Develop Reference

Best way to combine the module pattern with closures

I'm currently trying to implement some common JS concepts
in little projects to understand better how to use them.
I've been working on a simple game, trying to
understand and use the module pattern and closures.
I'm using the module pattern from Stoyan Stefanov's 'patterns'
book.
I'm struggling to understand how best to mix modules and
closures.
I'd like to know if I'm organising the following code in a
sensible way? If so, my question is: what's the best way
to modify the code so that in the $(function(){}) I have
access to the update() function?
MYAPP.utilities = (function() {
return {
fn1: function(lives) {
//do stuff
}
}
})();
MYAPP.game = (function() {
//dependencies
utils = MYAPP.utilities
return {
startGame: function() {
//initialisation code
//game state, stored in closure
var lives = 3;
var victoryPoints = 0;
function update(){
utils.fn1(lives);
//do other stuff
}
}
}
})();
$(function(){
MYAPP.game.startGame();
//Want to do this, but it won't work
//because I don't have access to update
$('#button').on('click',MYAPP.game.update)
});
I've come up with a couple of options which would work, but
I'd like to know if they're good practice, and what the best
option is.
Options:
(1) Bind $('#button').on('click', ...) as part of the
startGame initialisation code.
(2) Assign the update() function to a variable, and
return this variable from the startGame function, So in
$(function(){}) we could have
updatefn = MYAPP.game.startGame(); and then
$('#button').on('click',MYAPP.game.update)
(3)? Is there a better way?
Thank you very much for any help,
Robin

First off, to access the update function in that fashion it will have to exposed in the returned object.
return {
update: function() {
[...]
},
startGame: function() {
[...]
this.update();
}
}
Calling obj.method() automatically sets the this reference inside this method call to obj. That is, calling MYAPP.game.startGame() sets this to MYAPP.game inside this startGame method call. More details about this behavior here.
You will also want to move the lives variable to a common scope which is accessible by both startGame and update methods, which is exactly what the closure is for:
MYAPP.game = (function() {
[...]
var lives; //private/privileged var inside the closure, only accessible by
//the returned object's function properties
return {
update: function() {
utils.fn1(lives);
},
startGame: function() {
[...]
lives = 3; //sets the closure scope's lives variable
[...]
this.update();
}
}
})();
Fiddle
In this case you will need some method to set the lives variable when you want to change it. Another way would be to make the lives variable public as well by making it a property of the returned object and accessing it through this.lives inside of the methods.
NOTE: If you simply pass a reference to the function object stored as property of the returned object as in:
$('#button').on('click', MYAPP.game.update);
The this reference inside the click handler will not point to MYAPP.game as the function reference that has been passed will be called directly from the jQuery core instead of as an object's member function call - in this case, this would point to the #button element as jQuery event handlers set the this reference to the element that triggered the handler, as you can see here.
To remedy that you can use Function.bind():
$('#button').on('click', MYAPP.game.update.bind(MYAPP.game));
Or the old function wrapper trick:
$('#button').on('click', function() {
MYAPP.game.update(); //called as method of an obj, sets `this` to MYAPP.game
});
This is important when the this keyword is used inside the update method.

There are a few issues in your code. First, update() function is not visible outside the object your creating on the fly. To make it part of game object it has to be on the same level as startGame.
Also, if you declare var lives = 3 it will be a local variable and it won't be visible outside startGame() function, as well as victoryPoints. These two variable have to be visible in some way (via closure or as object fields).
Finally, attaching MYAPP.game.update as an event listener will attach just that function, preventing you from using all other object methods/functions. Depending on what you want to do you might prefer to pass a closure like function() { MYAPP.game.update() } instead.
Your code should look something like:
MYAPP.utilities = (function() {
return {
fn1: function(lives) {
console.log(lives);
}
}
})();
MYAPP.game = (function() {
//dependencies
utils = MYAPP.utilities
var lives;
var victoryPoints;
return {
startGame: function() {
//initialisation code
//game state, stored in closure
lives = 3;
victoryPoints = 0;
},
update: function() {
utils.fn1(lives);
//do other stuff
}
}
})();
$(function(){
MYAPP.game.startGame();
//Want to do this, but it won't work
//because I don't have access to update
$('#button').on('click', MYAPP.game.update)
});
(DEMO on jsfiddle)

Node.js modules: correct way to refer to sibling functions

This is my current code:
var PermissionsChecker = {};
PermissionsChecker.check = function(id) {
PermissionsChecker.getPermissions(id);
}
PermissionsChecker.getPermissions = function(id) {
// do stuff
}
Two questions:
Is this the right way to construct node.js functions?
Is that line in .check the correct way to refer to a sibling function?
Thanks!

It's perfectly fine. Some notes:
Sibling function isn't really any standard term for methods of the same object. Minor note, but could cause confusion.
When a function is called as a method on some object, then the value of this inside that function refers to the object on which it was called. That is, calling check like this:
PermissionsChecker.check()
...allows you to write the function like this:
PermissionsChecker.check = function(id) {
this.getPermissions(id);
}
...which is more succinct and probably more common.
Nothing about your question is specific to node.js. This applies to JavaScript in the browser (or anywhere else), too.
You could save some typing by rewriting your example like this:
var PermissionsChecker = {
check: function(id) {
this.getPermissions(id);
},
getPermissions: function(id) {
// do stuff
}
};

So long as the function is called with PermissionsChecker.check(), you can refer to the object with this.
CodePad.

What you've done above is called an object literal, but you could choose the prototypal way also (when you need to instantiate objects - OOP stuff).
You can call this inside to refer to another object property:
PermissionsChecker.check = function(id) {
this.getPermissions(id);
}

Extending methods in Javascript classes

I'm ("still", for those who read my previous posts) working on an ICEFaces web application.
This question can be interpreted as general Javascript question, so read on if you don't know much about ICEFaces
I need to extend the behaviour of the classes created by ICEFaces Javascript framework, in particular ToolTipPanelPopup.
I cannot modify the source code of the library (otherwise I would have achieved my goal).
This is how ICEFaces defines the class (much like jQuery and other Javascript frameworks).
ToolTipPanelPopup = Class.create({
[...]
showPopup: function() {
[...]
},
updateCordinate: function(event) {
[...]
},
[...]
});
My question is very simple
How do I extend the behaviour of showPopup() function in order to run my custom function at the end of it?
I mean something like following Java example code that supposes inheritance
public void ShowPopup()
{
super.ShowPopup();
customMethod();
}

Something like this should work:
var original = ToolTipPanel.showPopup;
ToolTipPanel.showPopup = function() {
original(); //this is kind of like the call to super.showPopup()
//your code
};
I tried out this trivial example in Firebug, and it seems to work:
var obj = {
func: function() {
console.log("foo");
}
};
obj.func();
var original = obj.func;
obj.func = function() {
original();
console.log("bar");
};
obj.func();
Firebug output:
foo
foo
bar
So what's happening here is that you're saving a reference to the original showPopup function. Then you're creating a closure and assigning it back to showPopup. The original showPopup is not lost, because you still have a reference to it in original. In the closure, you call the function that original references, and then you have your own code. Just swap around the order if you want to do something first before you call original. Since you're using a closure, original is lexically bound to the current scope and should be available every time the new showPopup is called (if I'm wrong about this, someone please correct me).
Let me know if this works out for you.

How do I call another function in the same javascript namespace?

I like to organize my javascript in namespace style like below. What I want to know : is there another (shorter?) way to call myFirstFunction() from mySecondFunction()? I tried this.myFirstFunction() and it's not working so maybe there's some kind of mysterious trick here that I don't know.
var myNameSpace = {
myFirstFunction: function(){
alert("Hello World!");
},
mySecondFunction: function(){
myNameSpace.myFirstFunction();
}
}
Thanks for your help as usual, people of SO! :)

As written in your example code, this.myFirstFunction() would work. Your code is likely simplified to illustrate your problem, so it would probably help to see the actual code to tell why it doesn't work with this.
One possible reason that it fails would be if the code where you call this.myFirstFunction() is inside a closure. If so, this would be a reference to the closing function, not your namespace and would therefore fail. See here for a contrived example based on your code to see what I mean. Again, having a look at the actual code would probably be helpful to diagnose what's going on.

Your suggestion to use 'this' should work. i.e.:
var myNameSpace = {
myFirstFunction: function(){
alert("Hello World!");
},
mySecondFunction: function(){
this.myFirstFunction();
}
}
Result:
myNameSpace.mySecondFunction() // "Hello World!".

If you want it to be shorter maybe you should consider the following pattern:
Javascript Design Pattern Suggestion
basically for your example:
var myNameSpace = (function()
{
function _myFirstFunction(){
alert("Hello World!");
}
function _mySecondFunction(){
_myFirstFunction();
}
return {
MyFirstFunction : _myFirstFunction,
MySecondFunction : _mySecondFunction
};
})();
I find this to be the cleanest pattern, also providing "private/public" variables in javascript that's otherwise pretty much impossible

In some cases the this keyword should work fine. If you explicitly call myNameSpace.mySecondFunction() then this.myFirstFunction() will execute as intended.
If you are using myNameSpace.mySecondFunction as an event handler it likely will not. In the case of an event handler you would need some way to refer to the namespace you want to use. A lot of JavaScript frameworks provide a way to define what the this keyword refers to. For example, in MooTools you can do myNameSpace.mySecondFunction.bind(myNameSpace) which will cause this to refer to myNameSpace inside mySecondFunction. If you are not using a framework you could make your event handler an anonymous function like:
document.getElementById('myId').addEventListener('click', function(e) {
myNameSpace.mySecondFunction.call(myNameSpace);
});
For more information on the call method I would refer to the MDC page for the call function or you could use apply which behaves similarly to call but passing an array of arguments for the second paramter rather than having a varargs like approach for additional parameters.
All of these suggestions are predicated on defining your namespace as #Harnish suggested:
var myNameSpace = {
myFirstFunction: function(){
alert("Hello World!");
},
mySecondFunction: function(){
this.myFirstFunction();
}
}
For more information about JavaScript function binding I'd highly suggest reading Justin's article on Function scope and binding in JavaScript

If you are attaching to event:
possible issue could be if you are attaching Namespace's function to event, like:
$(el).on("click", nameSpace.myFunc);
....
nameSpace = {
myFunc: function(){
this.anotherFunc();
}
}
that will throw error.
Solution 1
You may change this.anotherFunc() with nameSpace.anotherFunc()
Solution 2
You might change
$(el).on("click", nameSpace.myFunc);
// to ----->
$(el).on("click", function(){ nameSpace.myFunc(); } );

Javascript scope help

I am relatively new to javascript so please be patient if what i am asking is completely stupid!
I am trying to make a simple module. Inside the module i want to have a config object that holds settings for the module. I am also using jquery. The jquery selectors work only when in a function directly in the main object/module.
I understand that javascript has functional scope so I am suprised that I cannot use the jquery selectors anywhere inside the module.
EDIT:
I want to be able to directly set all of my configs inside the configs object using jquery selectors. This way i keep all the messy stuff inside one place and can then access configs.whatever throughout the rest of the module. At the moment jquery selectors do not work inside the configs module.
var OB = function() {
var configs = {
'mode' : 'test',
'numOfSelects' : $('.mySelect').find('select').length, // This doesnt work
}
var getMode = function() {
return configs.mode;
}
function init() {
alert(configs.numOfSelects); // This alerts 0 until the following line
alert($('.mySelect').find('select').length); // This correctly alerts 2
};
var handlers = {
successHandler : function() {
alert("Success");
},
errorHandler : function() {
alert("error");
}
}
return {
init : init,
getMode : getMode
}
}( );
$(document).ready(function(){
OB.init();
});

It isn't that jQuery isn't in scope — that's that the code isn't executing when you think it is. The variable config is defined when that anonymous function (var OB = function() {}()) is executed. The DOM isn't ready yet, so that DOM traversal doesn't find anything. When you do the DOM traversal in init(), that isn't executed until it's explicitly called inside the $(document).ready() handler, at which point that DOM is set up. That's the difference you're seeing.

OB() needs to be called after the DOM has completely loaded. Hence the answer by Marcelo, which calls OB() in the ready() method.

EDIT: It's funny that my original answer below was incorrect because I didn't notice two little parentheses at the end of the definition of OB, and it turns out that these are the culprit. You define and then immediately invoke OB, which is before the DOM has been fully loaded. Remove those parentheses and make the change I suggest below.
Calling OB() returns an object with init and getMode, but you haven't called OB(), you've only referred to OB. Try this instead:
$(document).ready(function(){
OB().init();
});
Also, I assume you want to later refer to getMode. In particular, you will to get the copy of getMode that has access to the same local scope that your init() call had access to. To achieve this, you will need to store the result of calling OB() for later use:
var ob;
$(document).ready(function(){
ob = OB();
ob.init();
});
function some_other_function() {
... ob.getMode() ...;
}