedProps__ was made unavailable. Instead if one wanted to expose a chrome JS object to be used in content scripts, they have to use Components.utils.cloneInto with the target scope as browser.contentWindow.wrappedJSObject.
If one does not turn on the cloneFunctions flag, only those attributes are cloned that are not functions. Turning the flag does clone functions too, but not those functions that are defined via the Function.prototype path. For those functions one has to export them via Components.utils.exportTo with the target scope as your exposed object.
Coming to the issue I'm facing. (As I am unable to put it in words, I am adding a MWE).
Chrome end JS:
function Foo(){
this._nFunc = "something";
this._func = function(){/*do something*/};
}
Foo.prototype.Bar = function(){
this._func();
}
Foo.prototype.FooBar = function(){
this._nFunc = "somthing else";
}
var myFoo = new Foo();
var targetScope = browser.contentWindow.wrappedJSObject;
targetScope.myExposedObject = Components.utils.cloneInto(myFoo, targetScope, {cloneFunctions:true});
Components.utils.exportFunction(myFoo.Bar, targetScope.myExposedObject , {defineAs:"Bar"});
Components.utils.exportFunction(myFoo.FooBar, targetScope.myExposedObject , {defineAs:"FooBar"});
Content end JS:
window.myExposedObject.FooBar(); // works
window.myExposedObject._func(); // works
window.myExposedObject.Bar() // error this._func is undefined
Upon logging the this scope received by the function Bar(), we get _func:(void 0), while _nFunc is logged correctly.
Questions:
Is there something I'm missing, or is this a limitation in Firefox? If it is a limitation, please suggest possible ways to workaround the limitation.
Initially I thought that Bar() was somehow unable to access the scope of the calling object, and I tried to supply it the scope as parameters, i.e., Foo.prototype.Bar = function(scope){ scope._func();} and window.myExposedObject.Bar(window.myExposedObject);. Interestingly upon logging, the scope object also turned out to be (void 0). Why is that? I am sure that I am missing something here. What I expected was that the exposed object would map to the original object and upon sending the exposed object as parameters the chrome end JS would be able to get the original object.

While what you're trying to do might be possible with the right combination of cloneInto/exportFunction and waiving of xrays i would suggest you simply load the unprivileged part of your class hierarchy directly into the target context with the subscript loader and only hook the minimal amount of privileged functions into the prototype once it has been created.
This should reduce the attack surface and also avoid headaches with inheritance.
Additionally, these may prove useful:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Components.utils.createObjectIn
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Components.utils.makeObjectPropsNormal

Protecting a Global Javascript "API" Object

I currently have a Web Application that runs off a global Javascript-based API, and it is initialized like this:
var Api = {
someVar: "test",
someFunction: function() {
return "foo";
}
}
This API is shared across many "Widgets" that live in the Web Application, and they should all run off this single Api instance so they can pass data to each other.
AJAX is currently used to load these Widgets, for example in widgets/mywidget.html, and it's placed in, say, <div id='widget_<random number>'>...</div>
Certain other parts of the code may choose to add more functionality to Api, and it's currently done like this:
Api.myExtension = {
myNewFunction: function() {
return "bar";
}
}
However, some issues arise from this kind of usage:
Problem One: What if one Widget (these may be provided by third-parties) decides to hide some code within, and does something similar to Api = {}, destroying the global Api var everything lives on, and breaking the whole Application? Is it possible to protect this Api variable from being overwritten from outside? Only "extending" is allowed (adding new things), but "removing/changing" is not allowed. i.e.:
Api.foo = { test: "bar" } // allowed
Api.someVar = "changing the existing someVar"; // not allowed
The following code is located "inside" Api, for example:
var Api = {
Debug: {
Messages = new Array,
Write: function() {
Api.Debug.Messages.push("test"); // allowed
}
}
}
Api.Debug.Messages.push("test 2"); // not allowed
Probable Solutions I've Thought Of:
Suppose we simply use frames to resolve this issue. The Apis provided are now separate from each other. However, there's additional overhead when loading Api again and again if I have many Widgets running, and they can no longer communicate with the "Host" of the widgets (the page where frames reside in), for example, I may want to tell the host to show a notification: Api.Notify.Show("Test"), but it cannot do so because this Api is completely independent from other instances, and it cannot communicate with the "Host"
Using something like a "getter" and "setter" function for the Api to be read and written. I'm unsure on how to implement this, so any help on directions on how to implement this is welcome!
A mixture of 1/2?

There's no good way to prevent having a "third party" widget overwrite the a global variable. Generally it is the responsibility of whoever is putting together the final application to ensure that whatever JavaScripts they are using aren't littering the global namespace and conflicting. The best thing you can do in that direction is give your "Api" a nice, unique name.
What I think can help you a lot is something like the "revealing pattern", which would be a way of doing the "getters and setters" you mentioned, plus more if you needed it.
A simple, useless example would be like the following:
var Api = (function () {
// private variable
var myArray = [];
return {
addItem: function (newItem) {
myArray.push(newItem);
},
printItems: function () {
console.log("lots if items");
}
};
})();
Api.addItem("Hello, world");
Api.extensionValue = 5;
I think you should make a clear delineation of what is shared, or "singleton" data, and keep those items private, as with myArray in my example.

Make it a constant:
const Api = "hi";
Api = 0;
alert(Api); //"hi"

Take a look at
Object.freeze
More info here
Here is a code example from Mozilla's page:
var obj = {
prop: function (){},
foo: "bar"
};
// New properties may be added, existing properties may be changed or removed
obj.foo = "baz";
obj.lumpy = "woof";
delete obj.prop;
var o = Object.freeze(obj);
assert(Object.isFrozen(obj) === true);
// Now any changes will fail
obj.foo = "quux"; // silently does nothing
obj.quaxxor = "the friendly duck"; // silently doesn't add the property
// ...and in strict mode such attempts will throw TypeErrors
function fail(){
"use strict";
obj.foo = "sparky"; // throws a TypeError
delete obj.quaxxor; // throws a TypeError
obj.sparky = "arf"; // throws a TypeError
}
fail();
// Attempted changes through Object.defineProperty will also throw
Object.defineProperty(obj, "ohai", { value: 17 }); // throws a TypeError
Object.defineProperty(obj, "foo", { value: "eit" }); // throws a TypeError
However browser support is still partial
EDIT: see Kernel James's answer, it's more relevant to your question (freeze will protect the object, but not protect reassigning it. however const will) same issue with limited browser support though.

The only way (at least that I can think of) to protect your global variable is to prevent the Widgets from having a direct access to it. This can be achieved by using frames functions, as you suggested. You should create an object that contains all the functions that the Widgets should be able to use, and pass such to each Widget. For example:
var Api = {
widgetApi = {
someFunction: function(){
// ...
}
},
addWidget:function(){
var temp = this.widgetApi.constructor();
for(var key in this.widgetApi)
temp[key] = clone(this.widgetApi[key]);
return temp;
}
// Include other variables that Widgets can't use
}
This way, the Widgets could execute functions and communicate with the host or global variable Api. To set variables, the Widget would be editing its private object, rather than the global one. For every frame (that represents a Widget), you must initialize or create a copy of the widgetApi object, and probably store it inside an array, in such a way that an instance of a Widget is stored in the main Api object.
For example, given <iframe id="widget"></iframe>
You would do the following:
var widget = document.getElementById("widget");
widget.contentWindow.Api = Api.addWidget();
widget.contentWindow.parent = null;
widget.contentWindow.top = null;
Additionally, in every frame you would need to set the parent and top variables to null so that the Widgets wouldn't be able to access the data of the main frame. I haven't tested this method in a while, so there might be ways to get around setting those variables to null.

Does Javascript have something like Ruby's method_missing feature?

In Ruby I think you can call a method that hasn't been defined and yet capture the name of the method called and do processing of this method at runtime.
Can Javascript do the same kind of thing ?

method_missing does not fit well with JavaScript for the same reason it does not exist in Python: in both languages, methods are just attributes that happen to be functions; and objects often have public attributes that are not callable. Contrast with Ruby, where the public interface of an object is 100% methods.
What is needed in JavaScript is a hook to catch access to missing attributes, whether they are methods or not. Python has it: see the __getattr__ special method.
The __noSuchMethod__ proposal by Mozilla introduced yet another inconsistency in a language riddled with them.
The way forward for JavaScript is the Proxy mechanism (also in ECMAscript Harmony), which is closer to the Python protocol for customizing attribute access than to Ruby's method_missing.

The ruby feature that you are explaining is called "method_missing" http://rubylearning.com/satishtalim/ruby_method_missing.htm.
It's a brand new feature that is present only in some browsers like Firefox (in the spider monkey Javascript engine). In SpiderMonkey it's called "__noSuchMethod__" https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/NoSuchMethod
Please read this article from Yehuda Katz http://yehudakatz.com/2008/08/18/method_missing-in-javascript/ for more details about the upcoming implementation.

Not at the moment, no. There is a proposal for ECMAScript Harmony, called proxies, which implements a similar (actually, much more powerful) feature, but ECMAScript Harmony isn't out yet and probably won't be for a couple of years.

You can use the Proxy class.
var myObj = {
someAttr: 'foo'
};
var p = new Proxy(myObj, {
get: function (target, methodOrAttributeName) {
// target is the first argument passed into new Proxy, aka. target is myObj
// First give the target a chance to handle it
if (Object.keys(target).indexOf(methodOrAttributeName) !== -1) {
return target[methodOrAttributeName];
}
// If the target did not have the method/attribute return whatever we want
// Explicitly handle certain cases
if (methodOrAttributeName === 'specialPants') {
return 'trousers';
}
// return our generic method_missing function
return function () {
// Use the special "arguments" object to access a variable number arguments
return 'For show, myObj.someAttr="' + target.someAttr + '" and "'
+ methodOrAttributeName + '" called with: ['
+ Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments).join(',') + ']';
}
}
});
console.log(p.specialPants);
// outputs: trousers
console.log(p.unknownMethod('hi', 'bye', 'ok'));
// outputs:
// For show, myObj.someAttr="foo" and "unknownMethod" called with: [hi,bye,ok]
About
You would use p in place of myObj.
You should be careful with get because it intercepts all attribute requests of p. So, p.specialPants() would result in an error because specialPants returns a string and not a function.
What's really going on with unknownMethod is equivalent to the following:
var unk = p.unkownMethod;
unk('hi', 'bye', 'ok');
This works because functions are objects in javascript.
Bonus
If you know the number of arguments you expect, you can declare them as normal in the returned function.
eg:
...
get: function (target, name) {
return function(expectedArg1, expectedArg2) {
...

I've created a library for javascript that let you use method_missing in javascript: https://github.com/ramadis/unmiss
It uses ES6 Proxies to work. Here is an example using ES6 Class inheritance. However you can also use decorators to achieve the same results.
import { MethodMissingClass } from 'unmiss'
class Example extends MethodMissingClass {
methodMissing(name, ...args) {
console.log(`Method ${name} was called with arguments: ${args.join(' ')}`);
}
}
const instance = new Example;
instance.what('is', 'this');
> Method what was called with arguments: is this

No, there is no metaprogramming capability in javascript directly analogous to ruby's method_missing hook. The interpreter simply raises an Error which the calling code can catch but cannot be detected by the object being accessed. There are some answers here about defining functions at run time, but that's not the same thing. You can do lots of metaprogramming, changing specific instances of objects, defining functions, doing functional things like memoizing and decorators. But there's no dynamic metaprogramming of missing functions as there is in ruby or python.

I came to this question because I was looking for a way to fall through to another object if the method wasn't present on the first object. It's not quite as flexible as what your asking - for instance if a method is missing from both then it will fail.
I was thinking of doing this for a little library I've got that helps configure extjs objects in a way that also makes them more testable. I had seperate calls to actually get hold of the objects for interaction and thought this might be a nice way of sticking those calls together by effectively returning an augmented type
I can think of two ways of doing this:
Prototypes
You can do this using prototypes - as stuff falls through to the prototype if it isn't on the actual object. It seems like this wouldn't work if the set of functions you want drop through to use the this keyword - obviously your object wont know or care about stuff that the other one knows about.
If its all your own code and you aren't using this and constructors ... which is a good idea for lots of reasons then you can do it like this:
var makeHorse = function () {
var neigh = "neigh";
return {
doTheNoise: function () {
return neigh + " is all im saying"
},
setNeigh: function (newNoise) {
neigh = newNoise;
}
}
};
var createSomething = function (fallThrough) {
var constructor = function () {};
constructor.prototype = fallThrough;
var instance = new constructor();
instance.someMethod = function () {
console.log("aaaaa");
};
instance.callTheOther = function () {
var theNoise = instance.doTheNoise();
console.log(theNoise);
};
return instance;
};
var firstHorse = makeHorse();
var secondHorse = makeHorse();
secondHorse.setNeigh("mooo");
var firstWrapper = createSomething(firstHorse);
var secondWrapper = createSomething(secondHorse);
var nothingWrapper = createSomething();
firstWrapper.someMethod();
firstWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(firstWrapper.doTheNoise());
secondWrapper.someMethod();
secondWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(secondWrapper.doTheNoise());
nothingWrapper.someMethod();
//this call fails as we dont have this method on the fall through object (which is undefined)
console.log(nothingWrapper.doTheNoise());
This doesn't work for my use case as the extjs guys have not only mistakenly used 'this' they've also built a whole crazy classical inheritance type system on the principal of using prototypes and 'this'.
This is actually the first time I've used prototypes/constructors and I was slightly baffled that you can't just set the prototype - you also have to use a constructor. There is a magic field in objects (at least in firefox) call __proto which is basically the real prototype. it seems the actual prototype field is only used at construction time... how confusing!
Copying methods
This method is probably more expensive but seems more elegant to me and will also work on code that is using this (eg so you can use it to wrap library objects). It will also work on stuff written using the functional/closure style aswell - I've just illustrated it with this/constructors to show it works with stuff like that.
Here's the mods:
//this is now a constructor
var MakeHorse = function () {
this.neigh = "neigh";
};
MakeHorse.prototype.doTheNoise = function () {
return this.neigh + " is all im saying"
};
MakeHorse.prototype.setNeigh = function (newNoise) {
this.neigh = newNoise;
};
var createSomething = function (fallThrough) {
var instance = {
someMethod : function () {
console.log("aaaaa");
},
callTheOther : function () {
//note this has had to change to directly call the fallThrough object
var theNoise = fallThrough.doTheNoise();
console.log(theNoise);
}
};
//copy stuff over but not if it already exists
for (var propertyName in fallThrough)
if (!instance.hasOwnProperty(propertyName))
instance[propertyName] = fallThrough[propertyName];
return instance;
};
var firstHorse = new MakeHorse();
var secondHorse = new MakeHorse();
secondHorse.setNeigh("mooo");
var firstWrapper = createSomething(firstHorse);
var secondWrapper = createSomething(secondHorse);
var nothingWrapper = createSomething();
firstWrapper.someMethod();
firstWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(firstWrapper.doTheNoise());
secondWrapper.someMethod();
secondWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(secondWrapper.doTheNoise());
nothingWrapper.someMethod();
//this call fails as we dont have this method on the fall through object (which is undefined)
console.log(nothingWrapper.doTheNoise());
I was actually anticipating having to use bind in there somewhere but it appears not to be necessary.

Not to my knowledge, but you can simulate it by initializing the function to null at first and then replacing the implementation later.
var foo = null;
var bar = function() { alert(foo()); } // Appear to use foo before definition
// ...
foo = function() { return "ABC"; } /* Define the function */
bar(); /* Alert box pops up with "ABC" */
This trick is similar to a C# trick for implementing recursive lambdas, as described here.
The only downside is that if you do use foo before it's defined, you'll get an error for trying to call null as though it were a function, rather than a more descriptive error message. But you would expect to get some error message for using a function before it's defined.

Javascript: How do I retain a reference to a request initiator in a handler?

I'm not a Javascript person normally, but I've been diving in, reading Douglas Crockford's book, and writing some trivial, useful tidbits as Chrome extensions and Node.js (note that this question isn't about either of them).
Right now, I'm trying to figure out how to retain a reference to an object that's initiating an AJAX request, that is: once I set the onload event handler (this is from inside a Chrome extension, so I'm using the base XMLHttpRequest object), is there any way that I can refer back to MyObject in the following example:
MyObject.prototype = {
PerformAction: function() {
this.Request = new XMLHttpRequest();
this.Request.open("GET", this.ConstructUrl(), true);
// From within ActionResultHandler, 'this' will always be the XMLHttpRequest
this.Request.onload = this.ActionResultHandler,
this.Request.send(null);
}
}
Doing this exactly is going to assign this to be the request object itself, and if I simply introduce a wrapper:
this.Request.onload = function() { ActionResultHandler() };
well, that just isn't going to do anything, because the ActionResultHandler is now out of scope. The reason I'm asking here is because I've only found trivial cases of caller manipulation (e.g. manipulating what this refers to from inside a function), but given that OO-ified Javascript and AJAX are literally everywhere, this has to have to be a known, simple issue, but my Google-fu is failing me here. In C#, events are invoked in the context of whoever attaches to them, not the object firing the event, so this doesn't come up on a daily basis. Perhaps there's a much better JS pattern that avoids this issue entirely?

It's not really clear to me which variable you want to hold a reference to. Here's how you would retain a reference to MyObject in your onload handler:
MyObject.prototype = {
PerformAction: function() {
var MyObjectRef = MyObject,
ActionResultHandler = this.ActionResultHandler;
this.Request = new XMLHttpRequest();
this.Request.open("GET", this.ConstructUrl(), true);
// From within ActionResultHandler, 'this' will always be the XMLHttpRequest
this.Request.onload = function () {
ActionResultHandler.apply(MyObjectRef, arguments);
};
this.Request.send(null);
}
}
Edited
Ok, I reread your question again and it seems that you want to execute ActionResultHandler in the context of MyObject, so I tweaked my code to do this.

Have you tried...
this.Request.onload = this.ActionResultHandler.apply(this);
I'm thinking that's what you're looking for (sorry if it's not). Using .apply(this) will point ActionResultHandler to Object.
Check out this article on binding while you're at it! It helped me out a lot.