We Keep Coding

Constructor function - in simple namespace - Javascript

In want to define a function-constructor inside a namespace. The way in which I defined the constructor till now was a simple constructor function without NS, combined with prototypal inheritance.
The code looked kind of like:
function mySuperObject() {
var self = this;
self.p1 = "";
self.p2 = "jkejie";
// and others
}
mySuperObject.prototype.func1 = function(){...}
// and others
Introducing namespace:
After reading many articles I decided to start up with a very simple way to define a namespace, maybe the most simplest.
Basically it is just about defining a variable which points to an object-literal and the content is the object (the "mySuperObject" in the code-snippet above). The constructor function is following: mySuperObjectInNS.
The code of the object:
var MYNAMESPACE = {
//some variable outside the object
file : "ConstructorInNamespace_obj.js: ",
//Defining contructor function inside a namespace
mySuperObjectInNS : function(propOne, propTwo){
var self = this;
self.objectName = "mySuperObject";
self.propertyOne = propOne;
self.propertyTwo = propTwo;
self.doSomething = function(){
console.log(file + " doSomething called - function of object");
};
///many more functions and attributes
}
}
MYNAMESPACE.mySuperObjectInNS.prototype.specialFunction = function(){
console.log(file + " specialFunction called - prototypical inheritance defined in file of object, outside of namespace");
};
///many more functions and attributes
In another file it is possible to intantiate the object, as follows:
...
var objOne = new MYNAMESPACE.mySuperObjectInNS("param11", "40");
//following line works just fine
objOne.doSomething();
....
Questions:
It seems to me that this all is about defining an Object-Literal and
I will come into trouble the latest I am trying to define "private"
properties of that object. Is this correct?
Is that mySuperObjectInNS still a constructor function? (For me it
seems it is something else,even if I can intantiate objects from it.
Is is a very bad very bad way of namespacing or is kind of ok?

It seems to me that this all is about defining an Object-Literal and I will come into trouble the latest I am trying to define "private" properties of that object. Is this correct?
"Private properties" have nothing to do with using an object for namespacing. In fact, originally when answering this question, I read that as "private functions" because that would be relevant.
There are lots of ways to do private and semi-private properties in JavaScript, but they relate to how you create the constructor function and the methods it gives the object, not how you expose the constructor function. "Namespace" objects are about how you expose the constructor.
One common pattern for creating "private" properties is to define methods that need to access them within the constructor, and make the "properties" local variables within the constructor (so they aren't really properties at all), like this:
function SuperObject() {
var privateInformation;
this.method = function() {
// This can access `privateInformation`, which is completely
// hidden from outside the constructor
};
}
It doesn't matter at all if you do that within a "namespacing" pattern or on its own.
Private functions, on the other hand, affect the pattern. I'll show both below.
A fairly common variant that provides for private functions is to use a function to create the object, which also gives you the opportunity to create private functions:
var TheNamespace = function() {
function privateFunction() {
}
function SuperObject() {
var privateInformation;
this.method = function() {
// This can access `privateInformation`, which is completely
// hidden from outside the constructor
};
}
SuperObject.prototype.otherMethod = function() {
// Can't access `privateInformation`, but has the advantage
// that the function is shared between instances
};
return {
SuperObject: SuperObject
};
}();
// usage
var s = new TheNamespace.SuperObject();
Is that mySuperObjectInNS still a constructor function? (For me it seems it is something else,even if I can intantiate objects from it.
Yes. A constructor function is any function that expect you to use new with it.
Is is a very bad very bad way of namespacing or is kind of ok?
Using objects as pseudo-namespaces is common practice. You might also consider various asynchronous module definition (AMD) technologies, which largely make "namespace" objects largely unnecessary.
Re your comment:
You defined a self-invoking function....which returns an an object?
It's not a self-invoking function, it's an inline-invoked function, but yes, it's a function that returns an object.
(if so I think parantheses are missing)
No, we don't need any parens that aren't there because the only reason for the outer parens other places you've seen this are to tell the parser that the word function starts an expression rather than declaration; we don't need that in the above because we're already on the right-hand side of an assignment, so there's no ambiguity when function is encountered.
Due to you proposed this way, is it a better way to define the ns?
"Better" is a subjective term. It gives you a scope in which you can define private functions, which you'd asked about.
Whereas I often also saw the option: var = {} | someNSName; What is this all about?
If you have several files that will add things to the "namespace" (as is common), then you frequently see this in each of them:
var TheNamespace = TheNamespace || {};
What that does is declare the variable if it hasn't been declared before, and assign an empty object to it if it doesn't already have one. In the first file that gets loaded, this happens:
The var is processed and creates a new variable, TheNamespace, with the value undefined.
The TheNameSpace = TheNameSpace || {} assignment is processed: Since undefined is falsey, the curiously-powerful || operator results in the new {}, which gets assigned to TheNamespace.
When the next file loads, this happens:
The var is a no-op, because the variable already exists.
The TheNameSpace = TheNameSpace || {} assignment is processed: Since TheNamespace has a non-null object reference, it's truthy, and the curiously-powerful || operator results in a reference to the object TheNamespace refers to.
That is, it has no effect at all.
This is used so you can load the files in any order, or load just one file in isolation.
Here's an example:
thingy.js:
var TheNamespace = TheNamespace || {};
TheNamespace.Nifty = function() {
function privateFunction() {
}
function Nifty() {
var privateInformation;
this.method = function() {
// Can access `privateInformation` here
};
}
Nifty.prototype.otherMethod = function() {
// ...
};
return Nifty;
}();
thingy.js:
var TheNamespace = TheNamespace || {};
TheNamespace.Thingy = function() {
function privateFunction() {
}
function Thingy() {
var privateInformation;
this.method = function() {
// Can access `privateInformation` here
};
}
Thingy.prototype.otherMethod = function() {
// ...
};
return Thingy;
}();
There are lots of variations on that basic pattern, particularly if one file may add multiple things to TheNamespace. Here's one that supports doing so fairly concisely:
var TheNamespace = function(exports) {
function privateFunction() {
}
function Nifty() {
var privateInformation;
this.method = function() {
// Can access `privateInformation` here
};
}
Nifty.prototype.otherMethod = function() {
// ...
};
exports.Nifty = Nifty;
function Thingy() {
var privateInformation;
this.method = function() {
// Can access `privateInformation` here
};
}
Thingy.prototype.otherMethod = function() {
// ...
};
exports.Thingy = Thingy;
}(TheNamespace || {});

How to change function inside constructor in JavaScript?

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

Using tricks to enforce private inheritance in javascript

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

Using RequireJS, how do I pass in global objects or singletons around?

Let's say I am writing code at the main page level and 2 dependencies require the same instance of an object and also state that as a dependency. What is the appropriate way to go about this?
Basically what I want to do is say, "If this dependency isn't loaded... then load it. Otherwise, use the same instance that was already loaded and just pass that one."

You would make that a module-level variable. For example,
// In foo.js
define(function () {
var theFoo = {};
return {
getTheFoo: function () { return theFoo; }
};
});
// In bar.js
define(["./foo"], function (foo) {
var theFoo = foo.getTheFoo(); // save in convenience variable
return {
setBarOnFoo: function () { theFoo.bar = "hello"; }
};
}
// In baz.js
define(["./foo"], function (foo) {
// Or use directly.
return {
setBazOnFoo: function () { foo.getTheFoo().baz = "goodbye"; }
};
}
// In any other file
define(["./foo", "./bar", "./baz"], function (foo, bar, baz) {
bar.setBarOnFoo();
baz.setBazOnFoo();
assert(foo.getTheFoo().bar === "hello");
assert(foo.getTheFoo().baz === "goodbye");
};

Just provide an API for your singleton as you would.
And make sure its lazily loaded. The easiest way is to use an abstraction library like underscore that supplies cross browser helpers. Other options are ES5 Object.defineProperty or custom getter/setters.
In this case _.once ensures that constructor's result is cached after the first call, it basically lazy loads it.
define(function() {
var constructor = _.once(function() {
...
});
return {
doStuffWithSingleton: function() {
constructor().doStuff();
}
};
});
_.once from underscore.

Combining Raynos's concerns about encapsulation with the OP's clarification that he wants to expose a couple of methods on a messaging service, this is I think the right way to go about it:
// In messagingServiceSingleton.js
define(function () {
var messagingService = new MessagingService();
return {
notify: messagingService.listen.bind(messagingService),
listen: messagingService.notify.bind(messagingService)
};
});
// In bar.js
define(["./messagingServiceSingleton"], function (messagingServiceSingleton) {
messagingServiceSingleton.listen(/* whatever */);
}
// In baz.js
define(["./messagingServiceSingleton"], function (messagingServiceSingleton) {
messagingServiceSingleton.notify(/* whatever */);
}
Function.prototype.bind will not be present in all browsers, so you would need to include a polyfill like the one Mozilla provides.
An alternate (and in my opinion probably better) approach would be to make the messaging service object itself a module. This would look something like
// In messagingService.js
define(function () {
var listenerMap = {};
function listen(/* params */) {
// Modify listenerMap as appropriate according to params.
}
function notify(/* params */) {
// Use listenerMap as appropriate according to params.
}
return {
notify: notify
listen: listen
};
});
Since you expose the same notify and listen methods to everyone who uses your module, and those always refer to the same private listenerMap variable, this should do what you want. It also obviates the need for Function.prototype.bind, and gets rid of the rather-unnecessary distinction between the messaging service itself and the module which enforces singleton usage of it.

Here's a version where the module itself is the shared variable instead of a variable within that module.
define('foo', [], {bar: "this text will be overwritten"});
define('bar', ["foo"], function (foo) {
return {
setBarOnFoo: function () { foo.bar = "hello"; }
};
});
define('baz', ["foo"], function (foo) {
return {
setBazOnFoo: function () { foo.baz = "goodbye"; }
};
});
require(["foo", "bar", "baz"], function (foo, bar, baz) {
bar.setBarOnFoo();
baz.setBazOnFoo();
$('#results').append(foo.bar + ' ' + foo.baz);
});​​​
// reads: hello goodbye

As a variation of Domenic's answer, you can use the 'exports' magic module to automatically generate a reference for the module -- "Properties added to the exports object will be on the public interface of the module, no need to return any value." This avoids having to call the getTheFoo() function to obtain a reference.
// In foo.js
define(['exports'], function (foo) {
foo.thereCanBeOnlyOne = true;
});
// In bar.js
define(["exports", "./foo"], function (bar, foo) {
bar.setBarOnFoo = function () { foo.bar = "hello"; };
});
// in baz.js
define(["exports", "./foo"], function (baz, foo) {
baz.setBazOnFoo = function () { foo.baz = "goodbye"; };
});
// In any other file
define(["./foo", "./bar", "./baz"], function (foo, bar, baz) {
bar.setBarOnFoo();
baz.setBazOnFoo();
assert(foo.bar === "hello");
assert(foo.baz === "goodbye");
assert(foo.thereCanBeOnlyeOne);
});
To address the comment below, I personally have found the above convention to be useful. Your mileage may vary, but feel free to adopt the convention if you think it is useful. The convention boils down to these two rules:
Declare 'exports' as the first dependency in the define array.
Name the parameter in the function after the JavaScript file.
Using the name of file, e.g. for foo.js name the variable 'foo', increases the readability of the code as most developers will define 'foo' as the parameter for the foo.js dependency. When scanning the code or using grep, it is easy to find all references to 'foo' use both inside and outside the module and it makes it easy to pick out what the module is exposing to the public. For example, renaming bar.setBarOnFoo to bar.setFooBar is much easier if the declaration in the bar.js module mirrors the usage in other files. A simple search and replace of bar.setBarOnFoo to bar.setFooBar across all files will accomplish the task.

I was in this scenario:
For different reasons I needed to call a function that was on a requirejs module, but the click that fired that call was out of require.
The way I fixed this was creating a requirejs modure that writes over the window object.
define("one", [], function() {
window.popupManager = (function () {
console.log ('aca');
var popUpManager = function () {
self = this;
self.CallMe = function ()
{
alert ('someone calls');
};
};
return new popUpManager();
})();
});
require(['one']);
window.popupManager.CallMe();
This way if any piece of code that is out of the require spectrum (I know it shouldn't be this way) can call functions of this require that writes over the window object.
I really know this is not an "elegant" solution, but it may help you in case of an emergency.

Am I using Javascript call-backs appropriately (object-oriented style)?

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)}
}