I have two IFFE:
var Helper = (function () {
return {
number: null,
init: function (num) {
number = num;
}
}
})();
var Helper2 = (function () {
return {
options: {
number: [],
},
init: function(num){
this.options.number = num;
},
getData: function () {
return this.options.number;
}
}
})();
Helper2.init(Helper.number);
console.log(Helper2.getData());
Helper.init(5);
console.log(Helper2.getData());
What I want is
Helper2.init(Helper.number);
console.log(Helper2.getData()); // null
Helper.init(5);
console.log(Helper2.getData()); // 5
what I get is
Helper2.init(Helper.number);
console.log(Helper2.getData()); // null
Helper.init(5);
console.log(Helper2.getData()); // null
What techniques can be done to have it pass by reference, if it can?
JSBIN: https://jsbin.com/gomakubeka/1/edit?js,console
Edit: Before tons of people start incorporating different ways to have Helper2 depend on Helper, the actual implementation of Helper is unknown and could have 100's of ways they implement the number, so Helper2 needs the memory address.
Edit 2: I suppose the path I was hoping to get some start on was knowing that arrays/objects do get passed by reference, how can I wrap this primitive type in such a way that I can use by reference
Passing by reference in JavaScript can only happen to objects.
The only thing you can pass by value in JavaScript are primitive data types.
If on your first object you changed the "number:null" to be nested within an options object like it is in your second object then you can pass a reference of that object to the other object. The trick is if your needing pass by reference to use objects and not primitive data types. Instead nest the primitive data types inside objects and use the objects.
I altered you code a little bit but I think this works for what you were trying to achieve.
var Helper = function (num) {
return {
options: {
number: num
},
update: function (options) {
this.options = options;
}
}
};
var Helper2 = function (num) {
return {
options: {
number: num,
},
update: function(options){
this.options = options;
},
getData: function () {
return this.options.number;
}
}
};
var tempHelp = new Helper();
var tempHelp2 = new Helper2();
tempHelp2.update(tempHelp.options);
tempHelp.options.number = 5;
console.log(tempHelp2.getData());
First of all why doesn't it work:
helper is a self activating function that returns an object. When init is called upon it sets an number to the Helper object.
Then in Helper2 you pass an integer (Helper.number) to init setting the object to null. So you're not passing the reference to Helper.number. Only the value set to it.
You need to pass the whole object to it and read it out.
An example:
var Helper = (function () {
return {
number: null,
init: function (num) {
this.number = num; //add this
}
}
})();
var Helper2 = (function () {
return {
options: {
number: [],
},
init: function(obj){
this.options = obj; //save a reference to the helper obj.
},
getData: function () {
if (this.options.number)
{
return this.options.number;
}
}
}
})();
Helper2.init(Helper); //store the helper object
console.log(Helper2.getData());
Helper.init(5);
console.log(Helper2.getData());
I don't think you're going to be able to get exactly what you want. However, in one of your comments you said:
Unfortunately interfaces aren't something in javascript
That isn't exactly true. Yes, there's no strong typing and users of your code are free to disregard your suggestions entirely if you say that a function needs a specific type of object.
But, you can still create an interface of sorts that you want users to extend from in order to play nice with your own code. For example, you can tell users that they must extend from the Valuable class with provides a mechanism to access a value computed property which will be a Reference instance that can encapsulate a primitive (solving the problem of not being able to pass primitive by reference).
Since this uses computed properties, this also has the benefit of leveraging the .value notation. The thing is that the .value will be a Reference instead of the actual value.
// Intermediary class that can be passed around and hold primitives
class Reference {
constructor(val) {
this.val = val;
}
}
// Interface that dictates "value"
class Valuable {
constructor() {
this._value = new Reference();
}
get value() {
return this._value;
}
set value(v) {
this._value.val = v;
}
}
// "Concrete" class that implements the Valuable interface
class ValuableHelper extends Valuable {
constructor() {
super();
}
}
// Class that will deal with a ValuableHelper
class Helper {
constructor(n) {
this.options = {
number: n
}
}
getData() {
return this.options.number;
}
setData(n) {
this.options.number = n;
}
}
// Create our instances
const vh = new ValuableHelper(),
hh = new Helper(vh.value);
// Do our stuff
console.log(hh.getData().val);
vh.value = 5;
console.log(hh.getData().val);
hh.setData(vh.value);
vh.value = 5;
Related
I recently read about the fact that there is a possibility of defining getters/setters in JavaScript. It seems extremely helpful - the setter is a kind of 'helper' which can parse the value to be set first, before actually setting it.
For example, I currently have this code:
var obj = function(value) {
var test = !!value; // 'test' has to be a boolean
return {
get test() { return test },
set test(value) { test = !!value }
};
};
var instance = new obj(true);
This code always converts value to a boolean. So if you code instance.test = 0, then instance.test === false.
However, for this to work you have to actually return an object, which means that the new instance is not of type obj but just is a plain object. This means that changing the prototype of obj has no effect on instances. For example, this does not work - instance.func is undefined:
obj.prototype.func = function() { console.log(this.value); };
because instance is not of type obj. To get the prototype functions work, I guess I should not return a plain object, but rather not return anything so that instance would just be of type obj, like a regular constructor works.
The problem then is how to implement getters/setters? I can only find articles describing how to add these to an object, not as being part of the constructor of a custom type.
So how do I implement getters/setters in the constructor so as to be able to both use getters/setters and extending the prototype?
You can't do that.
You can set setter/getters for properties of objects though. I advice you use ES5 Object.defineProperties though. of course this only works in modern browsers.
var obj = function() {
...
Object.defineProperties(this, {
"test": {
"get": function() { ... },
"set": function() { ... }
}
});
}
obj.prototype.func = function() { ... }
var o = new obj;
o.test;
o.func();
Usually you want class methods. The answer by #Raynos on May 7, 2011 gets the job done, but it defines an instance method, not a class method.
The following illustrates a class definition with a the getter and setter being part of the class. This definition is a lot like the answer by #Raynos, but with two differences in the code: (1) The "defineProperties()" action has been moved out of the constructor. (2) The argument to "defineProperties()"as been changed from the instance object "this", to the constructor's prototype object.
function TheConstructor(side) {
this.side = side;
}
Object.defineProperties(TheConstructor.prototype, {
area: {
get: function() { return this.side * this.side; }
,set: function(val) { this.side = Math.sqrt(val); }
}
});
// Test code:
var anInstance = new TheConstructor(2);
console.log("initial Area:"+anInstance.area);
anInstance.area = 9;
console.log("modified Area:"+anInstance.area);
Which produces these results:
initial Area:4
modified Area:9
Although usually the distinction between class versus instance
definition is just a matter of style, there is a purpose to
good style, and there is a case where the distinction matters:
the memoized getter. The purpose for a memoized getter is
described here: Smart/self-overwriting/lazy getters
Define the getter at the class level when the memoized value is to
pertain to the entire class. For example, a configuration file
should be read only once; the resulting values should then apply
for the duration of the program. The following sample code
defines a memoized getter at the class level.
function configureMe() {
return 42;
}
Object.defineProperties(TheConstructor.prototype, {
memoizedConfigParam: {
get: function() {
delete TheConstructor.prototype.memoizedConfigParam;
return TheConstructor.prototype.memoizedConfigParam = configureMe();
}
,configurable: true
}
});
// Test code:
console.log("memoizedConfigParam:"+anInstance.memoizedConfigParam);
Produces:
memoizedConfigParam:42
As can be seen in the example, memoized getters have the
characteristic that the getter function deletes itself,
then replaces itself with a simple value that
(presumably) will never change.
Note that 'configurable' must be set to 'true'.
Define the getter at the instance level when the memoized value
depends upon the contents of instance. The definition moves
inside the constructor, and the object of attention is 'this'.
function TheConstructorI(side) {
this.side = side;
Object.defineProperties(this, {
memoizedCalculation: {
get: function() {
delete this.memoizedCalculation;
return this.memoizedCalculation = this.expensiveOperation();
}
,configurable: true
}
});
}
TheConstructorI.prototype.expensiveOperation = function() {
return this.side * this.side * this.side;
}
//Test code:
var instance2 = new TheConstructorI(2);
var instance3 = new TheConstructorI(3);
console.log("memoizedCalculation 2:"+instance2.memoizedCalculation);
console.log("memoizedCalculation 3:"+instance3.memoizedCalculation);
Produces:
memoizedCalculation 2:8
memoizedCalculation 3:27
If you want to guarantee (rather than presume) that the memoized
value will never be changed, the 'writable' attribute needs to
be changed. That makes the code a bit more complicated.
function TheConstructorJ(side) {
this.side = side;
Object.defineProperties(this, {
memoizedCalculation: {
get: function() {
delete this.memoizedCalculation;
Object.defineProperty( this, 'memoizedCalculation'
,{ value : this.expensiveOperation()
,writable : false
});
return this.memoizedCalculation;
}
,configurable: true
}
});
}
TheConstructorJ.prototype.expensiveOperation = function() {
return this.side * this.side * this.side;
}
//Test code:
var instanceJ = new TheConstructorJ(2);
console.log("memoizedCalculation:"+instanceJ.memoizedCalculation);
instanceJ.memoizedCalculation = 42; // results in error
Produces:
memoizedCalculation:8
>Uncaught TypeError: Cannot assign to read only property 'memoizedCalculation' of object '#<TheConstructorJ>'
The OP's original question, from March 7, 2011, presented basic
getter and setter syntax, noted that it worked on an object but
not on 'this', and asked how to define getters and setters within
a constructor. In addition to all the examples above, there is
also a "cheap-shot" way of doing it: create a new object within
the constructor, like the OP did, but then assign the object to
be a member within 'this'. So, the original code would look like
this:
var MyClass = function(value) {
var test = !!value; // 'test' has to be a boolean
this.data = {
get test() { return test },
set test(value) { test = !!value }
};
};
var instance = new MyClass(true);
// But now 'data' is part of the access path
instance.data.test = 0;
console.log(instance.data.test);
Produces:
false
Believe it or not, I have actually run into situations where
this "cheap-shot" is the best solution. Specifically, I used this
technique when I had records from several tables encapsulated within
a single class, and wanted to present a unified view as though
they were a single record called 'data'.
Have fun.
IAM_AL_X
Update for ES6 -- have a look at section 19.3.1 of Alex Rauschmayer's book Exploring ES6 http://exploringjs.com/es6/ch_maps-sets.html#sec_weakmaps-private-data which demonstrates how to use WeakMaps with getters and setters to hold private data. Combining with section 16.2.2.3 http://exploringjs.com/es6/ch_classes.html#leanpub-auto-getters-and-setters would result in something like
# module test_WeakMap_getter.js
var _MyClassProp = new WeakMap();
class MyClass {
get prop() {
return _MyClassProp.get( this );
}
set prop(value) {
_MyClassProp.set( this, value );
}
}
var mc = new MyClass();
mc.prop = 5 ;
console.log( 'My value is', mc.prop );
$ node --use_strict test_WeakMap_getter.js
My value is 5
function Obj(value){
this.value = !!value;
}
Obj.prototype = {
get test () {
return this.value;``
},
set test (value) {
this.value = !!this.value;
}
};
var obj = new Obj(true);
I know this might be extremely late but I figured out a different way to accomplish what you want and for the sake of people, like myself, googling for an answer to this here it is.
function Constructor(input){
this.input = input;
}
Object.__defineGetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "value", function(){
return this.input * 2;
});
var test = new Constructor(5);
alert(test.value) // 10
I've tested this in chrome, safari, mobile safari, firefox and they all work (latest versions of course)
#Alex I see it as more option and more power, programming is art, #Nat share his finding with us, and for that I thank him. Maybe someone want to do it that way.
I'm sure the setter version is the same but just changing that g to a s.
i.g:
function Constructor(input){
this.input = input;
}
Object.__defineGetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "value", function(){
return this.input * 2;
});
Object.__defineSetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "bar", function(foo){
return this.input *= foo;
});
var test = new Constructor(5);
console.log(test.value); // 10
test.bar = 5;
console.log(test.input); //25
With that said, this feature is deprecated, advices to not to use in production coding.
I've been building a small JS framework for use at my job, and I'd like to employ Douglas Crockford's prototypical inheritance patterns. I think I get the general idea of how the prototype object works, but what isn't clear is the way in which I would use this pattern beyond the simplest example.
I'll flesh it out to the point that I understand it.
(function () {
'use strict';
var Vehicles = {};
Vehicles.Vehicle = function () {
this.go = function () {
//go forwards
};
this.stop = function () {
//stop
};
};
Vehicles.Airplane = Object.create(Vehicles.Vehicle());
}());
So now my Vehicles.Airplane object can go() and stop(), but I want more. I want to add takeOff() and land() methods to this object. I could just use ugly dot notation afterwards:
Vehicles.Airplane.takeOff = function () {
//take off stuff
}
But that seems wrong, especially if I were to add many methods or properties. The question asked at here seems to be very similar to mine, but the answer doesn't quite ring true for me. The answer suggests that I should build an object literal before using Object.create, and that I should pass that object literal into the create method. In the example code given, however, it looks like their new object inherits nothing at all now.
What I'm hoping for is some syntax similar to:
Vehicles.Airplane = Object.create(Vehicles.Vehicle({
this.takeOff = function () {
//takeOff stuff
};
this.land = function () {
//land stuff
};
}));
I know this syntax will break terribly with Object.create right now, because of course I'm passing Vehicle.Vehicle a function rather than an object literal. That's beside the point. I'm wondering in what way I should build new properties into an object that inherits from another without having to list them out one at a time with dot notation after the fact.
EDIT:
Bergi, after some anguished thought on the topic, I think I really want to go with what you described as the "Classical Pattern". Here is my first stab at it (now with actual code snippets rather than mocked up hypotheticals - You even get to see my crappy method stubs):
CS.Button = function (o) {
o = o || {};
function init(self) {
self.domNode = dce('a');
self.text = o.text || '';
self.displayType = 'inline-block';
self.disabled = o.disabled || false;
self.domNode.appendChild(ctn(self.text));
if (o.handler) {
self.addListener('click', function () {
o.handler(self);
});
}
}
this.setText = function (newText) {
if (this.domNode.firstChild) {
this.domNode.removeChild(this.domNode.firstChild);
}
this.domNode.appendChild(ctn(newText));
};
init(this);
};
CS.Button.prototype = Object.create(CS.Displayable.prototype, {
constructor: {value: CS.Button, configurable: true}
});
CS.Displayable = function (o) { // o = CS Object
o = o || {};
var f = Object.create(new CS.Element(o));
function init(self) {
if (!self.domAnchor) {
self.domAnchor = self.domNode;
}
if (self.renderTo) {
self.renderTo.appendChild(self.domAnchor);
}
}
//Public Methods
this.addClass = function (newClass) {
if (typeof newClass === 'string') {
this.domNode.className += ' ' + newClass;
}
};
this.addListener = function (event, func, capture) {
if (this.domNode.addEventListener) {
this.domNode.addEventListener(event, func, capture);
} else if (this.domNode.attachEvent) {
this.domNode.attachEvent('on' + event, func);
}
};
this.blur = function () {
this.domNode.blur();
};
this.disable = function () {
this.disabled = true;
};
this.enable = function () {
this.disabled = false;
};
this.focus = function () {
this.domNode.focus();
};
this.getHeight = function () {
return this.domNode.offsetHeight;
};
this.getWidth = function () {
return this.domNode.offsetWidth;
};
this.hide = function () {
this.domNode.style.display = 'none';
};
this.isDisabled = function () {
return this.disabled;
};
this.removeClass = function (classToRemove) {
var classArray = this.domNode.className.split(' ');
classArray.splice(classArray.indexOf(classToRemove), 1);
this.domNode.className = classArray.join(' ');
};
this.removeListener = function () {
//Remove DOM element listener
};
this.show = function () {
this.domNode.style.display = this.displayType;
};
init(this);
};
CS.Displayable.prototype = Object.create(CS.Element.prototype, {
constructor: {value: CS.Displayable, configurable: true}
});
I should be quite clear and say that it's not quite working yet, but mostly I'd like your opinion on whether I'm even on the right track. You mentioned "instance-specific properties and methods" in a comment in your example. Does that mean that my this.setText method and others are wrongly placed, and won't be available to descendant items on the prototype chain?
Also, when used, it seems that the order of declaration now matters (I can't access CS.Displayable.prototype, because (I think) CS.Button is listed first, and CS.Displayable is undefined at the time that I'm trying to reference it). Is that something I'll just have to man up and deal with (put things in order of ancestry in the code rather than my OCD alphabetical order) or is there something I'm overlooking there as well?
Vehicles.Airplane = Object.create(Vehicles.Vehicle());
That line is wrong. You seem to want to use new Vehicles.Vehicle - never call a constructor without new!
Still, I'm not sure which pattern you want to use. Two are coming to my mind:
Classical Pattern
You are using constructor functions just as in standard JS. Inheritance is done by inheriting the prototype objects from each other, and applying the parent constructor on child instances. Your code should then look like this:
Vehicles.Vehicle = function () {
// instance-specific properties and methods,
// initialising
}
Vehicles.Vehicle.prototype.go = function () {
//go forwards
};
Vehicles.Vehicle.prototype.stop = function () {
//stop
};
Vehicles.Airplane = function() {
// Vehicles.Vehicle.apply(this, arguments);
// not needed here as "Vehicle" is empty
// maybe airplane-spefic instance initialisation
}
Vehicles.Airplane.prototype = Object.create(Vehicles.Vehicle.prototype, {
constructor: {value:Vehicles.Airplane, configurable:true}
}); // inheriting from Vehicle prototype, and overwriting constructor property
Vehicles.Airplane.prototype.takeOff = function () {
//take off stuff
};
// usage:
var airplane = new Vehicles.Airplace(params);
Pure Prototypical Pattern
You are using plain objects instead of constructor functions - no initialisation. To create instances, and to set up inheritance, only Object.create is used. It is like having only the prototype objects, and empty constructors. instancof does not work here. The code would look like this:
Vehicles.Vehicle = {
go: function () {
//go forwards
},
stop: function () {
//stop
}
}; // just an object literal
Vehicles.Airplane = Object.create(Vehicles.Vehicle); // a new object inheriting the go & stop methods
Vehicles.Airplane.takeOff = function () {
//take off stuff
};
// usage:
var airplane = Object.create(Vehicles.Airplane);
airplane.prop = params; // maybe also an "init" function, but that seems weird to me
You got Object.create wrong. The first argument should be an object (maybe that's why people suggested you pass a literal).
In your first example, you're actually passing undefined:
Vehicles.Airplane = Object.create(Vehicles.Vehicle()); // the function call will
// return undefined
The following would work, but it's not very Crockford-ish:
Vehicles.Airplane = Object.create(new Vehicles.Vehicle());
The way I believe Crockford would do it (or, at least, wouldn't complain of):
var Vehicles = {};
Vehicles.Vehicle = {
go : function() {
// go stuff
},
stop : function() {
// go stuff
}
};
Vehicles.Airplane = Object.create(Vehicles.Vehicle, {
takeOff : {
value : function() {
// take-off stuff
}
},
land : {
value: function() {
// land stuff
}
}
});
Note that Vehicles.Vehicle is just a literal, which will be used as the prototype for other objects. When we call Object.create, we pass Vehicles.Vehicle as the prototype, and takeOff and land will be own properties of Vehicles.Airplane. You may then call Object.create again, passing Vehicles.Airplane as the prototype, if you want to create e.g. a Boeing.
The own properties passed as the second parameter are packed in an object that contains a representation of their property descriptors. The outer keys are the names of your properties/methods, and each one points to another object containing the actual implementation as the value. You may also include other keys like enumerable; if you don't they'll take the default values. You can read more about descriptors on the MDN page about Object.defineProperty.
I recently read about the fact that there is a possibility of defining getters/setters in JavaScript. It seems extremely helpful - the setter is a kind of 'helper' which can parse the value to be set first, before actually setting it.
For example, I currently have this code:
var obj = function(value) {
var test = !!value; // 'test' has to be a boolean
return {
get test() { return test },
set test(value) { test = !!value }
};
};
var instance = new obj(true);
This code always converts value to a boolean. So if you code instance.test = 0, then instance.test === false.
However, for this to work you have to actually return an object, which means that the new instance is not of type obj but just is a plain object. This means that changing the prototype of obj has no effect on instances. For example, this does not work - instance.func is undefined:
obj.prototype.func = function() { console.log(this.value); };
because instance is not of type obj. To get the prototype functions work, I guess I should not return a plain object, but rather not return anything so that instance would just be of type obj, like a regular constructor works.
The problem then is how to implement getters/setters? I can only find articles describing how to add these to an object, not as being part of the constructor of a custom type.
So how do I implement getters/setters in the constructor so as to be able to both use getters/setters and extending the prototype?
You can't do that.
You can set setter/getters for properties of objects though. I advice you use ES5 Object.defineProperties though. of course this only works in modern browsers.
var obj = function() {
...
Object.defineProperties(this, {
"test": {
"get": function() { ... },
"set": function() { ... }
}
});
}
obj.prototype.func = function() { ... }
var o = new obj;
o.test;
o.func();
Usually you want class methods. The answer by #Raynos on May 7, 2011 gets the job done, but it defines an instance method, not a class method.
The following illustrates a class definition with a the getter and setter being part of the class. This definition is a lot like the answer by #Raynos, but with two differences in the code: (1) The "defineProperties()" action has been moved out of the constructor. (2) The argument to "defineProperties()"as been changed from the instance object "this", to the constructor's prototype object.
function TheConstructor(side) {
this.side = side;
}
Object.defineProperties(TheConstructor.prototype, {
area: {
get: function() { return this.side * this.side; }
,set: function(val) { this.side = Math.sqrt(val); }
}
});
// Test code:
var anInstance = new TheConstructor(2);
console.log("initial Area:"+anInstance.area);
anInstance.area = 9;
console.log("modified Area:"+anInstance.area);
Which produces these results:
initial Area:4
modified Area:9
Although usually the distinction between class versus instance
definition is just a matter of style, there is a purpose to
good style, and there is a case where the distinction matters:
the memoized getter. The purpose for a memoized getter is
described here: Smart/self-overwriting/lazy getters
Define the getter at the class level when the memoized value is to
pertain to the entire class. For example, a configuration file
should be read only once; the resulting values should then apply
for the duration of the program. The following sample code
defines a memoized getter at the class level.
function configureMe() {
return 42;
}
Object.defineProperties(TheConstructor.prototype, {
memoizedConfigParam: {
get: function() {
delete TheConstructor.prototype.memoizedConfigParam;
return TheConstructor.prototype.memoizedConfigParam = configureMe();
}
,configurable: true
}
});
// Test code:
console.log("memoizedConfigParam:"+anInstance.memoizedConfigParam);
Produces:
memoizedConfigParam:42
As can be seen in the example, memoized getters have the
characteristic that the getter function deletes itself,
then replaces itself with a simple value that
(presumably) will never change.
Note that 'configurable' must be set to 'true'.
Define the getter at the instance level when the memoized value
depends upon the contents of instance. The definition moves
inside the constructor, and the object of attention is 'this'.
function TheConstructorI(side) {
this.side = side;
Object.defineProperties(this, {
memoizedCalculation: {
get: function() {
delete this.memoizedCalculation;
return this.memoizedCalculation = this.expensiveOperation();
}
,configurable: true
}
});
}
TheConstructorI.prototype.expensiveOperation = function() {
return this.side * this.side * this.side;
}
//Test code:
var instance2 = new TheConstructorI(2);
var instance3 = new TheConstructorI(3);
console.log("memoizedCalculation 2:"+instance2.memoizedCalculation);
console.log("memoizedCalculation 3:"+instance3.memoizedCalculation);
Produces:
memoizedCalculation 2:8
memoizedCalculation 3:27
If you want to guarantee (rather than presume) that the memoized
value will never be changed, the 'writable' attribute needs to
be changed. That makes the code a bit more complicated.
function TheConstructorJ(side) {
this.side = side;
Object.defineProperties(this, {
memoizedCalculation: {
get: function() {
delete this.memoizedCalculation;
Object.defineProperty( this, 'memoizedCalculation'
,{ value : this.expensiveOperation()
,writable : false
});
return this.memoizedCalculation;
}
,configurable: true
}
});
}
TheConstructorJ.prototype.expensiveOperation = function() {
return this.side * this.side * this.side;
}
//Test code:
var instanceJ = new TheConstructorJ(2);
console.log("memoizedCalculation:"+instanceJ.memoizedCalculation);
instanceJ.memoizedCalculation = 42; // results in error
Produces:
memoizedCalculation:8
>Uncaught TypeError: Cannot assign to read only property 'memoizedCalculation' of object '#<TheConstructorJ>'
The OP's original question, from March 7, 2011, presented basic
getter and setter syntax, noted that it worked on an object but
not on 'this', and asked how to define getters and setters within
a constructor. In addition to all the examples above, there is
also a "cheap-shot" way of doing it: create a new object within
the constructor, like the OP did, but then assign the object to
be a member within 'this'. So, the original code would look like
this:
var MyClass = function(value) {
var test = !!value; // 'test' has to be a boolean
this.data = {
get test() { return test },
set test(value) { test = !!value }
};
};
var instance = new MyClass(true);
// But now 'data' is part of the access path
instance.data.test = 0;
console.log(instance.data.test);
Produces:
false
Believe it or not, I have actually run into situations where
this "cheap-shot" is the best solution. Specifically, I used this
technique when I had records from several tables encapsulated within
a single class, and wanted to present a unified view as though
they were a single record called 'data'.
Have fun.
IAM_AL_X
Update for ES6 -- have a look at section 19.3.1 of Alex Rauschmayer's book Exploring ES6 http://exploringjs.com/es6/ch_maps-sets.html#sec_weakmaps-private-data which demonstrates how to use WeakMaps with getters and setters to hold private data. Combining with section 16.2.2.3 http://exploringjs.com/es6/ch_classes.html#leanpub-auto-getters-and-setters would result in something like
# module test_WeakMap_getter.js
var _MyClassProp = new WeakMap();
class MyClass {
get prop() {
return _MyClassProp.get( this );
}
set prop(value) {
_MyClassProp.set( this, value );
}
}
var mc = new MyClass();
mc.prop = 5 ;
console.log( 'My value is', mc.prop );
$ node --use_strict test_WeakMap_getter.js
My value is 5
function Obj(value){
this.value = !!value;
}
Obj.prototype = {
get test () {
return this.value;``
},
set test (value) {
this.value = !!this.value;
}
};
var obj = new Obj(true);
I know this might be extremely late but I figured out a different way to accomplish what you want and for the sake of people, like myself, googling for an answer to this here it is.
function Constructor(input){
this.input = input;
}
Object.__defineGetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "value", function(){
return this.input * 2;
});
var test = new Constructor(5);
alert(test.value) // 10
I've tested this in chrome, safari, mobile safari, firefox and they all work (latest versions of course)
#Alex I see it as more option and more power, programming is art, #Nat share his finding with us, and for that I thank him. Maybe someone want to do it that way.
I'm sure the setter version is the same but just changing that g to a s.
i.g:
function Constructor(input){
this.input = input;
}
Object.__defineGetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "value", function(){
return this.input * 2;
});
Object.__defineSetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "bar", function(foo){
return this.input *= foo;
});
var test = new Constructor(5);
console.log(test.value); // 10
test.bar = 5;
console.log(test.input); //25
With that said, this feature is deprecated, advices to not to use in production coding.
I need to create simple reusable javascript object publishing several methods and parameterized constructor. After reading through several "OOP in JavaScript" guides I'm sitting here with an empty head. How on the Earth can I do this?
Here my last non-working code:
SomeClass = function(id) {
this._id = id;
}
(function() {
function intFun() {
return this._id;
}
SomeClass.prototype.extFun = function() {
return incFun();
}
})();
This is my usual approach:
MyClass = function(x, y, z) {
// This is the constructor. When you use it with "new MyClass(),"
// then "this" refers to the new object being constructed. So you can
// assign member variables to it.
this.x = x;
...
};
MyClass.prototype = {
doSomething: function() {
// Here we can use the member variable that
// we created in the constructor.
return this.x;
},
somethingElse: function(a) {
}
};
var myObj = new MyClass(1,2,3);
alert(myObj.doSomething()); // this will return the object's "x" member
alert(myObj.x); // this will do the same, by accessing the member directly
Normally the "this" keyword, when used in one of the object's methods, will refer to the object itself. When you use it in the constructor, it will refer to the new object that's being created. So in the above example, both alert statements will display "1".
An exception to this rule is when you pass one of your member functions somewhere else, and then call it. For example,
myDiv.onclick = myObj.doSomething;
In this case, JavaScript ignores the fact that "doSomething" belongs to "myObj". As a result, the "this" inside doSomething will point to another object, so the method won't work as expected. To get around this, you need to specify the object to which "this" should refer. You can do so with JavaScript's "call" function:
myDiv.onclick = function() {
myObj.doSomething.call(myObj);
}
It's weird, but you'll get used to it eventually. The bottom line is that, when passing around methods, you also need to pass around the object that they should be called on.
I usually don't worry too much about hiding the internals, although I do prefix them with underscores to mark them as not intended to be used outside the "class". Normally what I will do is:
var MyClass = function() {};
MyClass.prototype = {
_someVar : null,
_otherVar : null,
initialize: function( optionHash ) {
_someVar = optionsHash["varValue"];
_otherVar = optionsHash["otherValue"];
},
method: function( arg ) {
return _someVar + arg;
},
};
And use it as so...
var myClass = new MyClass( { varValue: -1, otherValue: 10 } );
var foo = myClass.method(6);
All vars are private:
SomeClass = function (id) {
var THIS = this; // unambiguous reference
THIS._id = id;
var intFun = function () { // private
return THIS._id;
}
this.extFun = function () { // public
return intFun();
}
}
Use THIS within private methods since this won't equal what you might expect.
From http://learn.jquery.com/code-organization/concepts/#the-module-pattern:
// The module pattern
var feature = (function() {
// private variables and functions
var privateThing = "secret";
var publicThing = "not secret";
var changePrivateThing = function() {
privateThing = "super secret";
};
var sayPrivateThing = function() {
console.log( privateThing );
changePrivateThing();
};
// public API
return {
publicThing: publicThing,
sayPrivateThing: sayPrivateThing
};
})();
feature.publicThing; // "not secret"
// logs "secret" and changes the value of privateThing
feature.sayPrivateThing();
So using returning an object that aliases its "methods" could be another way to do it.
I've read from http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Oracle-Press-Poornachandra-Sarang-ebook/dp/B0079GI6CW that it is always good practice to use getters and setters rather that accessing the variable directly from outside the object, so that would eliminate the need of returning variables by reference.
BTW you could just use this.variable to reference/declare a public variable and var variable to declare a private variable.
I know this is a late answer, but I hope it helps anyone who reads it in the future.
I really never used a javascript function type or class before, I understand Java and Python, but not javascript. So, I build a class like this:
function FormStore (type) {
this.setup = () =>{
this.store = {};
this.ERR_LINE_PREFIX = '#err_';
this.NO_DISPLAY_CLASS = 'no-display';
this.settings = {
'myID':{'hide':false},
}
}
this.checkVal= () => {
var geoArr = ['id_xx','myID', (...)];
var id;
$.each( geoArr, function(val) {
id = geoArr[val];
console.log(this.store) //-> returns undefined, below line is error
if (!(this.store[id])) {
return false;
}
});
};
var FS = new FormStore();
FS.setup();
The store is filled by components on document.ready. There is a function that looks up if the aligned components (glyph, label, input) have some classes or values and for the specific component fills a dict: {label:false,glyph:false, input:false}. However, for some reason it doesn't matter. Even if I enter some values in to the store right away (in setup) or create them on the fly, in checkVal the store doesn't exist, it's undefined.
Please, anybody, what am I not understanding about javascript type and classes here? I am googling this a lot and trying to find good resources but, "javascipt variable class" (or type) just yields a lot of DOM manipulation.
edit
There is a context problem in checkVal, you are using a non-arrow (and not explicitly bound) callback function and trying to access this inside of it. Change that to an arrow function as well, and the parent context (this) will be preserved:
$.each( geoArr, (val) => {
id = geoArr[val];
console.log(this.store)
if (!(this.store[id])) {
return false;
}
});
And while you are at changing that section, it's not going to work. You will not get access to $.each's return value. You should rely on native array APIs for this task and use Array.every to determine if all geoArr items are in the store (assuming that's your goal):
// returns false if not all geoArr items are in the store
geoArr.every(id => this.store[id])
original
I don't see you calling checkVal() anywhere, but based on the error you are getting it is called prior to setup() (since setup initializes the store). You could solve that problem straight away by moving this.store = {} out of setup (right at the top), e.g.:
function FormStore(type) {
this.store = {};
...
Having said that, I would suggest either defining your methods on the prototype, or utilizing ES6 classes. Here is a simplified version of both:
ES5 class
function FormStore(type) {
// make sure user didn't forget new keyword
if (this === window) {
throw new Error('FormStore must be called with "new" keyword')
}
// initialize state, this is the constructor
this.type = type;
this.store = {};
// any other state the class manages
}
FormStore.prototype = {
setup: function() {
// do setup stuff
// "this" points to instance
console.log('setup', this.type)
},
checkVal: function() {
}
}
var formStore = new FormStore('foo')
console.log(formStore.store) // <-- not undefined
formStore.setup()
ES6 Class
class FormStore {
constructor(type) {
this.type = type;
this.store = {};
}
setup() {
console.log('setup', this.type)
}
checkVal() {
}
}
const formStore = new FormStore('bar')
console.log(formStore.store) // <-- not undefined
formStore.setup()
It has to do with scoping. Your $.each in checkVal has a normal function. Inside the function the scope if this is different. If you want to keep the original scope you could use a fat arrow function like you do when defining the methods.
this.checkVal= () => {
var geoArr = ['id_xx','myID', (...)];
var id;
$.each( geoArr, val => {
id = geoArr[val];
console.log(this.store) //-> returns undefined, below line is error
if (!(this.store[id])) {
return false;
}
});
}
When you run your original code and place a breakpoint on the line with console.log you can see in the inspector that this is set to the Window object and no longer points to your FormStore.
function FormStore () {
this.setup = function(){
this.store = {};
this.ERR_LINE_PREFIX = '#err_';
this.NO_DISPLAY_CLASS = 'no-display';
this.settings = {
'myID':{'hide':false},
}
}
this.checkVal= function(){
var geoArr = ['id_xx','myID'];
var id;
$.each( geoArr, function(val) {
id = geoArr[val];
console.log(this.store) //-> returns undefined, below line is error
if (!(this.store[id])) {
return false;
}
});
}
};
var FS = new FormStore();
FS.setup();
Works absolutely fine, the code you provided had a missing bracket and you were using some broken es6 syntax