Develop Reference

Extending existing Object to add additional JavaScript Prototype methods

Let's say I have a function like the one below that creates a very simple micro-library:
var microLib = function(selector) {
var el;
var selectorEngine = function(selector)
{
var selector_value = selector.slice(1);
return document.getElementById(selector_value);
};
el = selectorEngine(selector);
Element.prototype.func_1 = function(){
return 'first';
};
Element.prototype.func_2 = function(){
return 'second';
};
return el;
};
window._$ = microLib;
This script will allow me to write code like this:
var elem = _$("#div_with_id"); //some element on my web page
console.log(elem.func_2()); //outputs 'second' in the console
So now, I'm looking for a way to extend _$ in a supplementary piece of code to add additional Element.prototype methods, which will allow me to write:
console.log(elem.func_3()); //to output 'third' in the console
The reason I need to do this is because this extension needs to take place in another JavaScript file, otherwise I would I have just added another method and be done with it.
How can I do this?

Here's an example of the approach that I am suggesting: http://jsfiddle.net/rbxssmx8/.
JS:
var toArray = Function.prototype.call.bind(Array.prototype.slice);
var qAll = document.querySelectorAll.bind(document);
var _$ = (function() {
function dom(selector) {
if(!(this instanceof dom)) {
return new dom(selector);
}
this.elements = toArray(qAll(selector));
}
dom.prototype.iterate = function(func) {
this.elements.forEach(func);
return this;
};
dom.prototype.addClass = function() {
var klasses = arguments;
return this.iterate(function(element) {
element.classList.add.apply(element.classList, klasses);
});
};
dom.extend = function(name, func) {
this.prototype[name] = func;
};
dom.ready = function(func) {
document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", func);
};
return dom;
})();
_$.extend("removeClass", function() {
var klasses = arguments;
return this.iterate(function(element) {
element.classList.remove.apply(element.classList, klasses);
});
});
_$("div").addClass("gray");
var $el = _$("div:last-of-type");
$el.removeClass("gray");

So I read this post on What's wrong with extending the DOM and the alternative suggested by the author was to use Object Wrappers. A quick search on that led me to this post on SO: Using object wrappers to extend the JavaScripts DOM?
Coupled with some insight from #DRD's answer, I updated my code:
(function() {
var microLib = function (selector){
return new Dom(selector);
};
function Dom(selector)
{
var selector_value = selector.slice(1);
this.element = document.getElementById(selector_value);
}
Dom.prototype.func_1 = function(){
return 'first';
};
Dom.prototype.func_2 = function(){
return 'second';
};
microLib.extend = function(name, func){
Dom.prototype[name] = func;
};
window._$ = microLib;
})();
And then whenever you want to extend and add another function, do this afterwards:
_$.extend('func_3', function(){ //this is inline with my earlier question
return 'third';
});
Works like a charm! And definitely the safer option compared to extending Element.prototype.

Private prototype methods that can share scope and access the instance

I'm looking for a pattern that both allows me to create a private scope that my function prototype has access to and I need to be able to access the instance from within that scope.
For example, this is how I am currently achieving "private methods" (disregard what the code actually does, just look at the structure.)
function InfoPreview() {
this.element = document.createElement('div');
}
//Private Methods
InfoPreview.prototype.__newLine = function () {
this.element.appendChild(createElement({tagName:'br'}));
};
InfoPreview.prototype.__padLeft = function(level) {
var padding = createElement({tagName: 'span'});
this.element.appendChild(padding);
$(padding).width(level * 10);
};
InfoPreview.prototype.__print = function(string) {
var span = createElement({ tagName: 'span', textContent: string });
this.element.appendChild(span);
this.element.style["margin-right"]='10px';
};
InfoPreview.prototype.__puts = function(string) {
this.__print(string);
this.__newLine();
};
//Public Methods
InfoPreview.prototype.update = function(info) {
$(this.element).empty();
for (var record in info) {
this.__puts(record);
}
};
Notice that I am not creating private methods at all, just utilizing a naming convention. Additionally notice that I have no way to cache chain-lookups, such as this.element.
I would like to create a private scope by utilizing a revealing module pattern, like this:
InfoPreview.prototype = (function() {
var self = this, //<- `this` is actually the global object now.
el = self.element;
var newLine = function () {
el.appendChild(createElement({tagName:'br'}));
};
var padLeft = function(level) {
var padding = createElement({tagName: 'span'});
el.appendChild(padding);
$(padding).width(level * 10);
};
var print = function(string) {
var span = createElement({ tagName: 'span', textContent: string });
el.appendChild(span);
el.style["margin-right"]='10px';
};
var puts = function(string) {
print(string);
newLine();
};
var update = function(info) {
$(el).empty();
for (var record in info) {
puts(record);
}
};
return {
update: update
};
})();
The above approach doesn't work however, because the value of this within the IIFE is the global object, not the instance. I need a way to access the instance.

Is there any downside of using a constructor pattern?
function Foo(constructorArg) {
/* private variables */
var privVar = 'I am private',
cArg = constructorArg;
/* public variables */
this.pubVar = 'I am public';
/* private function */
function privFunc() {
return 'I am a private function';
}
/* public function */
this.publicFunc = function() {
return 'I am a public function and I call privVar->"' + privVar + '" and privFunc->"' + privFunc() + '"';
}
}
var foo = new Foo('something');
console.log('foo.pubVar', foo.pubVar); //ok
console.log('foo.publicFunc()', foo.publicFunc()); // ok
console.log('foo.privVar', foo.privVar); // undefined
console.log('foo.privFunc', foo.privFunc()); //error
Why you should use it (as requested in comments):
Simply put, because it is the only (sane) way of creating a "true private scope", which was your question.
The alternative is using a convention which tell developers what properties and methods are private, usually by prefixing them with an underscore _, which you already implemented but disliked.
Note that constructor and prototype are different things and enable you to do different stuff. Nothing prevents you from mixing both up.
Memory usage
Regarding memory usage, in modern js engines, such as Google's V8 JavaScript Engine, the constructor pattern might actually be faster.
V8 has hidden types created internally for objects at runtime; objects with the same hidden class can then use the same optimized generated code.
For example:
function Point(x, y) {
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
}
var p1 = new Point(11, 22);
var p2 = new Point(33, 44);
// At this point, p1 and p2 have a shared hidden class
p2.z = 55;
// warning! p1 and p2 now have different hidden classes!
Prototype chaining always require two lookups, so it might even be a tiny inny LITTLE bit slower. Note: Can't back up on this, jsperf.com is down!
Constructor pattern is dirty (sic)
Performance was my reason. I hadn't realized that. However it still feels dirty to me
I don't know why you feel the constructor pattern is dirty. Maybe it's because it has some "specifics", limitations and potential pitfalls you should be aware
this can mean different things
It's easy to forget the new keyword causing weird and hard to debug bugs due to shared state
You can't easily split your object across multiple files (without resorting to a build tool or some 3rd party injector)
However, 1 and 2 are also true for prototype declaration style so...
if you feel this is not adequate, you might want to look at the module pattern.

Within each function, you will have access to the this value you want.
var Example = function() {};
Example.prototype = (function() {
var privateUpdate = function() {
document.getElementById('answer').innerHTML = this.foo;
}
return {
update: privateUpdate
}
})();
var e = new Example();
e.foo = 'bar';
e.update();
<div id="answer"></div>

As a variant on what Pointy is suggesting, you can try this pattern;
infoPreview.prototype = (function() {
var self = null;
var update = function(info) {
....
};
var firstUpdate = function(info) {
self = this;
functions.update = update;
update(info);
}
var functions = {
update: firstUpdate
};
return functions;
})();

Maybe something like that, without prototyping :
https://jsfiddle.net/ynwun1xb
var Fn = function(el) {
this.el = el;
var myMethod = function() {
console.log('do something in method with element', this.el);
}.bind(this);
return {
myPublicMethod: function() {
return myMethod();
}
}
}
var instancedFn = new Fn('first instance element')
.myPublicMethod()
;
var instancedFn2 = new Fn('second instance element')
.myPublicMethod()
;

Crockford's Prototypical Inheritance - Usage

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.

JS turning a function into an object without using "return" in the function expression

i have seen in a framework (came across it once, and never again) where the developer defines a module like this:
core.module.define('module_name',function(){
//module tasks up here
this.init = function(){
//stuff done when module is initialized
}
});
since i never saw the framework again, i tried to build my own version of it and copying most of it's aspects - especially how the code looked like. i tried to do it, but i can't seem to call the module's init() because the callback is still a function and not an object. that's why i added return this
//my version
mycore.module.define('module_name',function(){
//module tasks up here
this.init = function(){
//stuff done when module is initialized
}
//i don't remember seeing this:
return this;
});
in mycore, i call the module this way (with the return this in the module definition):
var moduleDefinition = modules[moduleName].definition; //the callback
var module = moduleDefinition();
module.init();
how do i turn the callback function into an object but preserve the way it is defined (without the return this in the definition of the callback)?

you have to use:
var module = new moduleDefinition();
and then you're going to get an object.
Oh, and maybe you want to declare init as this:
this.init = function() {
Cheers.

How about something like this (I can only assume what mycore looks like):
mycore = {
module: {
definitions: {},
define: function(name, Module) {
this.definitions[name] = new Module();
this.definitions[name].init();
}
}
};
mycore.module.define('module_name', function () {
// module tasks up here
this.init = function () {
// init tasks here
console.log('init has been called');
};
});

I don't know what framework you're using or what requirements it places on you, but Javascript alone doesn't require a function to return anything, even a function that defines an object. For example:
function car(color) {
this.myColor = color;
this.getColor = function() {
return this.myColor;
}
//note: no return from this function
}
var redCar = new car('red');
var blueCar = new car('blue');
alert(redCar.getColor()); //alerts "red"
alert(blueCar.getColor()); //alerts "blue"

One more alternative http://jsfiddle.net/pWryb/
function module(core){this.core = core;}
function Core(){
this.module = new module(this);
}
Core.prototype.modules = {};
module.prototype.define = function(name, func){
this.core.modules[name] = new func();
this.core.modules[name].name = name;
this.core.modules[name].init();
// or
return this.core.modules[name];
}
var myCore = new Core();
var myModule = myCore.module.define('messageMaker', function(){
this.init = function(){
console.log("initializing " + this.name);
}
})
myModule.init();

JavaScript inheritance without the 'new' keyword

I'm used to using this pattern all over my code, and I like it:
var UserWidget = (function(){
var url = "/users",
tmpl = "#users li", $tmpl;
function load() {
$tmpl = $(tmpl);
$.getJSON(url, function(json){
$.each(json, function(i, v) {
appendUser(v);
});
});
}
...
return {
load: load
};
})();
However, I have many "widget" objects. "ProfileWidget", "PlayerWidget" etc etc. and there's certain actions that each widget share. So ideally, if we're thinking object-orientally, I want each widget object to inherit some methods from a main "Widget" class.
How can I do this without changing this lovely pattern I've been using?
To be more clear I'd like to be able to do something like this:
var Widget = (function() {
function init() {
console.log("wow yeah");
}
})();
// have UserWidget inherit somehow the Widget stuff
var UserWidget = (function() { ...
UserWidget.init(); // -> "wow yeah"

Keep in mind these solutions are not what I'd typically reccomend and they are just to satisfy the question.
What about closing over everything so that its accessible from your "sub classes" (demo)
var Widget = (function () {
var init = function () {
console.log("wow yeah");
};
var User = (function () {
var load = function () {
init();
};
return {
'load': load
};
} ());
return { 'User': User };
} ());
// Usage: This loads a user and calls init on the "base"
Widget.User.load();
Another way (demo) that you might like is to just use proper inheritance, but within the closure and then return one and only one instance of that new function. This way lets you keep User and whatever else an object
// Closing around widget is completely unneccesarry, but
// done here in case you want closures and in case you
// dont want another instance of widget
var Widget = (function () {
// definition that we'll end up assigning to Widget
function widget() {
console.log("base ctor");
}
// sample method
widget.prototype.init = function () {
console.log("wow yeah");
};
// put widget in Widget
return widget;
} ());
var User = (function () {
function user() { }
user.prototype = new Widget();
// TODO: put your User methods into user.prototype
return new user();
} ());
var Player = (function () {
function player() { }
player.prototype = new Widget();
// TODO: put your Player methods into player.prototype
return new player();
} ());
User.init();
Player.init();

I decided to use Crockford's object:
// function from Douglas Crockford, comments from me
function object(o) {
// define a new function
function F() {}
// set the prototype to be the object we want to inherit
F.prototype = o;
// return a new instance of that function, copying the prototype and allowing us to change it without worrying about modifying the initial object
return new F();
}
// Usage:
var Widget = (function() {
function init() {
console.log("wow yeah");
}
return {
init: init
};
})();
var UserWidget = (function() {
var self = object(Widget); // inherit Widget
function priv() {}
self.pub = "boom";
...
return self;
})();
UserWidget.init() // -> "wow yeah"
This works great for me and I like it!

You could use Object.create(obj), which I believe is what you're looking for.

Without using new, you'll have to use the __proto__ property rather than prototype, so this won't work in all browsers.
var Widget = {
init: function () {
console.log("wow yeah");
}
};
var UserWidget = (function(){
var url = "/users",
tmpl = "#users li",
$tmpl;
function load() {
$tmpl = $(tmpl);
$.getJSON(url, function(json){
$.each(json, function(i, v) {
appendUser(v);
});
});
}
return {
load: load
};
})();
UserWidget.__proto__ = Widget;
UserWidget.init();
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/mattball/4Xfng/

Here's a simple example of prototyping in JS... For more detail on this topic read "JavaScript: The Good Parts"
// widget definition
var Widget = {
init: function () {
alert('wow yeah!');
}
};
// user widget definition
var UserWidget = function () { };
UserWidget.prototype = Widget;
UserWidget.prototype.load = function () { alert('your code goes here'); }
// user widget instance
var uw = new UserWidget();
uw.init(); // wow yeah!
uw.load(); // your code goes here
Hope this helps!