Related
I think in javascript it could create Singleton class like below
test.js
class Container {
constructor() {
this.map = new Map;
}
set(key, value) {
this.map.set(key, value);
}
get(key) {
return this.map.get(key);
}
}
module.exports.Container = new Container();
so that
I could use that other files like in index.js
import container from './test'
However the constructor of Container need some other parameters so that it could do better. And the Container also need to be Singleton class ,
because it is a common class . And i do not know how to create it?
constructor(servie) {
this.map = new Map;
this.servie = servie;
}
by the way the service variable is created when application starts
EDIT: I've realised my naming is slightly confusing, as I've used Container to represent the IoC container, and then realised you've used that name to represent your Singleton.
Providing you are able to instantiate your singleton at a central point of code (entry point file for example, while setting up server). You can achieve a Singleton in a number of ways. For example:
let instance = null;
class Singleton {
constructor(arg1, arg2) {
this.arg1 = arg1;
this.arg2 = arg2;
}
}
module.exports = (...args) => {
return instance || (instance = new Singleton(...args));
}
You could do this any multitude of ways e.g. with static functions instead of the anonymous function. However, with all of these I think it becomes slightly confused as to whether you're init'ing the instance or just trying to retrieve it.
IoC container patterns (often used in C# projects) are a little cleaner in my opinion. Where you might have a single container class that keeps track of your singletons and provides separate access and initiation functions.
class Container {
constructor() {
this.instances = {};
}
add(name, instance) {
this.instances[name] = instance; // depends if you want overwrite or not
}
get(name) {
if (!this.instances[name]) {
throw new Error('some appropriate error messaging for your app');
}
return this.instances[name];
}
remove(name) {
delete this.instances[name];
}
}
module.exports = new Container(); // this has to be a no-param constructor
Then in your app init code, you initialise the singletons and register them with your container:
const Container = require('<path_to_Container>');
const Singleton = require('<path_to_Singleton>');
...
Container.add('mySingleton', new Singleton(arg1, arg2));
and access it at any time with:
Container.get('mySingleton');
Couple notes:
You could use Singleton.name instead of a string name ('mySingleton' in the example)
This is just a personal preference. But I like it because it feels more declarative, you register (add) an instance to the container at app start-up and don't blur the lines between initialisation and usage. And it means that if you add more of these singletons going forward, you have a single pattern for it already in place.
Currently in ES5 many of us are using the following pattern in frameworks to create classes and class variables, which is comfy:
// ES 5
FrameWork.Class({
variable: 'string',
variable2: true,
init: function(){
},
addItem: function(){
}
});
In ES6 you can create classes natively, but there is no option to have class variables:
// ES6
class MyClass {
const MY_CONST = 'string'; // <-- this is not possible in ES6
constructor(){
this.MY_CONST;
}
}
Sadly, the above won't work, as classes only can contain methods.
I understand that I can this.myVar = true in constructor…but I don't want to 'junk' my constructor, especially when I have 20-30+ params for a bigger class.
I was thinking of many ways to handle this issue, but haven't yet found any good ones. (For example: create a ClassConfig handler, and pass a parameter object, which is declared separately from the class. Then the handler would attach to the class. I was thinking about WeakMaps also to integrate, somehow.)
What kind of ideas would you have to handle this situation?
2018 update:
There is now a stage 3 proposal - I am looking forward to make this answer obsolete in a few months.
In the meantime anyone using TypeScript or babel can use the syntax:
varName = value
Inside a class declaration/expression body and it will define a variable. Hopefully in a few months/weeks I'll be able to post an update.
Update: Chrome 74 now ships with this syntax working.
The notes in the ES wiki for the proposal in ES6 (maximally minimal classes) note:
There is (intentionally) no direct declarative way to define either prototype data properties (other than methods) class properties, or instance property
Class properties and prototype data properties need be created outside the declaration.
Properties specified in a class definition are assigned the same attributes as if they appeared in an object literal.
This means that what you're asking for was considered, and explicitly decided against.
but... why?
Good question. The good people of TC39 want class declarations to declare and define the capabilities of a class. Not its members. An ES6 class declaration defines its contract for its user.
Remember, a class definition defines prototype methods - defining variables on the prototype is generally not something you do.
You can, of course use:
constructor(){
this.foo = bar
}
In the constructor like you suggested. Also see the summary of the consensus.
ES7 and beyond
A new proposal for ES7 is being worked on that allows more concise instance variables through class declarations and expressions - https://esdiscuss.org/topic/es7-property-initializers
Just to add to Benjamin's answer — class variables are possible, but you wouldn't use prototype to set them.
For a true class variable you'd want to do something like the following:
class MyClass {}
MyClass.foo = 'bar';
From within a class method that variable can be accessed as this.constructor.foo (or MyClass.foo).
These class properties would not usually be accessible from to the class instance. i.e. MyClass.foo gives 'bar' but new MyClass().foo is undefined
If you want to also have access to your class variable from an instance, you'll have to additionally define a getter:
class MyClass {
get foo() {
return this.constructor.foo;
}
}
MyClass.foo = 'bar';
I've only tested this with Traceur, but I believe it will work the same in a standard implementation.
JavaScript doesn't really have classes. Even with ES6 we're looking at an object- or prototype-based language rather than a class-based language. In any function X () {}, X.prototype.constructor points back to X.
When the new operator is used on X, a new object is created inheriting X.prototype. Any undefined properties in that new object (including constructor) are looked up from there. We can think of this as generating object and class properties.
Babel supports class variables in ESNext, check this example:
class Foo {
bar = 2
static iha = 'string'
}
const foo = new Foo();
console.log(foo.bar, foo.iha, Foo.bar, Foo.iha);
// 2, undefined, undefined, 'string'
In your example:
class MyClass {
const MY_CONST = 'string';
constructor(){
this.MY_CONST;
}
}
Because of MY_CONST is primitive https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Primitive we can just do:
class MyClass {
static get MY_CONST() {
return 'string';
}
get MY_CONST() {
return this.constructor.MY_CONST;
}
constructor() {
alert(this.MY_CONST === this.constructor.MY_CONST);
}
}
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string ; true
But if MY_CONST is reference type like static get MY_CONST() {return ['string'];} alert output is string, false. In such case delete operator can do the trick:
class MyClass {
static get MY_CONST() {
delete MyClass.MY_CONST;
return MyClass.MY_CONST = 'string';
}
get MY_CONST() {
return this.constructor.MY_CONST;
}
constructor() {
alert(this.MY_CONST === this.constructor.MY_CONST);
}
}
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string ; true
And finally for class variable not const:
class MyClass {
static get MY_CONST() {
delete MyClass.MY_CONST;
return MyClass.MY_CONST = 'string';
}
static set U_YIN_YANG(value) {
delete MyClass.MY_CONST;
MyClass.MY_CONST = value;
}
get MY_CONST() {
return this.constructor.MY_CONST;
}
set MY_CONST(value) {
this.constructor.MY_CONST = value;
}
constructor() {
alert(this.MY_CONST === this.constructor.MY_CONST);
}
}
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string, true
MyClass.MY_CONST = ['string, 42']
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string, 42 ; true
Since your issue is mostly stylistic (not wanting to fill up the constructor with a bunch of declarations) it can be solved stylistically as well.
The way I view it, many class based languages have the constructor be a function named after the class name itself. Stylistically we could use that that to make an ES6 class that stylistically still makes sense but does not group the typical actions taking place in the constructor with all the property declarations we're doing. We simply use the actual JS constructor as the "declaration area", then make a class named function that we otherwise treat as the "other constructor stuff" area, calling it at the end of the true constructor.
"use strict";
class MyClass
{
// only declare your properties and then call this.ClassName(); from here
constructor(){
this.prop1 = 'blah 1';
this.prop2 = 'blah 2';
this.prop3 = 'blah 3';
this.MyClass();
}
// all sorts of other "constructor" stuff, no longer jumbled with declarations
MyClass() {
doWhatever();
}
}
Both will be called as the new instance is constructed.
Sorta like having 2 constructors where you separate out the declarations and the other constructor actions you want to take, and stylistically makes it not too hard to understand that's what is going on too.
I find it's a nice style to use when dealing with a lot of declarations and/or a lot of actions needing to happen on instantiation and wanting to keep the two ideas distinct from each other.
NOTE: I very purposefully do not use the typical idiomatic ideas of "initializing" (like an init() or initialize() method) because those are often used differently. There is a sort of presumed difference between the idea of constructing and initializing. Working with constructors people know that they're called automatically as part of instantiation. Seeing an init method many people are going to assume without a second glance that they need to be doing something along the form of var mc = MyClass(); mc.init();, because that's how you typically initialize. I'm not trying to add an initialization process for the user of the class, I'm trying to add to the construction process of the class itself.
While some people may do a double-take for a moment, that's actually the bit of the point: it communicates to them that the intent is part of construction, even if that makes them do a bit of a double take and go "that's not how ES6 constructors work" and take a second looking at the actual constructor to go "oh, they call it at the bottom, I see", that's far better than NOT communicating that intent (or incorrectly communicating it) and probably getting a lot of people using it wrong, trying to initialize it from the outside and junk. That's very much intentional to the pattern I suggest.
For those that don't want to follow that pattern, the exact opposite can work too. Farm the declarations out to another function at the beginning. Maybe name it "properties" or "publicProperties" or something. Then put the rest of the stuff in the normal constructor.
"use strict";
class MyClass
{
properties() {
this.prop1 = 'blah 1';
this.prop2 = 'blah 2';
this.prop3 = 'blah 3';
}
constructor() {
this.properties();
doWhatever();
}
}
Note that this second method may look cleaner but it also has an inherent problem where properties gets overridden as one class using this method extends another. You'd have to give more unique names to properties to avoid that. My first method does not have this problem because its fake half of the constructor is uniquely named after the class.
As Benjamin said in his answer, TC39 explicitly decided not to include this feature at least for ES2015. However, the consensus seems to be that they will add it in ES2016.
The syntax hasn't been decided yet, but there's a preliminary proposal for ES2016 that will allow you to declare static properties on a class.
Thanks to the magic of babel, you can use this today. Enable the class properties transform according to these instructions and you're good to go. Here's an example of the syntax:
class foo {
static myProp = 'bar'
someFunction() {
console.log(this.myProp)
}
}
This proposal is in a very early state, so be prepared to tweak your syntax as time goes on.
What about the oldschool way?
class MyClass {
constructor(count){
this.countVar = 1 + count;
}
}
MyClass.prototype.foo = "foo";
MyClass.prototype.countVar = 0;
// ...
var o1 = new MyClass(2); o2 = new MyClass(3);
o1.foo = "newFoo";
console.log( o1.foo,o2.foo);
console.log( o1.countVar,o2.countVar);
In constructor you mention only those vars which have to be computed.
I like prototype inheritance for this feature -- it can help to save a lot of memory(in case if there are a lot of never-assigned vars).
[Long thread, not sure if its already listed as an option...].
A simple alternative for contsants only, would be defining the const outside of class.
This will be accessible only from the module itself, unless accompanied with a getter.
This way prototype isn't littered and you get the const.
// will be accessible only from the module itself
const MY_CONST = 'string';
class MyClass {
// optional, if external access is desired
static get MY_CONST(){return MY_CONST;}
// access example
static someMethod(){
console.log(MY_CONST);
}
}
ES7 class member syntax:
ES7 has a solution for 'junking' your constructor function. Here is an example:
class Car {
wheels = 4;
weight = 100;
}
const car = new Car();
console.log(car.wheels, car.weight);
The above example would look the following in ES6:
class Car {
constructor() {
this.wheels = 4;
this.weight = 100;
}
}
const car = new Car();
console.log(car.wheels, car.weight);
Be aware when using this that this syntax might not be supported by all browsers and might have to be transpiled an earlier version of JS.
Bonus: an object factory:
function generateCar(wheels, weight) {
class Car {
constructor() {}
wheels = wheels;
weight = weight;
}
return new Car();
}
const car1 = generateCar(4, 50);
const car2 = generateCar(6, 100);
console.log(car1.wheels, car1.weight);
console.log(car2.wheels, car2.weight);
You can mimic es6 classes behaviour... and use your class variables :)
Look mum... no classes!
// Helper
const $constructor = Symbol();
const $extends = (parent, child) =>
Object.assign(Object.create(parent), child);
const $new = (object, ...args) => {
let instance = Object.create(object);
instance[$constructor].call(instance, ...args);
return instance;
}
const $super = (parent, context, ...args) => {
parent[$constructor].call(context, ...args)
}
// class
var Foo = {
classVariable: true,
// constructor
[$constructor](who){
this.me = who;
this.species = 'fufel';
},
// methods
identify(){
return 'I am ' + this.me;
}
}
// class extends Foo
var Bar = $extends(Foo, {
// constructor
[$constructor](who){
$super(Foo, this, who);
this.subtype = 'barashek';
},
// methods
speak(){
console.log('Hello, ' + this.identify());
},
bark(num){
console.log('Woof');
}
});
var a1 = $new(Foo, 'a1');
var b1 = $new(Bar, 'b1');
console.log(a1, b1);
console.log('b1.classVariable', b1.classVariable);
I put it on GitHub
Still you can't declare any classes like in another programming languages. But you can create as many class variables. But problem is scope of class object. So According to me, Best way OOP Programming in ES6 Javascript:-
class foo{
constructor(){
//decalre your all variables
this.MY_CONST = 3.14;
this.x = 5;
this.y = 7;
// or call another method to declare more variables outside from constructor.
// now create method level object reference and public level property
this.MySelf = this;
// you can also use var modifier rather than property but that is not working good
let self = this.MySelf;
//code .........
}
set MySelf(v){
this.mySelf = v;
}
get MySelf(v){
return this.mySelf;
}
myMethod(cd){
// now use as object reference it in any method of class
let self = this.MySelf;
// now use self as object reference in code
}
}
If its only the cluttering what gives the problem in the constructor why not implement a initialize method that intializes the variables. This is a normal thing to do when the constructor gets to full with unnecessary stuff. Even in typed program languages like C# its normal convention to add an Initialize method to handle that.
Just define a getter.
class MyClass
{
get MY_CONST () { return 'string'; }
constructor ()
{
console.log ("MyClass MY_CONST:", this.MY_CONST);
}
}
var obj = new MyClass();
The way I solved this, which is another option (if you have jQuery available), was to Define the fields in an old-school object and then extend the class with that object. I also didn't want to pepper the constructor with assignments, this appeared to be a neat solution.
function MyClassFields(){
this.createdAt = new Date();
}
MyClassFields.prototype = {
id : '',
type : '',
title : '',
createdAt : null,
};
class MyClass {
constructor() {
$.extend(this,new MyClassFields());
}
};
-- Update Following Bergi's comment.
No JQuery Version:
class SavedSearch {
constructor() {
Object.assign(this,{
id : '',
type : '',
title : '',
createdAt: new Date(),
});
}
}
You still do end up with 'fat' constructor, but at least its all in one class and assigned in one hit.
EDIT #2:
I've now gone full circle and am now assigning values in the constructor, e.g.
class SavedSearch {
constructor() {
this.id = '';
this.type = '';
this.title = '';
this.createdAt = new Date();
}
}
Why? Simple really, using the above plus some JSdoc comments, PHPStorm was able to perform code completion on the properties. Assigning all the vars in one hit was nice, but the inability to code complete the properties, imo, isn't worth the (almost certainly minuscule) performance benefit.
Well, you can declare variables inside the Constructor.
class Foo {
constructor() {
var name = "foo"
this.method = function() {
return name
}
}
}
var foo = new Foo()
foo.method()
Recent browsers as of 2021 (not IE, see MDN browser chart) implement Public class fields which seems to be what you're looking for:
class MyClass {
static foo = 3;
}
console.log(MyClass.foo);
However apparently it's not possible to make this a const: Declaring static constants in ES6 classes?
A static getter looks pretty close:
class MyClass {
static get CONST() {
return 3;
}
}
MyClass.CONST = 4; // property unaffected
console.log(MyClass.CONST);
This is a bit hackish combo of static and get works for me
class ConstantThingy{
static get NO_REENTER__INIT() {
if(ConstantThingy._NO_REENTER__INIT== null){
ConstantThingy._NO_REENTER__INIT = new ConstantThingy(false,true);
}
return ConstantThingy._NO_REENTER__INIT;
}
}
elsewhere used
var conf = ConstantThingy.NO_REENTER__INIT;
if(conf.init)...
I have read that private state of instance objects is generally not advised, and I would appreciate the help in pointing out the flaws/shortcomings of the following implementation.
Any advise/critique is greatly appreciated.
var namespace = {};
namespace.parent = {
parent_method1 : function () {},
parent_method2 : function () {}
};
namespace.child = function (properties) {
var private="secret";
this.prototype = {
create : function () {
this.unique = 'base';
this.unique += this.properties;
return this.unique;
},
get_private: function () {
console.log(private);
},
set_private: function (val) {
private = val;
}
};
var proto = Object.create(namespace.parent);
var instance = Object.create(proto);
for (var property in this.prototype) {
if (this.prototype.hasOwnProperty(property)) {
proto[property] = this.prototype[property];
}
}
instance.properties = properties;
return instance;
};
var a = namespace.child("a");
console.log(a.create());
a.get_private();
a.set_private("new_a_secret");
a.get_private();
var b = namespace.child("b");
console.log(b.create());
b.get_private();
a.get_private();
I would appreciate the help in pointing out the flaws/shortcomings of the following implementation.
I don't see anything wrong with your implementation of the var private, provided that it does what you expect it to do.
However, the big flaw of the code is: I don't understand it. What is your implementation supposed to do? It does not follow any of the standard patterns. This might be a shortcoming of the pseudo-methods and clear up when implementing a real world model; however as it stands it's quite confusing. Some documentation comments would help as well.
Specifically:
What does namespace.child do? It looks like a factory function, but I'm not sure what "childs" it does produce.
Also, for some reason it does set the namespace.prototype property to a new object on every invocation, which is then mixed into the instance object proto object. However, it leaves the internals (get_private, set_private) of the last created instance in global scope.
Are a and b supposed to be classes? Why do they have .create() methods, that initialise the class (instance?) - and should rather be called .init() if at all? Why do they return the .unique property value?
Why doesn't the child method initialize those factored objects right away?
What is that .properties field that holds a string value?
Why are you using two-level inheritance for those instance objects? Object.create(namespace.parent) is understandable, it inherits from a static object that is shared. But why is then Object.create(proto) used, copying some properties (create, get_private, set_private) on the proto and some properties (properties, unique) on the instance? Why distinguish between them?
I have a javascript scenario where I have created a base class and a derived class and wish to pack the total set of properties into a JSON-string with JSON.stringify().
When I use the equivalent to the code below I only get the child-object's properties when I run "toString()" on one of the DerivedClass instances:
function BaseClass() {
this.version = "0.0.0";
this.time = Date.now();
this.type = this.constructor.name;
}
BaseClass.prototype.BaseClassException = function(message) {
this.message = message;
}
BaseClass.prototype.toString = function() {
return JSON.stringify(this);
}
BaseClass.parse = function(jsonString) {
var json = JSON.parse(jsonString);
switch(json.type) {
case "DerivedClass1":
return new DerivedClass1();
case "DerivedClass2":
return new DerivedClass2();
default:
throw new BaseClassException("No compatible type found when parsing: " + jsonString);
}
function DerivedClass1(prop1, prop2) {
this.prop1 = prop1;
this.prop2 = prop2;
this.type = this.constructor.name;
}
DerivedClass1.prototype = new BaseClass();
DerivedClass1.prototype.constructor = DerivedClass1;
function DerivedClass2(prop3) {
this.prop3 = prop3;
}
DerivedClass2.prototype = new BaseClass();
DerivedClass2.prototype.constructor = DerivedClass2;
// Test
var dc1 = new DerivedClass1("A", "B");
console.log(dc1.toString()); // Returns JSON-string with properties of DerivedClass1, but not BaseClass
There will be several different derived classes. While I do know that js doesn't really support classes I would still like to pack all the properties from the base and child objects in the same JSON-string. The structure is necessary to correlate to the other nodes of the total system, ie all properties need to be present.
If anyone at the same time has the knowledge of nudging me in the correct direction to understand the link between the child object and parent object in order for me to better understand the "inheritance" part of js I'd be really thankful as well. I more used to strict oo-languages so I'd be happy to learn.
There are two things which I can readily suggest.
To invoke the base class constructor, you have to invoke it manually like this
function DerivedClass1(prop1, prop2) {
BaseClass.call(this);
this.prop1 = prop1;
this.prop2 = prop2;
this.type = this.constructor.name;
}
We invoke the parent constructor function, with the current object. The important thing to note here is that, we are setting the current context to the object of type DerivedClass1.
To actually do prototypal inheritance, you need to use the base class's prototype, not the object.
DerivedClass1.prototype = Object.create(BaseClass.prototype);
In your case, BaseClass's constructor doesn't depend on any arguments. So, doing DerivedClass1.prototype = new BaseClass(); will not make a big difference. But it is always better to depend only on the Parent constructor's prototype. Read more about using Object.create for inheritance, in this wonderful answer.
Currently in ES5 many of us are using the following pattern in frameworks to create classes and class variables, which is comfy:
// ES 5
FrameWork.Class({
variable: 'string',
variable2: true,
init: function(){
},
addItem: function(){
}
});
In ES6 you can create classes natively, but there is no option to have class variables:
// ES6
class MyClass {
const MY_CONST = 'string'; // <-- this is not possible in ES6
constructor(){
this.MY_CONST;
}
}
Sadly, the above won't work, as classes only can contain methods.
I understand that I can this.myVar = true in constructor…but I don't want to 'junk' my constructor, especially when I have 20-30+ params for a bigger class.
I was thinking of many ways to handle this issue, but haven't yet found any good ones. (For example: create a ClassConfig handler, and pass a parameter object, which is declared separately from the class. Then the handler would attach to the class. I was thinking about WeakMaps also to integrate, somehow.)
What kind of ideas would you have to handle this situation?
2018 update:
There is now a stage 3 proposal - I am looking forward to make this answer obsolete in a few months.
In the meantime anyone using TypeScript or babel can use the syntax:
varName = value
Inside a class declaration/expression body and it will define a variable. Hopefully in a few months/weeks I'll be able to post an update.
Update: Chrome 74 now ships with this syntax working.
The notes in the ES wiki for the proposal in ES6 (maximally minimal classes) note:
There is (intentionally) no direct declarative way to define either prototype data properties (other than methods) class properties, or instance property
Class properties and prototype data properties need be created outside the declaration.
Properties specified in a class definition are assigned the same attributes as if they appeared in an object literal.
This means that what you're asking for was considered, and explicitly decided against.
but... why?
Good question. The good people of TC39 want class declarations to declare and define the capabilities of a class. Not its members. An ES6 class declaration defines its contract for its user.
Remember, a class definition defines prototype methods - defining variables on the prototype is generally not something you do.
You can, of course use:
constructor(){
this.foo = bar
}
In the constructor like you suggested. Also see the summary of the consensus.
ES7 and beyond
A new proposal for ES7 is being worked on that allows more concise instance variables through class declarations and expressions - https://esdiscuss.org/topic/es7-property-initializers
Just to add to Benjamin's answer — class variables are possible, but you wouldn't use prototype to set them.
For a true class variable you'd want to do something like the following:
class MyClass {}
MyClass.foo = 'bar';
From within a class method that variable can be accessed as this.constructor.foo (or MyClass.foo).
These class properties would not usually be accessible from to the class instance. i.e. MyClass.foo gives 'bar' but new MyClass().foo is undefined
If you want to also have access to your class variable from an instance, you'll have to additionally define a getter:
class MyClass {
get foo() {
return this.constructor.foo;
}
}
MyClass.foo = 'bar';
I've only tested this with Traceur, but I believe it will work the same in a standard implementation.
JavaScript doesn't really have classes. Even with ES6 we're looking at an object- or prototype-based language rather than a class-based language. In any function X () {}, X.prototype.constructor points back to X.
When the new operator is used on X, a new object is created inheriting X.prototype. Any undefined properties in that new object (including constructor) are looked up from there. We can think of this as generating object and class properties.
Babel supports class variables in ESNext, check this example:
class Foo {
bar = 2
static iha = 'string'
}
const foo = new Foo();
console.log(foo.bar, foo.iha, Foo.bar, Foo.iha);
// 2, undefined, undefined, 'string'
In your example:
class MyClass {
const MY_CONST = 'string';
constructor(){
this.MY_CONST;
}
}
Because of MY_CONST is primitive https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Primitive we can just do:
class MyClass {
static get MY_CONST() {
return 'string';
}
get MY_CONST() {
return this.constructor.MY_CONST;
}
constructor() {
alert(this.MY_CONST === this.constructor.MY_CONST);
}
}
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string ; true
But if MY_CONST is reference type like static get MY_CONST() {return ['string'];} alert output is string, false. In such case delete operator can do the trick:
class MyClass {
static get MY_CONST() {
delete MyClass.MY_CONST;
return MyClass.MY_CONST = 'string';
}
get MY_CONST() {
return this.constructor.MY_CONST;
}
constructor() {
alert(this.MY_CONST === this.constructor.MY_CONST);
}
}
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string ; true
And finally for class variable not const:
class MyClass {
static get MY_CONST() {
delete MyClass.MY_CONST;
return MyClass.MY_CONST = 'string';
}
static set U_YIN_YANG(value) {
delete MyClass.MY_CONST;
MyClass.MY_CONST = value;
}
get MY_CONST() {
return this.constructor.MY_CONST;
}
set MY_CONST(value) {
this.constructor.MY_CONST = value;
}
constructor() {
alert(this.MY_CONST === this.constructor.MY_CONST);
}
}
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string, true
MyClass.MY_CONST = ['string, 42']
alert(MyClass.MY_CONST);
new MyClass
// alert: string, 42 ; true
Since your issue is mostly stylistic (not wanting to fill up the constructor with a bunch of declarations) it can be solved stylistically as well.
The way I view it, many class based languages have the constructor be a function named after the class name itself. Stylistically we could use that that to make an ES6 class that stylistically still makes sense but does not group the typical actions taking place in the constructor with all the property declarations we're doing. We simply use the actual JS constructor as the "declaration area", then make a class named function that we otherwise treat as the "other constructor stuff" area, calling it at the end of the true constructor.
"use strict";
class MyClass
{
// only declare your properties and then call this.ClassName(); from here
constructor(){
this.prop1 = 'blah 1';
this.prop2 = 'blah 2';
this.prop3 = 'blah 3';
this.MyClass();
}
// all sorts of other "constructor" stuff, no longer jumbled with declarations
MyClass() {
doWhatever();
}
}
Both will be called as the new instance is constructed.
Sorta like having 2 constructors where you separate out the declarations and the other constructor actions you want to take, and stylistically makes it not too hard to understand that's what is going on too.
I find it's a nice style to use when dealing with a lot of declarations and/or a lot of actions needing to happen on instantiation and wanting to keep the two ideas distinct from each other.
NOTE: I very purposefully do not use the typical idiomatic ideas of "initializing" (like an init() or initialize() method) because those are often used differently. There is a sort of presumed difference between the idea of constructing and initializing. Working with constructors people know that they're called automatically as part of instantiation. Seeing an init method many people are going to assume without a second glance that they need to be doing something along the form of var mc = MyClass(); mc.init();, because that's how you typically initialize. I'm not trying to add an initialization process for the user of the class, I'm trying to add to the construction process of the class itself.
While some people may do a double-take for a moment, that's actually the bit of the point: it communicates to them that the intent is part of construction, even if that makes them do a bit of a double take and go "that's not how ES6 constructors work" and take a second looking at the actual constructor to go "oh, they call it at the bottom, I see", that's far better than NOT communicating that intent (or incorrectly communicating it) and probably getting a lot of people using it wrong, trying to initialize it from the outside and junk. That's very much intentional to the pattern I suggest.
For those that don't want to follow that pattern, the exact opposite can work too. Farm the declarations out to another function at the beginning. Maybe name it "properties" or "publicProperties" or something. Then put the rest of the stuff in the normal constructor.
"use strict";
class MyClass
{
properties() {
this.prop1 = 'blah 1';
this.prop2 = 'blah 2';
this.prop3 = 'blah 3';
}
constructor() {
this.properties();
doWhatever();
}
}
Note that this second method may look cleaner but it also has an inherent problem where properties gets overridden as one class using this method extends another. You'd have to give more unique names to properties to avoid that. My first method does not have this problem because its fake half of the constructor is uniquely named after the class.
As Benjamin said in his answer, TC39 explicitly decided not to include this feature at least for ES2015. However, the consensus seems to be that they will add it in ES2016.
The syntax hasn't been decided yet, but there's a preliminary proposal for ES2016 that will allow you to declare static properties on a class.
Thanks to the magic of babel, you can use this today. Enable the class properties transform according to these instructions and you're good to go. Here's an example of the syntax:
class foo {
static myProp = 'bar'
someFunction() {
console.log(this.myProp)
}
}
This proposal is in a very early state, so be prepared to tweak your syntax as time goes on.
What about the oldschool way?
class MyClass {
constructor(count){
this.countVar = 1 + count;
}
}
MyClass.prototype.foo = "foo";
MyClass.prototype.countVar = 0;
// ...
var o1 = new MyClass(2); o2 = new MyClass(3);
o1.foo = "newFoo";
console.log( o1.foo,o2.foo);
console.log( o1.countVar,o2.countVar);
In constructor you mention only those vars which have to be computed.
I like prototype inheritance for this feature -- it can help to save a lot of memory(in case if there are a lot of never-assigned vars).
[Long thread, not sure if its already listed as an option...].
A simple alternative for contsants only, would be defining the const outside of class.
This will be accessible only from the module itself, unless accompanied with a getter.
This way prototype isn't littered and you get the const.
// will be accessible only from the module itself
const MY_CONST = 'string';
class MyClass {
// optional, if external access is desired
static get MY_CONST(){return MY_CONST;}
// access example
static someMethod(){
console.log(MY_CONST);
}
}
ES7 class member syntax:
ES7 has a solution for 'junking' your constructor function. Here is an example:
class Car {
wheels = 4;
weight = 100;
}
const car = new Car();
console.log(car.wheels, car.weight);
The above example would look the following in ES6:
class Car {
constructor() {
this.wheels = 4;
this.weight = 100;
}
}
const car = new Car();
console.log(car.wheels, car.weight);
Be aware when using this that this syntax might not be supported by all browsers and might have to be transpiled an earlier version of JS.
Bonus: an object factory:
function generateCar(wheels, weight) {
class Car {
constructor() {}
wheels = wheels;
weight = weight;
}
return new Car();
}
const car1 = generateCar(4, 50);
const car2 = generateCar(6, 100);
console.log(car1.wheels, car1.weight);
console.log(car2.wheels, car2.weight);
You can mimic es6 classes behaviour... and use your class variables :)
Look mum... no classes!
// Helper
const $constructor = Symbol();
const $extends = (parent, child) =>
Object.assign(Object.create(parent), child);
const $new = (object, ...args) => {
let instance = Object.create(object);
instance[$constructor].call(instance, ...args);
return instance;
}
const $super = (parent, context, ...args) => {
parent[$constructor].call(context, ...args)
}
// class
var Foo = {
classVariable: true,
// constructor
[$constructor](who){
this.me = who;
this.species = 'fufel';
},
// methods
identify(){
return 'I am ' + this.me;
}
}
// class extends Foo
var Bar = $extends(Foo, {
// constructor
[$constructor](who){
$super(Foo, this, who);
this.subtype = 'barashek';
},
// methods
speak(){
console.log('Hello, ' + this.identify());
},
bark(num){
console.log('Woof');
}
});
var a1 = $new(Foo, 'a1');
var b1 = $new(Bar, 'b1');
console.log(a1, b1);
console.log('b1.classVariable', b1.classVariable);
I put it on GitHub
Still you can't declare any classes like in another programming languages. But you can create as many class variables. But problem is scope of class object. So According to me, Best way OOP Programming in ES6 Javascript:-
class foo{
constructor(){
//decalre your all variables
this.MY_CONST = 3.14;
this.x = 5;
this.y = 7;
// or call another method to declare more variables outside from constructor.
// now create method level object reference and public level property
this.MySelf = this;
// you can also use var modifier rather than property but that is not working good
let self = this.MySelf;
//code .........
}
set MySelf(v){
this.mySelf = v;
}
get MySelf(v){
return this.mySelf;
}
myMethod(cd){
// now use as object reference it in any method of class
let self = this.MySelf;
// now use self as object reference in code
}
}
If its only the cluttering what gives the problem in the constructor why not implement a initialize method that intializes the variables. This is a normal thing to do when the constructor gets to full with unnecessary stuff. Even in typed program languages like C# its normal convention to add an Initialize method to handle that.
Just define a getter.
class MyClass
{
get MY_CONST () { return 'string'; }
constructor ()
{
console.log ("MyClass MY_CONST:", this.MY_CONST);
}
}
var obj = new MyClass();
The way I solved this, which is another option (if you have jQuery available), was to Define the fields in an old-school object and then extend the class with that object. I also didn't want to pepper the constructor with assignments, this appeared to be a neat solution.
function MyClassFields(){
this.createdAt = new Date();
}
MyClassFields.prototype = {
id : '',
type : '',
title : '',
createdAt : null,
};
class MyClass {
constructor() {
$.extend(this,new MyClassFields());
}
};
-- Update Following Bergi's comment.
No JQuery Version:
class SavedSearch {
constructor() {
Object.assign(this,{
id : '',
type : '',
title : '',
createdAt: new Date(),
});
}
}
You still do end up with 'fat' constructor, but at least its all in one class and assigned in one hit.
EDIT #2:
I've now gone full circle and am now assigning values in the constructor, e.g.
class SavedSearch {
constructor() {
this.id = '';
this.type = '';
this.title = '';
this.createdAt = new Date();
}
}
Why? Simple really, using the above plus some JSdoc comments, PHPStorm was able to perform code completion on the properties. Assigning all the vars in one hit was nice, but the inability to code complete the properties, imo, isn't worth the (almost certainly minuscule) performance benefit.
Well, you can declare variables inside the Constructor.
class Foo {
constructor() {
var name = "foo"
this.method = function() {
return name
}
}
}
var foo = new Foo()
foo.method()
Recent browsers as of 2021 (not IE, see MDN browser chart) implement Public class fields which seems to be what you're looking for:
class MyClass {
static foo = 3;
}
console.log(MyClass.foo);
However apparently it's not possible to make this a const: Declaring static constants in ES6 classes?
A static getter looks pretty close:
class MyClass {
static get CONST() {
return 3;
}
}
MyClass.CONST = 4; // property unaffected
console.log(MyClass.CONST);
This is a bit hackish combo of static and get works for me
class ConstantThingy{
static get NO_REENTER__INIT() {
if(ConstantThingy._NO_REENTER__INIT== null){
ConstantThingy._NO_REENTER__INIT = new ConstantThingy(false,true);
}
return ConstantThingy._NO_REENTER__INIT;
}
}
elsewhere used
var conf = ConstantThingy.NO_REENTER__INIT;
if(conf.init)...