Do JavaScript objects/variables have some sort of unique identifier? Like Ruby has object_id. I don't mean the DOM id attribute, but rather some sort of memory address of some kind.
If you want to lookup/associate an object with a unique identifier without modifying the underlying object, you can use a WeakMap:
// Note that object must be an object or array,
// NOT a primitive value like string, number, etc.
var objIdMap=new WeakMap, objectCount = 0;
function objectId(object){
if (!objIdMap.has(object)) objIdMap.set(object,++objectCount);
return objIdMap.get(object);
}
var o1={}, o2={}, o3={a:1}, o4={a:1};
console.log( objectId(o1) ) // 1
console.log( objectId(o2) ) // 2
console.log( objectId(o1) ) // 1
console.log( objectId(o3) ) // 3
console.log( objectId(o4) ) // 4
console.log( objectId(o3) ) // 3
Using a WeakMap instead of Map ensures that the objects can still be garbage-collected.
No, objects don't have a built in identifier, though you can add one by modifying the object prototype. Here's an example of how you might do that:
(function() {
var id = 0;
function generateId() { return id++; };
Object.prototype.id = function() {
var newId = generateId();
this.id = function() { return newId; };
return newId;
};
})();
That said, in general modifying the object prototype is considered very bad practice. I would instead recommend that you manually assign an id to objects as needed or use a touch function as others have suggested.
Actually, you don't need to modify the object prototype. The following should work to 'obtain' unique ids for any object, efficiently enough.
var __next_objid=1;
function objectId(obj) {
if (obj==null) return null;
if (obj.__obj_id==null) obj.__obj_id=__next_objid++;
return obj.__obj_id;
}
I've just come across this, and thought I'd add my thoughts. As others have suggested, I'd recommend manually adding IDs, but if you really want something close to what you've described, you could use this:
var objectId = (function () {
var allObjects = [];
var f = function(obj) {
if (allObjects.indexOf(obj) === -1) {
allObjects.push(obj);
}
return allObjects.indexOf(obj);
}
f.clear = function() {
allObjects = [];
};
return f;
})();
You can get any object's ID by calling objectId(obj). Then if you want the id to be a property of the object, you can either extend the prototype:
Object.prototype.id = function () {
return objectId(this);
}
or you can manually add an ID to each object by adding a similar function as a method.
The major caveat is that this will prevent the garbage collector from destroying objects when they drop out of scope... they will never drop out of the scope of the allObjects array, so you might find memory leaks are an issue. If your set on using this method, you should do so for debugging purpose only. When needed, you can do objectId.clear() to clear the allObjects and let the GC do its job (but from that point the object ids will all be reset).
const log = console.log;
function* generateId() {
for(let i = 0; ; ++i) {
yield i;
}
}
const idGenerator = generateId();
const ObjectWithId = new Proxy(Object, {
construct(target, args) {
const instance = Reflect.construct(target, args);
instance['id'] = idGenerator.next().value;
return instance;
}
})
const myObject = new ObjectWithId({
name: '##NativeObject'
});
log(myObject.id);
Related
I have a function that looks like this:
var tempFun = function() {
return 'something';
}
tempFun.priority = 100;
Now I'm pushing it to an array and binding another object to it in the process like this:
var funArray = [];
var newObj = {};
funArray.push( tempFun.bind(newObj) );
and after this, I would like to acces the function's property like this:
funArray[0].priority
but it returns undefined. Is there some way to preserve the property on the function while binding a new object to it?
No, but you could write a function to do this yourself;
Function.prototype.bindAndCopy = function () {
var ret = this.bind.apply(this, arguments);
for (var x in this) {
if (this.hasOwnProperty(x)) {
ret[x] = this[x];
}
}
return ret;
};
... which you could then use via;
var funArray = [];
var newObj = {};
funArray.push( tempFun.bindAndCopy(newObj) );
No. Bind returns a new function, which "wraps" around the original one. All you can do is copy the properties on this new function:
var boundFun = tempFun.bind(newObj)
boundFun.priority = tempFun.priority;
funArray.push( boundFun );
If you want the properties to be in sync (changes in one visible on the other) you can do:
Object.defineProperty(boundFun, 'priority', {
get : function () { return tempFun.priority; },
set : function (val) { tempFun.priority = val; }
});
From MDN:
The bind() method creates a new function that, when called, has its
this keyword set to the provided value, with a given sequence of
arguments preceding any provided when the new function is called.
Hence, .bind() won't be useful for what you're trying to achieve. Besides using jQuery mappers or rewriting your code to use .prototype, a solution that I can think of is:
var obj = {};
for (var i in tempFun) {
if (tempFun.hasOwnProperty(i)) obj[i] = tempFun[i];
}
I have been looking around for an answer to this but in vain.
I have a function which takes a table name as an argument. but this name can be an object.
loadDataFromServer = function(dataTable) {
//data fetch code ...
datadump[dataTable] = response.getDataTable();
}
loadDataFromServer(['gchart']['data'])
The problem is I need to store the data in a variable datadump.gchart.data but the "gchart.data" part needs to be determined upon calling the function, not hard coded in it.
my problem lies in the fact that
datadump[['gchart']['data']] is not the same as
datadump['gchart']['data'] (which is the same as datadump.gchart.data)
Does anybody here know a good way to do this? If the input was simply gchart_data, this would easily work, but the functions needs to able to handle it even if it needed to assign its data to blabla.blibli.bloebloe.stuff.
thanks in advance
I think what you're looking for is this:
function (result) {
datadump = {};
datadump.gchart = {};
datadump.gchart.data = result.gchart.data;
// or
datadump.gchart = {
data: result.gchart.data
};
}
It's a little bit strange to it like this though. Do you absolutely need the gchart in your datadump?
Assigning to a random depth like blabla.blibli.bloebloe.stuff is not easily done.
You could flatten like: obj["blabla.blibli.bloebloe.stuff"] = {};
Or you could write a recursive merge, like:
var a, b, c;
a = { foo: { ipsum: "lorem" } };
b = { bar: {}, foo: { abc: "def" } };
c = recursive_merge(a, b); // { foo: { ipsum: "lorem", abc: "def" }, bar: {} };
Have you function take a list of strings and iterate over them to recursively access (and, if necessary, create) properties of datadump. I use arguments here to use the list of arguments itself, but you could also just use a single argument that is an array of strings.
var loadDataFromServer = function() {
var currObj = datadump;
// iterate over the list of property names
for(var i=0; i<arguments.length - 1; ++i) {
var nextName = arguments[i];
// if the object doesn't have this property, make it
if(currObj[nextName] == undefined) {
currObj[nextName] = {};
}
// use currObj's property as the new `currObj`
currObj = currObj[nextName];
}
// load data into the final named property
currObj[arguments[i]] = response.getDataTable();
}
loadDataFromServer('gchart', 'data');
Considering object creation patterns with private properties, one way to do is :
function MyStack (){
var list = [],
index = 0;
this.push = function(val){
return list[index++] = val;
};
this.pop = function(){// ...}
}
var stack1 = new MyStack(); stack1.push(5);
var stack2 = new MyStack(); stack2.push(11);
Problem with this: Every instance of Stack has it's own copy of methods 'push' and 'pop'.
Another way for implementing constructor method is:
function MyStack(){
this.list = [];
this.index = 0;
}
MyStack.prototype = {
insert: function(val){
return this.list[this.index++] = val;
},
pop:function(){//...}
}
Problem here: We lose the privacy of list and index.
Is there a way, such that we can have both methods reuse among instances and privacy of properties ?
I understand that we can have this for methods that don't operate on any state of the object, but I am talking more about those methods that do operate on the state.
Yes. I've edited this code so it's actually fully functional as you had intended it to work. It seems a bit redundant to me, but, it does provide you the ability to provide a public interface, but to keep your variables private and control the way the user interacts with them.
function MyStack(){
var list = [];
var index = 0;
this.getIndex = function(){
return index;
}
this.setIndex = function(val){
index = val;
}
this.list = function(val){
if(val){
// setter if a value was provided. Illustrating how you can control
// index, which I assume is the point of having these things private
// to begin with
return list[this.setIndex(this.getIndex() + 1)] = val;
}
// always return list - acts like a getter
return list;
}
}
MyStack.prototype = {
insert: function(val){
return this.list(val);
},
pop:function(){}
}
var stack1 = new MyStack();
stack1.insert(5);
var stack2 = new MyStack();
stack2.insert(11);
You should check out John Resig's Simple Javascript Inheritance. It is a great read, and it has been extended to provide support for privates, aptly called Privates.js;
A constructor function may return any object (not necesserily this). One could create a constructor function, that returns a proxy object, that contains proxy methods to the "real" methods of the "real" instance object. This may sound complicated, but it is not; here is a code snippet:
var MyClass = function() {
var instanceObj = this;
var proxyObj = {
myPublicMethod: function() {
return instanceObj.myPublicMethod.apply(instanceObj, arguments);
}
}
return proxyObj;
};
MyClass.prototype = {
_myPrivateMethod: function() {
...
},
myPublicMethod: function() {
...
}
};
The nice thing is that the proxy creation can be automated, if we define a convention for naming the protected methods. I created a little library that does exactly this: http://idya.github.com/oolib/
I think in both approaches you mentioned, When ever object is created using constructor pattern the properties will get copied to its objects. This you mentioned for the 1st approach as the concern. I feel the same will be applied for the second approach also along with your concern in this approach.
We generally go to the second approach you mentioned when ever we want to extend the properties of "MyStack" to some other class.
Lets say i want to extend your class MyStack to MyTest like below
var dummy = function();
dummy.prototype = MyStack.prototype;
var MyTest = function(){
};
MyTest.prototype = new dummy(); // Assigning MyStack properties to MyTest
var obj = new MyTest();
Say I have the following code:
var album = new MyObject('album');
Assume that when the object is constructed, a bunch of properties relative to only albums are loaded via AJAX. Would it be possible to create an Album class so that at a later point, I may just do this:
var anotherAlbum = new Album();
The Album constructor would automatically set the properties that are unique to album objects, based on what was loaded when creating MyObject('album')
JavaScript is prototypal, not classical, so if you think in terms of classes, you're doing it wrong.
You don't have to use the new operator at all. You can create a new object using the object literal:
var myObject = {attr1: 'val1', attr2: 'val2'};
Then you can create a new instance of that object:
var mySecondObject = Object.create(myObject);
Now you can change the attributes of mySecondObject, and if it has methods you can overload them just as easily:
mySecondObject.attr1 = "Hello";
mySecondObject.attr2 = function() {
return "World!";
};
And then mySecondObject will of course have all the properties that you gave myObject at creation.
Be aware that this is a simple version, and that this leaves all attributes 'public'. If you need some privacy, it can be achieved by adding some functions to the mix. It's a bit more complicated though, so let me know if you're interested...
JavaScript "classes", just like any other object, can be dynamically created. So, yes, this can be done.
You would do something like this in the code handling the AJAX response (assuming that the AJAX response was providing the name of the new "class", and it's in a variable called newClassName):
window[newClassName] = function() {
// New class name constructor code
}
window[newClassName].prototype = {
someProperty: "someValue",
someMethod: function(a, b) {
},
someOtherMethod: function(x) {
}
}
This is actually the only for of inheritance that JavaScript has. JavaScript has prototypal inheritance (which can be used to recreate classical inheritance). That means that inheritance is from another object, not a class definition.
To create an object that has all the properties of another object is simple:
function Album() {
// do whatever initialization you need to here, all the properties of album
// are available on 'this'
// e.g.,
doSomething(this.albumName);
}
Album.prototype = album;
var anotherAlbum = new Album();
You can use Douglas Crockford's Functional Inheritance Pattern. Code from Javascript Good Parts book
var mammal = function (spec) {
var that = {};
that.get_name = function ( ) {
return spec.name;
};
that.says = function ( ) {
return spec.saying || '';
};
return that;
};
var myMammal = mammal({name: 'Herb'});
var cat = function (spec) {
spec.saying = spec.saying || 'meow';
var that = mammal(spec);
that.purr = function (n) {
var i, s = '';
for (i = 0; i < n; i += 1) {
if (s) {
s += '-';
}
s += 'r';
}
return s;
};
that.get_name = function ( ) {
return that.says( ) + ' ' + spec.name +
' ' + that.says( );
return that;
};
var myCat = cat({name: 'Henrietta'});
It uses functions to decorate existing javascript objects with new functions and properties. Like this you can add new functions and properties on the fly to your existing object
You can do this
var NewClass=function(){
this.id=null;
this.name=null;
this.show=function(){
alert(this.id+" "+this.name;
}
}
NewClass.prototype.clear=function(){
this.id=null;
this.name=null;
};
...
var ins1=new NewClass();
var ins2=new NewClass();
I'm reading "Pro JavaScript Techniques" by John Resig, and I'm confused with an example. This is the code:
// Create a new user object that accepts an object of properties
function User( properties ) {
// Iterate through the properties of the object, and make sure
// that it's properly scoped (as discussed previously)
for ( var i in properties ) { (function(){
// Create a new getter for the property
this[ "get" + i ] = function() {
return properties[i];
};
// Create a new setter for the property
this[ "set" + i ] = function(val) {
properties[i] = val;
};
})(); }
}
// Create a new user object instance and pass in an object of
// properties to seed it with
var user = new User({
name: "Bob",
age: 44
});
// Just note that the name property does not exist, as it's private
// within the properties object
alert( user.name == null );
// However, we're able to access its value using the new getname()
// method, that was dynamically generated
alert( user.getname() == "Bob" );
// Finally, we can see that it's possible to set and get the age using
// the newly generated functions
user.setage( 22 );
alert( user.getage() == 22 );
Now running that in the Firebug console (on Firefox 3) throws that user.getname() is not a function. I tried doing this:
var other = User
other()
window.getname() // --> This works!
And it worked!
Why?
Doing:
var me = this;
seems to work a bit better, but when executing "getname()" it returns '44' (the second property)...
Also I find it strange that it worked on the window object without modification...
And a third question, what's the difference between PEZ solution and the original? (He doesn't use an anonymous function.)
I think it's best not to use the new keyword at all when working in JavaScript.
This is because if you then instantiate the object without using the new keyword (ex: var user = User()) by mistake, *very bad things will happen...*reason being that in the function (if instantiated without the new keyword), the this will refer to the global object, ie the window...
So therefore, I suggest a better way on how to use class-like objects.
Consider the following example :
var user = function (props) {
var pObject = {};
for (p in props) {
(function (pc) {
pObject['set' + pc] = function (v) {
props[pc] = v;
return pObject;
}
pObject['get' + pc] = function () {
return props[pc];
}
})(p);
}
return pObject;
}
In the above example, I am creating a new object inside of the function, and then attaching getters and setters to this newly created object.
Finally, I am returning this newly created object. Note that the the this keyword is not used anywhere
Then, to 'instantiate' a user, I would do the following:
var john = user({name : 'Andreas', age : 21});
john.getname(); //returns 'Andreas'
john.setage(19).getage(); //returns 19
The best way to avoid falling into pitfalls is by not creating them in the first place...In the above example, I am avoiding the new keyword pitfall (as i said, not using the new keyword when it's supposed to be used will cause bad things to happen) by not using new at all.
Adapting Jason's answer, it works:
We need to make a closure for the values. Here's one way:
function bindAccessors(o, property, value) {
var _value = value;
o["get" + property] = function() {
return _value;
};
o["set" + property] = function(v) {
_value = v;
};
}
Then the User constructor looks like this:
function User( properties ) {
for (var i in properties ) {
bindAccessors(this, i, properties[i]);
}
}
You probably want something like this, which is more readable (closures are easy to learn once you get some practice):
function User( properties ) {
// Helper function to create closures based on passed-in arguments:
var bindGetterSetter = function(obj, p, properties)
{
obj["get" + p] = function() { return properties[p]; }
obj["set" + p] = function(val) { properties[p]=val; return this; }
};
for (var p in properties)
bindGetterSetter(this, p, properties);
}
I also added "return this;", so you can do:
u = new User({a: 1, b:77, c:48});
u.seta(3).setb(20).setc(400)
I started this post with the sole purpose of learning why that things happened, and I finally did. So in case there's someone else interested in the "whys", here they are:
Why does 'this' changes inside the anonymous function?
A new function, even if it is an anonymous, declared inside an object or another function, always changes the scope, in this case returning to the global scope (window).
Solution: all stated in the post, I think the clearer is executing the anonymous function with .call(this).
Why does getname() always return the age?
While the anonymous function gets executed right away, the getters/setters get executed for the first time when they are called. In that moment, the value of i will always be the last, because it has already iterated for all the properties... and it will always return properties[i] which is the last value, in this case the age.
Solution: save the i value in a variable like this
for ( i in properties ) { (function(){
var j = i
// From now on, use properties[j]
As written in the OP, this in the loop is not referring to the User object as it should be. If you capture that variable outside the loop, you can make it work:
function User( properties ) {
// Iterate through the properties of the object, and make sure
// that it's properly scoped (as discussed previously)
var me = this;
for ( i in properties ) { (function(){
// Create a new getter for the property
me[ "get" + i ] = function() {
return properties[i];
};
// Create a new setter for the property
me[ "set" + i ] = function(val) {
properties[i] = val;
};
// etc
I just modified the code a bit like this.. This one should work.. This is same as setting me=this; But a closure is required to set the value of each property properly, else the last value will be assigned to all properties.
// Create a new user object that accepts an object of properties
var User = function( properties ) {
// Iterate through the properties of the object, and make sure
// that it's properly scoped (as discussed previously)
var THIS = this;
for ( var i in properties ) { (function(i){
// Create a new getter for the property
THIS[ "get" + i ] = function() {
return properties[i];
};
// Create a new setter for the property
THIS[ "set" + i ] = function(val) {
properties[i] = val;
};
})(i); }
}
// Create a new user object instance and pass in an object of
// properties to seed it with
var user = new User({
name: "Bob",
age: 44
});
// Just note that the name property does not exist, as it's private
// within the properties object
alert( user.name == null );
// However, we're able to access its value using the new getname()
// method, that was dynamically generated
alert( user.getname() == "Bob" );
// Finally, we can see that it's possible to set and get the age using
// the newly generated functions
user.setage( 22 );
alert( user.getage() == 22 );
Maybe the variable i is "closured" with the last value in the iteration ("age")? Then all getters and setters will access properties["age"].
I found something that seems to be the answer; it’s all about context. Using the anonymous function inside the for loop, changes the context, making 'this' refer to the window object. Strange isn't it?
So:
function User(properties) {
for (var i in properties) {
// Here this == User Object
(function(){
// Inside this anonymous function, this == window object
this["get" + i] = function() {
return properties[i];
};
this["set" + i] = function(val) {
properties[i] = val;
};
})();
}
}
I don't know why that function changes the context of execution, and I'm not sure it should do that. Anyway, you can test it running the code there and trying window.getname(). It magically works! :S
The solution, as stated before, is changing the context. It can be done like J Cooper said, passing the variable 'me' and making the function a closure or you can do this:
(function(){
// Inside this anonymous function this == User
// because we called it with 'call'
this[ "get" + i ] = function() {
return properties[i];
};
this["set" + i] = function(val) {
properties[i] = val;
};
}).call(this);
Anyway, I'm still getting 44 when running 'getname'... What could it be?