Develop Reference

OOP - Is it better to call functions from within other functions, or to have one big controller?

I'm re-writing a fairly complex script that I created a few weeks ago. After showing it to a few people, they all agreed that I should break it up into smaller pieces (classes) that have a specific purpose, and SOLID object-oriented programming principles
As a self-taught programmer these concepts are pretty new to me, and I'm a little confused about how to best transfer data from one function/class to another. For instance, here is a simplified structure of what I'm building:
MY QUESTION IS:
Should I have a "controller" script that calls all of these functions/classes and passes the data around wherever necessary? Is this where I would put the for loop from the diagram above, even though it would work just as well as part of Function 1 which could then call Function 2?

Without a controller/service script you'll not be able to meet single responsibility principle in fact. Here's a high level design I'd implement if I were you.
FileRepository
Should expose a method to get a file. Let's name it GetFileById.
MongoDBRepository
Methods for CRUD operations. Such as SelectById, SelectByQuery, Update, Create, Delete.
Object creation logic
If your createNewObj logic is simple it would be enough to move it to your object contructor so that your code looks like that: var newObj = new MyObj(json[i]);
But if it's relatively complex maybe because you use some third party frameforks for validation or whatever you'd better create a factory. Then you could would look this way: var newObj = MyObjFactory.Create(json[i]);
Service/controller
Finally you'll need to implement controller/service object. Let's name it WorkService with a method DoWork which should handle all interactions between the repositories and other objects discribed above. Here's approximately DoWork should look like:
function DoWork(fileId){
var json = fileRepository.SelectById(fileId);
for(var i=0;i<json.length;i++){
var newObj = new MyObj(json[i]); // or calling factory method
var dbRecord = MongoDBRepository.SelectByQuery(newObj.name, newObj.date);
if(dbRecord){
MongoDBRepository.Update(newObj);
}
else{
MongoDBRepository.Create(newObj);
}
}
}
Please note it's just a javascript syntax pseudo-code. Your actual code might look absolutley different but it gives your a feeling of what kind of design your should have. Also I exmplicitly didn't create a repository objects inside DoWork method, think of the way to inject them so you meet Dependency inversion principle.
Hope it helps!

JSLint "eval is evil." alternatives

I am have some JavaScript functions that run on both the client (browser) and the server (within a Java Rhino context). These are small functions - basically little validators that are well defined and don't rely upon globals or closures - self-contained and portable.
Here's an example:
function validPhoneFormat(fullObject, value, params, property) {
var phonePattern = /^\+?([0-9\- \(\)])*$/;
if (value && value.length && !phonePattern.test(value))
return [ {"policyRequirement": "VALID_PHONE_FORMAT"}];
else
return [];
}
To keep things DRY, my server code gets a handle on each of these functions and calls toString() on them, returning them to the browser as part of a JSON object. Something like this:
{ "name" : "phoneNumber",
"policies" : [
{ "policyFunction" : "\nfunction validPhoneFormat(fullObject, value, params, property) {\n var phonePattern = /^\\+?([0-9\\- \\(\\)])*$/;\n if (value && value.length && !phonePattern.test(value)) {\n return [{\"policyRequirement\":\"VALID_PHONE_FORMAT\"}];\n } else {\n return [];\n }\n}\n"
}
]
}
My browser JS code then takes this response and creates an instance of this function in that context, like so:
eval("var policyFunction = " + this.policies[j].policyFunction);
policyFailures = policyFunction.call(this, form2js(this.input.closest("form")[0]), this.input.val(), params, this.property.name));
This all works very well. However, I then run this code through JSLint, and I get back this message:
[ERROR] ValidatorsManager.js:142:37:eval is evil.
I appreciate that often, eval can be dangerous. However, I have no idea how else I could implement such a mechanism without using it. Is there any way I can do this and also pass through the JSLint validator?

I wouldn't worry about it since you are only passing these function strings from the server to the client, and are thus in control of what will be evaluated.
On the other hand, if you were going the other direction and doing the evals of client-passed code on the server, that would be an entirely different story...
Update:
As disabling the validation option in your comment may cause you to miss future errors, I would instead suggest passing the function name rather than the entire function and have the function library mirrored on the server and client. Thus, to call the function, you'd use the following code:
var policyFunction = YourLibraryName[this.policies[j].policyFunctionName];
var policyArguments = this.policies[j].policyArguments;
policyFunction.apply(this, policyArguments);
Update 2:
I was able to validate the following code with JSLint successfully, which essentially allows you to "turn off" validation for the vast minority of cases where eval is appropriate. At the same time, JSLint still validates normal eval calls, and all uses of this method should throw up flags for future developers to avoid using it/refactor it out where possible/as time allows.
var EVAL_IS_BAD__AVOID_THIS = eval;
EVAL_IS_BAD__AVOID_THIS(<yourString>);

Dont encode a function as a string in JSON. JSON is for content, which you are confounding with behavior.
Instead, I suppose you could return JS files instead, which allow real functions:
{ name : "phoneNumber",
policies : [
{ policyFunction : function() {
whateverYouNeed('here');
}
}
]
}
But while that solves the technical issue, it's still not a great idea.
The real solution here is to move your logic out of your content entirely. Import a JS file full of little validation functions and call them as needed based on a dataType property in your JSON or something. If this functions are as small and portable as you say, this should be trivial to accomplish.
Getting your data all tangled up with your code usually leads to pain. You should statically include your JS, then dynamically request/import/query for your JSON data to run through your statically included code.

I would avoid using eval in all situations. There's no reason you can't code around it. Instead of sending code to the client, just keep it hosted on the server in one contained script file.
If that's not doable, you can also have a dynamically generated javascript file then pass in the necessary parameters via the response, and then dynamically load the script on the client side. There's really no reason to use eval.
Hope that helps.

You can use
setInterval("code to be evaluated", 0);
Internally, if you pass setInterval a string it performs a function similar to eval().
However, I wouldn't worry about it. If you KNOW eval() is evil, and take appropriate precautions, it's not really a problem. Eval is similar to GoTo; you just have to be careful and aware of what you're doing to use them properly.

With very little parsing you could have had it like so:
var body = this.policies[j].policyFunction.substr;
body = body.substr(body.indexOf("(") + 1);
var arglist = body.substr(1, body.indexOf(")"));
body = body.substr(arglist.length + 1);
var policyFunction = new Function(arglist, body);
Which would provide a bit of validation, avoid the literal use of eval and work synchronously with the code. But it is surely eval in disguise, and it is prone to XSS attack. If the malevolent person can get their code loaded and evaluated this way - it will not save you. So, really, just don't do it. Add a <script> tag with the proper URL and that would be certainly safer. Well, you know, better safe then sorry.
PS. My apologises if the code above doesn't work, it only shows the intent, I've not tested it, and if I made a mistake at counting parenthesis or some such - well, you should get the idea, I'm not advertising it by any means.

DRY is definitely something I agree with, however there is a point where copy+pasting is more efficient and easy to maintain than referencing the same piece of code.
The code you're saving yourself from writing seems to be equivalent to a clean interface, and simple boiler plate. If the same code is being used on both the server and the client, you could simply pass around the common pieces of the function, rather than the whole function.
Payload:
{
"name": "phoneNumber",
"type": "regexCheck",
"checkData": "/^\\+?([0-9\\- \\(\\)])*$/"
}
if(payload.type === "regexCheck"){
const result = validPhoneFormat(fullObject, value, payload.checkData)
}
function validPhoneFormat(fullObject, value, regexPattern) {
if (value && value.length && !regexPattern.test(value))
return [ {"policyRequirement": "VALID_PHONE_FORMAT"}];
else
return [];
}
This would give you the ability to update the regex from a single location. If the interface changes it does need to be updated in 2 places, but I wouldn't consider that a bad thing. If the client is running code, why hide the structure?
If you really, really want to keep both the object structure and the patterns in one place - extract it to a single API. Have a "ValidatePhoneViaRegex" api endpoint which is called by all places you'd be passing this serialized function to.
If all of this seems like too much effort, set jslint to ignore your piece of code:
"In JSHint 1.0.0 and above you have the ability to ignore any warning with a special option syntax. The identifier of this warning is W061. This means you can tell JSHint to not issue this warning with the /*jshint -W061 */ directive.
In ESLint the rule that generates this warning is named no-eval. You can disable it by setting it to 0, or enable it by setting it to 1."
https://github.com/jamesallardice/jslint-error-explanations/blob/master/message-articles/eval.md
I would prefer to see copy+pasted code, a common api, or receiving parameters and copy+pasted boiler plate than magical functions passed in from the server to be executed.
What happens if you get a cross-browser compatibility error with one of these shared functions?

Well, the first thing to bear in mind is that jsLint does make the point that "it will hurt your feelings". It's designed to point out where you're not following best practices -- but code that isn't perfect can still work just fine; there's no compulsion upon you to follow jsLint's advice.
Having said that, eval is evil, and in virtually all cases there is always a way around using it.
In this case, you could use a library such as require.js, yepnope.js or some other library that is designed to load a script separately. This would allow you to include the javascript functions you need dynamically but without having to eval() them.
There are probably several other solutions as well, but that was the first one that came to my mind.
Hope that helps.

Measuring pollution of global namespace

Background
I'm trying to refactor some long, ugly Javascript (shamefully, it's my own). I started the project when I started learning Javascript; it was a great learning experience, but there is some total garbage in my code and I employ some rather bad practices, chief among them being heavy pollution of the global namespace / object (in my case, the window object). In my effort to mitigate said pollution, I think it would be helpful to measure it.
Approach
My gut instinct was to simply count the number of objects attached to the window object prior to loading any code, again after loading third-party libraries and lastly after my code has been executed. Then, as I refactor, I would try to reduce the increase that corresponds to loading my code). To do this, I'm using:
console.log(Object.keys(window).length)
at various places in my code. This seems to work alright and I see the number grow, in particular after my own code is loaded. But...
Problem
Just from looking at the contents of the window object in the Chrome Developer console, I can see that its not counting everything attached to the object. I suspect it's not including some more fundamental properties or object types, whether they belong to the browser, a library or my own code. Either way though, can anyone think of a better and more accurate way to measure global namespace pollution that would help in refactoring?
Thanks in advance!

So after some of the comments left by Felix Kling and Lèse majesté, I have found a solution that works well. Prior to loading any libraries or my own code, I create the dashboard global object (my only intentional one) and store a list of objects attached to window via:
var dashboard = {
cache: {
load: Object.getOwnPropertyNames(window)
}
};
Then, after I load all of the libraries but prior to loading any of my own code, I modify the dashboard object, adding the pollution method (within a new debug namespace):
dashboard.debug = {
pollution: (function() {
var pollution,
base = cache.load, // window at load
filter = function(a,b) { // difference of two arrays
return a.filter(function(i) {
return !(b.indexOf(i) > -1);
});
},
library = filter(Object.getOwnPropertyNames(window), base),
custom = function() {
return filter(Object.getOwnPropertyNames(window),
base.concat(library));
};
delete cache.load;
pollution = function() {
console.log('Global namespace polluted with:\n ' +
custom().length + ' custom objects \n ' +
library.length + ' library objects');
return {custom: custom().sort(), library: library.sort()};
};
return pollution;
}())
};
At any point, I can call this method from the console and see
Global namespace polluted with:
53 custom objects
44 library objects
as well as two arrays listing the keys associated with those objects. The base and library snapshots are static, while the current custom measurement (via custom) is dynamic such that if I were to load any custom javascript via AJAX, then I could remeasure and see any new custom "pollution".

The general pattern you've selected works OK from experience. However, there are two things you might need to consider (as additions or alternatives):
Use JsLint.com or JSHint.com with your existing code and look at the errors produced. It should help you spot most if not all of the global variable usage quickly and easily (you'll see errors of 'undefined' variables for example). This is a great simple approach. So, the measurement in this case will be just looking at the total number of issues.
We've found that Chrome can make doing detection of leaking resources on the window object tricky (as things are added during the course of running the page). We've needed to check for example to see if certain properties returned are native by using RegExs: /\s*function \w*\(\) {\s*\[native code\]\s*}\s*/ to spot native code. In some code "leak detection" code we've written, we also try to (in a try catch) obtain the value of a property to verify it's set to a value (and not just undefined). But, that shouldn't be necessary in your case.

Performance & "Better Practice": with statement vs. function with a bunch of parameters

I've been doing a lot of templating in JS lately, so I've invariably run across the "evil" with statement.
It makes templates much easier to work with as you don't have to preface your variables with an object.
Hearing that with statements are bad and also that they may cause poor performance, I set out for another solution:
My Solution: Function with a bunch of parameters
Here's my code:
var locals = {
name : "Matt",
email : "wahoo#wahoo.com",
phone : "(555) 555-5555"
};
var keys = [];
var values = [];
for (key in locals) {
local = locals[key];
keys.push(key)
values.push(local);
}
keys = keys.join(',');
var fn = new Function(keys, "**TEMPLATE STUFF**"); // function(name, email, phone) {...}
fn.apply(this, values); // fn("Matt","wahoo#wahoo.com","(555) 555-5555")
Note: these accomplish the exact same thing. Both are abstracted away from anyone so an obnoxiously long parameter list is no biggie.
I'm wondering which one is better: using a with statement or a function with the potential for a crazy number of parameters.
Unless someone has a better solution...?
Thanks!
Matt Mueller

I find your solution very bloated. It is totally non-trivial, while with is so simple (one line of code which in and of itself has very little cost vs. your object traversal and array instantiations).
Moreover, your solution requires a template object ready when making the templating function (to define its parameters), which may prove down the road less flexible in my opinion.
Check out MDC. A well designed template would presumably have little logic and heavy variable references (and if it isn't that way, then it should be!), which makes with the perfect candidate in such a situation, because there should be very few other lookups in the scope of the with.
Any extra performance that may be gained seems like it would be micro-optimisation, although rather than theorise, just perform some benchmarks. http://jsperf.com/with-vs-fn does all the setup code before the benchmark for your version, but performs the with stuff during the function execution, so it's not really fair, although even on the slowest iterations you get an idea of how fast it is; >400,000 ops/sec is the slowest. I doub't you need to render more than 400,000 templates a second...

Have you tried a JS templating engine? They are usually very fast, and save you some rendering code.
I'm the author of pure.js which is a bit original, but there are plenty of others available and for any taste.

The problems with with are not performance, they are ambiguity and unpredictable behaviour.
See, for example, Hidden Features of JavaScript?

Implementing a complicated decision table in JavaScript

Here's an implementation details question for JavaScript gurus.
I have a UI with a number of fields in which the values of the fields depend in a complicated fashion on the values of seven bits of inputs. Exactly what should be displayed for any one of the possible 128 values that is changing regularly as users see more of the application?
Right now, I've for this being implemented as a decision tree through an if-then-else comb, but it's brittle under the requirements changes and sort of hard to get right.
One implementation approach I've thought about is to make an array of values from 0x0 to 0x7F and then store a closure at each location --
var tbl; // initialize it with the values
...
tbl[0x42] = function (){ doAThing(); doAnotherThing(); }
and then invoke them with
tbl[bitsIn]();
This, at least makes the decision logic into a bunch of assignments.
Question: is there a better way?
(Update: holy crap, how'd that line about 'ajax iphone tags' get in there? No wonder it was a little puzzling.)
Update
So what happened? Basically I took a fourth option, although similar to the one I've checked. The logic was sufficiently complex that I finally built a Python program to generate a truth table in the server (generating Groovy code, in fact, the host is a Grails application) and move the decision logic into the server completely. Now the JavaScript side simply interprets a JSON object that contains the values for the various fields.
Eventually, this will probably go through one more iteration, and become data in a database table, indexed by the vector of bits.
The table driven part certainly came out to be the way to go; there have already been a half dozen new changes in the specific requirements for display.

I see two options...
Common to both solutions are the following named functions:
function aThing() {}
function anotherThing() {}
function aThirdThing() {}
The switch way
function exec(bits) {
switch(bits) {
case 0x00: aThing(); anotherThing(); break;
case 0x01: aThing(); anotherThing(); aThirdThing(); break;
case 0x02: aThing(); aThirdThing(); break;
case 0x03: anotherThing(); aThirdThing(); break;
...
case 0x42: aThirdThing(); break;
...
case 0x7f: ... break;
default: throw 'There is only 128 options :P';
}
}
The map way
function exec(bits) {
var actions = map[bits];
for(var i=0, action; action=actions[i]; i++)
action();
}
var map = {
0x00: [aThing, anotherThing],
0x01: [aThing, anotherThing, aThirdThing],
0x02: [aThing, aThirdThing],
0x03: [anotherThing, aThirdThing],
...
0x42: [aThirdThing],
...
};
in both cases you'd call
exec(0x42);

Since the situation (as you have described) is so irregular, there doesn't seem to be a better way. Although, I can suggest an improvement to your jump table. You mentioned that you have errors and duplicates. So instead of explicitly assigning them to a closure, you can assign them to named functions so that you don't have to duplicate the explicit closure.
var doAThingAndAnother = function (){ doAThing(); doAnotherThing(); }
var tbl; // initialize it with the values
...
tbl[0x42] = doAThingAndAnother;
tbl[0x43] = doAThingAndAnother;
Not that much of an improvement, but it's the only thing I could think of! You seem to have covered most of the other issues. Since it looks like the requirements change so much, I think you might have to forgo elegance and have a design that is not as elegant, but is still easy to change.

Have you considered generating your decision tree on the server rather than writing it by hand? Use whatever representation is clean, easy to work with, and modify and then compile that to ugly yet efficient javascript for the client side.
A decision tree is fairly easy to represent as data and it is easy to understand and work with as a traditional tree data structure. You can store said tree in whatever form makes sense for you. Validating and modifying it as data should also be straight forward.
Then, when you need to use the decision tree, just compile/serialize it to JavaScript as a big if-the-else, switch, or hash mess. This should also be fairly straight forward and probably a lot easier than trying to maintain a switch with a couple hundred elements.

I've got a rough example of a JavaScript decision tree tool if you want to take a look:
http://jsfiddle.net/danw/h8CFe/