execute a method on an existing object with window.setInterval - javascript

Is it possible to run the method on an existing object on timeout of window.setInterval method. I can emulate the same by having some global variable and calling the method of this global variable in setInterval, but i wanted to know if this is possible using the method directly.
Best Regards,
Keshav

Yes, you can do this. You need a helper function to make a new function that has your existing object "bound":
var someRandomObject = {
someMethod: function() {
// ... whatever
},
// ...
};
// this is a "toy" version of "bind"
function bind(object, method) {
return function() {
method.call(object);
};
}
var interval = setInterval(bind(someRandomObject, someRandomObject.someMethod), 1000);
Now when the interval timer calls your method ("someMethod"), the "this" pointer will reference the object.
That version of "bind" is simplified. Libraries like Prototype, Functional, jQuery, etc generally provide more robust versions. Additionally, the "bind" function will be a native part of Javascript someday — it already is in some browsers.

Related

In javascript how can I call one prototype method in another prototype method?

suppose I have a function:
function test(){}
test.prototype.method01=function(){
//do something
}
test.prototype.method02=function(){
//how can I call the method01?
//this.method01()...?
//but the chrome through an error:
//Uncaught TypeError: Object #<HTMLImageElement> has no method 'method01'
}
Edited:
in fact the method01 like this:
test.prototype.method02=function(){
$('.cpy').resizable({
}).draggable({
start:function(e,ui){
this.method01();
}
});
}
test.prototype.method02=function(){
var testThing = this;
$('.cpy').resizable({
}).draggable({
start:function(e,ui){
testThing.method01();
}
});
}
You have to preserve the this reference in another local variable so that the callback function can use it when calling the other method. The this reference is bound upon each and every function call, including calls to callback functions like the one you're using in the ".draggable()" setup. When that's called this will be set to something different from the this in your "method02" function.
Yea, you could manually cache this in the lexical scope like other answers in this question suggest. However, the alternative that i would suggest is to create a bound method using $.proxy or function.bind as your call back.
Bound methods are always called with a stable this. I find them to be much more readable, than bizarrely named references to this in higher scopes
whats about
test.prototype.method02=function(){
this.method01.apply(this);
// do some other stuff
}

JS complicated massaging of scope

For a particular listener in my application, I'm using the following code for scope-busting purposes:
// this is all in a prototype of MyClass
var self = this;
myElement.addEventListener("stuff", function(e){self.doStuff(e)});
That will get doStuff to have the desired this binding.
The problem shows up when I try to removeEventListener. I suppose it's because the native function signatures must be different?
// in a different prototype of MyClass
var self = this;
myElement.removeEventListener("stuff", function(e){self.doStuff(e)}); // doesn't work
If I make a separate function that contains all of my scope-busting code, then the this binding in that code will be to the unwanted object of myElement. So the question is: How can I force listener scope and still be able to remove an added event listener?
*note using global / static variables in any way is prohibited due to the nature of the project (otherwise this would be simple!)
This has nothing to do with scope or the way in which you're storing a reference to this. The problem is that removeEventListener expects a reference to a function that's previously been registered as a listener, but you're giving it a brand new function it's never seen before.
You need to do something like this:
var self = this;
var listener = function(e){self.doStuff(e)}
myElement.addEventListener("stuff", listener);
// later
myElement.removeEventListener("stuff", listener);
It doesn't matter that the bodies of your two functions are the same; they're still different functions.
See:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/DOM/element.removeEventListener
Inline anonymous functions are a very bad practice anyway, so I will suggest the obvious:
function MyClass() {
this.onStuff = this.onStuff.bind(this); //Each instance steals the prototyped function and adds a bound version as their ownProperty
}
MyClass.prototype = {
onStuff: function (e) { //Prototyped, no instance actually uses this very function
this.dostuff()
},
bind: function () {
myElement.addEventListener("stuff", this.onStuff);
},
unbind: function () {
myElement.removeEventListener("stuff", this.onStuff);
}
}
see removeEventListener on anonymous functions in JavaScript
You can't removeEventListener as your using an anonymous function.

Decoupling when using anonymous functions in third party javascript (FB)

I'm using the FB.Event.subscribe() observer model to find out when a user logs in. This method takes two arguments, a string containing the thing to watch, and callback function.
I'm following several events that handle the event the same way, so I've set up the callback function as a pre defined method and passed this to FB.Event.subscribe() like this:
Controller.prototype.go = function() {
FB.Event.subscribe('auth.login', this.fbHandleStatusChange);
FB.Event.subscribe('auth.logout', this.fbHandleStatusChange);
}
Controller.prototype.fbHandleStatusChange = function(response) {
// Doesn't work
this.otherFunction();
}
Controller.prototype.otherFunction = function() {
alert('hello');
}
Unfortunately this means that I loose access to 'this' within the scope of fbHandleStatusChange, obviously I don't want to start coding references to concrete versions of Controller!
I'm guessing I'm passing the function incorrectly?
Thanks.
In JavaScript, this is defined entirely by how a function is called, not where it's defined. This is different than some other languages. (JavaScript doesn't have methods, it just has functions and some syntactic sugar that makes them look like methods sometimes.) So although you're passing in your function correctly, Facebook doesn't know about your object instance and can't set this correctly when calling your function.
Check the FB.Event.subscribe docs to see if it offers a way to say what "context" to use to call the event handler function. It may offer a way to do that. (This will usually be a context or thisArg parameter.)
If not, you can readily solve the problem with a closure:
Controller.prototype.go = function() {
var self = this;
FB.Event.subscribe('auth.login', handleChange);
FB.Event.subscribe('auth.logout', handleChange);
function handleChange() {
return self.fbHandleStatusChange();
}
}
That grabs a copy of this into a variable called self, which is used by the handleChange function (which is a closure over the scope containing the self variable) to call your function with the correct context. More about closures here: Closures are not complicated More about this here: You must remember this
Alternately, though, are you really going to have multiple instances of Controller? People coming to JavaScript from class-based languages tend to use constructor functions (a rough "class" analogue) unnecessarily. They're the right choice if you need to have more than one instance of an object, but if you're only ever going to have a single Controller object on the page, then using a constructor function and fiddling about with this is overkill.
If you don't need multiple, independent Controller instances, then:
var controllerObject = (function() {
var inst = {};
inst.go = go; // Make `go` a publicly-accessible function of the object
function go() {
FB.Event.subscribe('auth.login', fbHandleStatusChange);
FB.Event.subscribe('auth.logout', fbHandleStatusChange);
}
// This is private to us, so we don't expose it as a property on the object
function fbHandleStatusChange(response) {
// Doesn't work
otherFunction();
}
// This is also private to us
function otherFunction() {
alert('hello');
}
return inst;
})();
That creates a private scope via the outer anonymous function, and within that scope creates an instance (inst) which we then return and refer to as controllerObject. controllerObject in the above only has one property, the function go. All of our other functions are truly private. (I've also taken the liberty of ensuring that the functions have names, because that helps your tools help you.)
Note that we don't actually refer to inst anywhere in our function calls, because they're all local to the closure scope. We can even have private data, by having other vars within the outer closure.

Expecting the right calling context (this) in the JavaScript object

Consider this:
window.onload = function () {
myObj.init();
};
var myObj = {
init: function () {
console.log("init: Let's call the callMe method...");
//callMe is not defined...
callMe();
//Works fine!
this.callMe();
},
callMe: function () {
console.log('callMe');
}
};
Since the init function gets called this way (myObj.init), I expect this to be myObj in the init function. And if that is the case, why the callMe function fails? How am I supposed to call the callMe function without using the this context in the init body? (Actually, it's too annoying to call the object methods using this over and over again through the functions. So what's the point of having a single object?)
I would like to know how can I fix this so that the callMe method gets called using the first invocation in the code above?
this is never implicit in JavaScript as it is in some other languages. Although there are ways to do it, like this using the with statement:
init: function () {
console.log("init: Let's call the callMe method...");
// Make `this` implicit (SEE BELOW, not recommended)
with (this) {
// Works
callMe();
}
},
...it's generally a bad idea. Douglas Crockford probably wrote one of the better descriptions of why it's a bad idea, which you can find here. Basically, using with makes it nearly impossible to tell what the code's going to do (and slows the code down, if you do anything else in that with statement that doesn't come from the this object).
This isn't the only way that JavaScript's this is not the same as it is in some other languages. In JavaScript, this is defined entirely by how a function is called, not where the function is defined. When you do this.callMe() (or the equivalent this["callMe"](), or of course foo.callMe(), etc.), two things happen: The function reference is retrieved from the property, and the function is called in a special way to set this to be the object that property came from. If you don't call a function through a property that way, the call doesn't set any particular this value and you get the default (which is the global object; window on browsers). It's the act of making the call that sets what this is. I've explored this in depth in a couple of articles on my blog, here and here.
This (no pun) can be made even clearer if you look at JavaScript's call and apply functions, which are available on all function objects. If I do this:
callMe.call({});
...it'll call the callMe function with a blank object ({}) as this.
So basically, just get used to typing this. :-) It's still useful to have properties and methods associated with an object, even without the syntactic convenience (and confusion!) of an implicit this.
You can also use the module pattern, which captures all private variables inside a closure, so you are free to use them without this, as they're in the same scope. You then pick and choose which methods/variables you want to make public:
var myObj = (function () {
var init = function () {
callMe(); // This now works
};
var callMe = function () {
...
};
// Now choose your public methods (they can even be renamed):
return {
init: init, // Same name
callMyName: callMe // Different name
};
}) ();
Now:
myObj.init(); // Works
myObj.callMyName(); // Works
myObj.callMe(); // Error

Reference Object calling function in Javascript

I have a makeshift events system in JS and the attacher looks like this:
events.attach(events.NEW_TASK,this.update);
Where this.update is a callback/handler/function. The problem is, when the dispatcher tries to call this handler, it loses it's original context. How can I bind the handler with the context of the object that calls the attach function without passing this as an argument and using that?
Edit: I should also mention that it will be somewhat of a framework so it has to be simple for other developers so preferably not needing to store the context in another variable.
Another option, using the Function.prototype.bind method, part of the new ECMAScript Standard:
events.attach(events.NEW_TASK, this.update.bind(this));
Until ECMAScript 5 has wide adoption in browsers, you could use your own implementation of Function.prototype.bind:
function bind(func, thisObj) {
return function() {
func.apply(thisObj, arguments);
};
}
events.attach(events.NEW_TASK, bind(this.update, this));
You could store the reference of "this" in a local variable and try calling the function using it
var that = this;
events.attach( events.NEW_TASK, function( ) { that.update(); } );

Categories