I have the following code example to use an object that receives the action from the callback. Doesn't seem like this is a good design pattern. Or is it?
When setTimeOut() fires on the function after 1 second, it uses the objInstance global variable (DOM scope) to access the ClassExample object instance. Can someone recommend a better way to utilize callbacks within an object oriented design?
The whole idea is so I can use the callback to update data within my object instance (increment a variable for example).
function ClassExample{
this.initiate = function() {
setTimeOut(objInstance.afterTimeOut,1000); //using the objects global handle
}
this.afterTimeOut = function() {
alert("Received!");
}
}
var objInstance = new ClassExample(); //instance
objInstance.initiate();
No, you're not. You'll want to do this:
this.initiate = function() {
setTimeOut(objInstance.afterTimeOut,1000); //using the objects global handle
}
Now, if "afterTimeout" needs the proper object context, you could do this:
this.initiate = function() {
var instance = this;
setTimeout(function() { instance.afterTimeOut(); }, 1000);
}
OK well you changed the question considerably with that little edit :-) If I were you, I'd just do this (like my original second example):
this.initiate = function() {
var instance = this;
setTimeout(function() { instance.afterTimeOut(); }, 1000);
}
Then you don't need any ugly global variables around at all.
edit — Stackoverflow user #Christoph comments that this isn't particularly pretty. One thing that might help would be to use a "bind" facility, as provided by newer browsers natively (as a method on the Function prototype) or by some libraries (Prototype or Functional for example). What "bind" lets you do is create a little wrapper function like I've got above:
this.initiate = function() {
setTimeout(this.afterTimeOut.bind(this), 1000);
}
That call to "bind" returns a function that is effectively the same sort of thing as the little wrapper I coded explicitly in the example.
function ClassExample{
this.afterTimeOut = function() {
alert("Received!");
}; // Don't forget these
setTimeOut(afterTimeOut, 1000); // Don't use () if you're passing the function as an argument
}
var objInstance = new ClassExample(); //instance
That way you don't need the initiate() method.
If you really want the initiate() method, I'd do it like this:
function ClassExample{
var self = this;
self.afterTimeOut = function() {
alert("Received!");
};
self.initiate = function() {
setTimeOut(self.afterTimeOut, 1000);
};
}
var objInstance = new ClassExample(); //instance
objInstance.initiate();
This is how I'd do it to allow timer reuse and minimize the number of closures:
function Timer(timeout, callback) {
this.timeout = timeout;
this.callback = callback;
}
Timer.prototype.run = function(thisArg /*, args... */) {
var argArray = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 1);
var timer = this;
setTimeout(function() {
timer.callback.apply(thisArg, argArray);
}, timer.timeout);
};
var timer = new Timer(1000, alert);
timer.run(null, 'timer fired!');
And just for fun, a golfed version which is functionally equivalent, but replaces the object with a closure:
function delay(func, timeout) {
return function() {
var self = this, args = arguments;
setTimeout(function() { func.apply(self, args); }, timeout);
};
}
delay(alert, 1000).call(null, 'timer fired!');
You are right it is not the optimal way of doing what you are aiming for. however i have to wonder why you need to break the callstack as part of the initiation, it seems very academic.
apart from that if i had to do that, i'd probably use a closure like so:
function ClassExample{
this.initiate = function() {
setTimeOut((function(self) { return function() { self.afterTimeout();}})(this),1000); //using the objects global handle
}
this.afterTimeOut = function() {
alert("Received!");
}
}
var objInstance = new ClassExample(); //instance
objInstance.initiate()
this.initiate = function() {
var instance = this;
setTimeOut(function() {
instance.afterTimeOut();
}, 1000);
};
By saving this to a local variable, you can avoid using the global handle at all. Also this prevent the afterTimeout() from losing it's this.
Building on Znarkus answer...
I really don't know in which environment his code is running but for me the first approach just do not works. I got: 'ReferenceError: afterTimeOut is not defined'...
The second one, nevertheless, is really cool... I just changed setTimeOut for setTimeout (using lowercase 'o') and included parenthesis after the class name definition turning the first line of code into 'function ClassExample(){'; solved my problem.
My snippet of example code:
Oop with private behaviour, intern callback calling and etc.
function MyTry (name){
// keep this object pointer... that's the trick!
var self = this;
// create private variable
var d = new Date()toJSON().slice(0, 10);
// create a private function
function getName(){return name}
// create public access method
self.hello = function(){alert('Hello '+getName()+'!\nToday is: '+d)}
// note instance method hello passed as a callback function!
self.initiate = function(){setTimeout(self.hello, 3000)}
}
Related
I need to edit the function which locates inside of the constructor.
Example:
some.thing = function() {
this.somefn = function() { // this is the function that I need to fix
...
}
}
But function should be edited not just only for a single object (new obj = some.thing();) but also for any created objects by this constructor.
So is there any way to edit such inner-functions?
Here is a solution based on prototype:
var Something = function () {
this.f = function () {
console.log("Something");
};
};
var Old = Something;
var Something = function () {
Old.apply(this);
this.f = function () {
console.log("New");
};
};
Something.prototype = new Old();
var s = new Something();
s.f(); // prints "New"
The solutions seem just a little too obvious, so I'm wondering if the trouble is that you don't have access to the original code, and you need a more dynamic solution.
If so, one option may be to override the constructor with your own constructor, and have it call the original, and then update the object.
Original code:
some.thing = function() {
this.somefn = function() { // this is the function that I need to fix
...
}
}
Your code:
// cache a reference to the original constructor
var _thing = some.thing;
// your constructor
some.thing = function() {
// invoke the original constructor on the new object.
_thing.apply(this, arguments);
this.somefn = function() { /*your updated function*/ };
};
// maintain inheritance
some.thing.prototype = Object.create(some.thing.prototype);
// make an instance
var theThing = new some.thing();
Now you're getting the benefit of the original constructor and prototype chain, but you're injecting your own function on to the objects being created.
Only trouble may be that the original function you replaced could make special use of the original constructor's variable scope. If that's the case, there would be an issue to resolve.
It would be possible to retain and invoke the original method that you overwrote before invoking yours. Not sure if this situation calls for that or not.
I exactly know your need cause last week I passed through it. I just implemented a complete inheritance model in javascript and as far as I remember, I had a problem with overriding constructors and calling the parent class's ctor when child class is initializing.
So I just solved the problem with modifing some points in my design and it's now working like a charm! (something like C# but in Javascript)
By the way, I don't suggest you to change a method contents this way, but here is a way to do that (I myself did not do that this way and AGIAIN I DO NOT RECOMMEND IT. THERE ARE MANY OTHER WAYS, BUT THIS IS THE EASIEST):
var test = function() { /*InjectionPlace*/ };
eval("var newTest = " + test.toString().replace(
"/*InjectionPlace*/",
"var i = 10; alert(i);"
));
test();
newTest();
Cheers
So I came up with something sort of hackish to check and see if a function is called from within the object itself. Can someone give me some good reasons not to do something like this?
function Poo(){
this.myFunc=function(){
for(x in this)
{
if (this.myFunc.caller==this[x]) {
alert(this.myFunc.caller==this[x]);
return;}
}
alert(false);
}
this.myFunc2=function(){this.myFunc();}
}
var mine=new Poo();
mine.myFunc(); //calling directly not allowed prints false
mine.myFunc2(); //called from a member function allowed prints true
You can do whatever you want, however, I can show you a case where you method doesn't work:
function Poo(){
this.myFunc = function () {
for(x in this) {
if (this.myFunc.caller == this[x]) {
console.info('internal call, accepted');
return;
}
}
console.error('no external calls allowed');
};
this.myFunc3 = function () {
var self = this;
// this is a standard way of
// passing functions to callbacks
// (eg, ajax callbacks)
this.myFunc4(function() {
self.myFunc();
});
}
this.myFunc4 = function (callback) {
// do stuff...
callback();
};
}
var mine = new Poo();
mine.myFunc3();
myFunc3 is within the object, so I assume you would expect the call to myFunc in the callback it gives to myFunc4 (also in the object) to work. However, caller doesn't do well with anonymous functions.
Also, iterating through the entire instance methods and attributes while comparing functions is definitely not the "Object Oriented" way of doing it. Since you're trying to emulate private methods, I'm assuming that OO is what you're looking for.
Your method is not taking any advantage of the features JS offers, you're just (re)building existing functionality in an inelegant way. While it may be interesting for learning purposes, I wouldn't recommend using that mindset for shipping production code.
There's another question on stackover that has an answer that you may be interested in:
Why was the arguments.callee.caller property deprecated in JavaScript?
edit: small change on how I call myFunc from the callback, in the anonymous function this was not the instance.
I cant't give you a good reason not to do this, but a lot easier solution.
function Poo() {
var myFunc = function() {
alert('myfunc');
};
this.myFunc2 = function() {
myFunc();
}
}
var mine = new Poo();
var mine.myFunc(); // Won't work
var mine.myFunc2(); // Will work
Why not use something like the module pattern to hide the implementation of your "private" methods.
var poo = function(){
var my = {},
that = {};
my.poo = function() {
// stuff
};
that.foo = function(){
my.poo(); //works
// more stuff
};
return that;
};
poo.foo(); // works
poo.poo(); // error
Does anyone know of a way to get around declaring var self = this when using JavaScript in an OO fashion? I see it quite often and was curious if its just something you have to do, or if there really is a way (perhaps a class library?) that lets you get around it? I do realize why it is necessary (this has function scope). But you never know what clever ways may be out there..
For example, I usually code my "classes" like this in JS:
function MyClass() {
}
MyClass.prototype = {
firstFunction: function() {
var self = this;
$.ajax({
...
success: function() {
self.someFunctionCall();
}
});
},
secondFunction: function() {
var self = this;
window.setTimeout(function() {
self.someOtherFunction();
}, 1000);
}
};
In your first function you can do this...
$.ajax({
context: this,
success: function() {
this.someFunctionCall();
}
});
In the second one, you can do this, though you'll need to shim .bind() in older browsers...
window.setTimeout(function() {
this.someOtherFunction();
}.bind(this), 1000);
With jQuery, you could also do this...
window.setTimeout($.proxy(function() {
this.someOtherFunction();
}, this), 1000);
No, you need to do this if you want to refer to this in a different context (such as a callback) since otherwise it will be reassigned to another object such as window.
By the way, self is a python convention - in JavaScript people generally use the convention that = this. But it is just a matter of personal taste.
ES5 added the standard method called bind which allows you to bind the this of a function as well as the first n number of parameters. In the example above, you can avoid using self by calling bind.
$.ajax({
...
success: function() {
this.someFunctionCall();
}.bind(this);
});
For non-ES5 browsers you can use a shim for it such as the one found here: https://github.com/kriskowal/es5-shim
As an asside, I would avoid using self in your coding pattern because self is defined as a global variable that is equal to window which is the global scope. In other words, if you accidentally forget to define self you will silently get the global scope as the value instead of an exception. If you use that instead, you will get an exception (unless someone above you defined it).
Some javascript frameworks have their own event handling mechanisms that allow you to set context for the handler function. This way, instead of using self = this, you can simply specify this as the context.
Other possibility that comes to my mind is to pass the context in somewhere in global scope. Like
function MyClass() {
MyClass.instances.push(this);
}
MyClass.instances = new Array();
MyClass.getInstanceBySomeRelevantParameter = function(param) {
for (var i = 0; i < MyClass.instances.length; i++)
if (condition(param))
return MyClass.instances[i];
}
...
success: function(event) {
MyClass.getInstanceBySomeRelevantParameter(event).someFunctionCall();
}
You may always bind your methods to this and then use it as follows:
function MyClass() {
}
MyClass.prototype = {
firstFunction: function() {
var funct = someFunctionCall.bind(this);
$.ajax({
...
success: function() {
funct();
}
});
},
secondFunction: function() {
var funct = someOtherFunction.bind(this);
window.setTimeout(function() {
funct();
}, 1000);
}
};
For properties just assign them to another variable.
I fooled around on JSFiddle, and came up with the below. It does assume that you are using a top level namespace. This makes it so you only need to declare self once (at the bottom). I wrapped the class in an anonymous function so self wouldn't have a global scope. The fiddle is: http://jsfiddle.net/bdicasa/yu4vs/
var App = {};
(function() {
App.MyClass = function() { }
App.MyClass.prototype = {
firstFunction: function() {
console.log('in first function');
console.log(self === this); // true
},
secondFunction: function() {
window.setTimeout(function() {
self.firstFunction();
console.log(self === this); // false
}, 100);
}
};
var self = App.MyClass.prototype;
})();
var myClass = new App.MyClass();
myClass.secondFunction();
I'm wondering if any of yall have any insight as to how one could execute a function by reference in javascript.
http://mootools.net/shell/yL93N/1/
Any discussion would be cool.
-Chase
looking at your mooshell, the way i'd handle it in mootools is this:
http://mootools.net/shell/yL93N/10/
var proxyFunction = new Class({
message: "hello",
Binds: ['passByReference','sayit'],
passByReference: function(func) {
// console.log(this, this[func]);
if (this[func] && $type(this[func]) === "function")
this[func]();
},
sayit: function() {
alert(this.message);
},
killit: function() {
document.write('we\'re dead');
}
});
$('tryit').addEvent('change',function(e){
new proxyFunction().passByReference(this.get('value'));
});
// or have a permanent proxy instance if you call methods of the class often and need it to change things.
var proxy = new proxyFunction();
$('tryit').addEvent('change',function(e){
proxy.passByReference(this.get('value'));
});
the advantage of doing so is that all your proxied functions are behind a common object, don't pollute your window namespace as global variables and can share data that relates to the event.
Not exactly sure what you mean, but you can do this:
var func = window.alert;
var args = ["hello world"]
func.apply(window, args)
Globally-defined functions (and variables) are visible as members of the global window object.
Members of an object can be fetched by name using the square bracket notation: o['k'] is the same as o.k. So, for your example:
var function_name= $(this).val();
window[function_name]();
Like this?
function blah() {
...do stuff
}
myref = blah
myref()
The best way is to do:
func.call();
Function variables in JavaScript already are references. If you have a function:
var explode = function() { alert('boom!'); };
You can pass explode around as an argument, and it's only passing a handle to that function, not the entire function body.
For proof of this, try:
explode.id = 5;
var detonate = explode;
alert(detonate.id); // => 5
explode.id = 6;
alert(detonate.id); // => 6
functions are first class objects in Java Script. Effectively this means that you can treat it very much as if it were a variable, and pass it anywhere that you would expect a variable.
e.g.
var myFn = function() { alert('inside anonymous fn'); }
function callMyFn(paramFn)
{
paramFn();
}
callMyFn(myFn); //inside anonymous fn
function MyFnHolders(argFn)
{
this.argFn = argFn;
this.fieldFn = function() {
alert('inside fn field');
}
}
var myFnHolders = new MyFnHolders(myFn);
myFnHolders.argFn(); //'inside anonymous fn'
myFnHolders.fieldFn(); //'inside fn field'
//etc
so passing a function by ref can be done simply by assigning it to a variable and passing it around.
Here's one with a closure for your arguments...
function Runner(func, args) {
return function() { return func.apply(window, args); };
}
var ref = new Runner(window.alert, ["hello world"]);
ref();
I have this class where I am using a combination of jQuery and Prototype:
var MyClass = Class.create({
initElements: function(sumEl) {
this.sumEl = sumEl;
sumEl.keyup(this.updateSumHandler);
},
updateSumHandler: function(event) {
// Throws error here: "this.updateSum is not a function"
this.updateSum();
},
updateSum: function() {
// does something here
}
});
How can I call this.updateSum() after all?
You need to use closures.
initElements: function(sumEl) {
this.sumEl = sumEl;
var ref = this;
sumEl.keyup( function(){ref.updateSumHandler();});
},
Totally untested suggestion:
sumEl.keyup(this.updateSumHandler.bind(this));
.bind() gives back a new function where the first parameter of bind is closured for you as the function's this context.
It can also closure parameters, check out the documentation.
To me, Function.bind() is the single best function ever written in JavaScript :)
DOMEvent handlers are traditionally called with the elements they're registered to as context / "this". This is what jQuery does, too.
The easiest option for you would be to use jQuery's ability to handle event data
var MyClass = Class.create({
initElements: function(sumEl) {
this.sumEl = sumEl;
sumEl.bind("keyup", this, this.updateSumHandler);
},
updateSumHandler: function(event) {
// event.data is the initial this
// call updateSum with correct context
event.data.updateSum.call(event.data);
},
updateSum: function() {
// does something here
}
});
The other possibility is to use closures to define the updateHandler inside the constructor
var MyClass = Class.create({
initElements: function(sumEl) {
this.sumEl = sumEl;
// save this as that so we can access it from the anonymous function
var that = this;
sumEl.keyup(function()
{
that.updateSum();
});
},
updateSum: function() {
// does something here
}
});
This is a working example what one of the other answers tried to do. It works because the anonymous function can always access the variables in the surrounding function -- but it only works if the function is really defined in the function that has "that" as local variable.
It is the famous Javascript idiom you need to use in initElements function:
var that = this;
Later in your handler just refer to that instead of this:
var MyClass = Class.create({
initElements: function(sumEl) {
this.sumEl = sumEl;
var that = this;
sumEl.keyup(this.updateSumHandler);
},
updateSumHandler: function(event) {
that.updateSum();
},
updateSum: function() {
// does something here
}
});
It was covered in great detail in talk by Stuart Langridge on Javascript closures at Fronteers 2008 conference.