Related
The main reason why I want it is that I want to extend my initialize function.
Something like this:
// main.js
window.onload = init();
function init(){
doSomething();
}
// extend.js
function extends init(){
doSomethingHereToo();
}
So I want to extend a function like I extend a class in PHP.
And I would like to extend it from other files too, so for example I have the original init function in main.js and the extended function in extended.js.
With a wider view of what you're actually trying to do and the context in which you're doing it, I'm sure we could give you a better answer than the literal answer to your question.
But here's a literal answer:
If you're assigning these functions to some property somewhere, you can wrap the original function and put your replacement on the property instead:
// Original code in main.js
var theProperty = init;
function init(){
doSomething();
}
// Extending it by replacing and wrapping, in extended.js
theProperty = (function(old) {
function extendsInit() {
old();
doSomething();
}
return extendsInit;
})(theProperty);
If your functions aren't already on an object, you'd probably want to put them there to facilitate the above. For instance:
// In main.js
var MyLibrary = {
init: function init() {
}
};
// In extended.js
(function() {
var oldInit = MyLibrary.init;
MyLibrary.init = extendedInit;
function extendedInit() {
oldInit.call(MyLibrary); // Use #call in case `init` uses `this`
doSomething();
}
})();
But there are better ways to do that. Like for instance, providing a means of registering init functions.
// In main.js
var MyLibrary = (function() {
var initFunctions = [];
return {
init: function init() {
var fns = initFunctions;
initFunctions = undefined;
for (var index = 0; index < fns.length; ++index) {
try { fns[index](); } catch (e) { }
}
},
addInitFunction: function addInitFunction(fn) {
if (initFunctions) {
// Init hasn't run yet, remember it
initFunctions.push(fn);
} else {
// `init` has already run, call it almost immediately
// but *asynchronously* (so the caller never sees the
// call synchronously)
setTimeout(fn, 0);
}
}
};
})();
Here in 2020 (or really any time after ~2016), that can be written a bit more compactly:
// In main.js
const MyLibrary = (() => {
let initFunctions = [];
return {
init() {
const fns = initFunctions;
initFunctions = undefined;
for (const fn of fns) {
try { fn(); } catch (e) { }
}
},
addInitFunction(fn) {
if (initFunctions) {
// Init hasn't run yet, remember it
initFunctions.push(fn);
} else {
// `init` has already run, call it almost immediately
// but *asynchronously* (so the caller never sees the
// call synchronously)
setTimeout(fn, 0);
// Or: `Promise.resolve().then(() => fn());`
// (Not `.then(fn)` just to avoid passing it an argument)
}
}
};
})();
There are several ways to go about this, it depends what your purpose is, if you just want to execute the function as well and in the same context, you can use .apply():
function init(){
doSomething();
}
function myFunc(){
init.apply(this, arguments);
doSomethingHereToo();
}
If you want to replace it with a newer init, it'd look like this:
function init(){
doSomething();
}
//anytime later
var old_init = init;
init = function() {
old_init.apply(this, arguments);
doSomethingHereToo();
};
The other methods are great but they don't preserve any prototype functions attached to init. To get around that you can do the following (inspired by the post from Nick Craver).
(function () {
var old_prototype = init.prototype;
var old_init = init;
init = function () {
old_init.apply(this, arguments);
// Do something extra
};
init.prototype = old_prototype;
}) ();
Another option could be:
var initial = function() {
console.log( 'initial function!' );
}
var iWantToExecuteThisOneToo = function () {
console.log( 'the other function that i wanted to execute!' );
}
function extendFunction( oldOne, newOne ) {
return (function() {
oldOne();
newOne();
})();
}
var extendedFunction = extendFunction( initial, iWantToExecuteThisOneToo );
2017+ solution
The idea of function extensions comes from functional paradigm, which is natively supported since ES6:
function init(){
doSomething();
}
// extend.js
init = (f => u => { f(u)
doSomethingHereToo();
})(init);
init();
As per #TJCrowder's concern about stack dump, the browsers handle the situation much better today. If you save this code into test.html and run it, you get
test.html:3 Uncaught ReferenceError: doSomething is not defined
at init (test.html:3)
at test.html:8
at test.html:12
Line 12: the init call, Line 8: the init extension, Line 3: the undefined doSomething() call.
Note: Much respect to veteran T.J. Crowder, who kindly answered my question many years ago, when I was a newbie. After the years, I still remember the respectfull attitude and I try to follow the good example.
This is very simple and straight forward. Look at the code. Try to grasp the basic concept behind javascript extension.
First let us extend javascript function.
function Base(props) {
const _props = props
this.getProps = () => _props
// We can make method private by not binding it to this object.
// Hence it is not exposed when we return this.
const privateMethod = () => "do internal stuff"
return this
}
You can extend this function by creating child function in following way
function Child(props) {
const parent = Base(props)
this.getMessage = () => `Message is ${parent.getProps()}`;
// You can remove the line below to extend as in private inheritance,
// not exposing parent function properties and method.
this.prototype = parent
return this
}
Now you can use Child function as follows,
let childObject = Child("Secret Message")
console.log(childObject.getMessage()) // logs "Message is Secret Message"
console.log(childObject.getProps()) // logs "Secret Message"
We can also create Javascript Function by extending Javascript classes, like this.
class BaseClass {
constructor(props) {
this.props = props
// You can remove the line below to make getProps method private.
// As it will not be binded to this, but let it be
this.getProps = this.getProps.bind(this)
}
getProps() {
return this.props
}
}
Let us extend this class with Child function like this,
function Child(props) {
let parent = new BaseClass(props)
const getMessage = () => `Message is ${parent.getProps()}`;
return { ...parent, getMessage} // I have used spread operator.
}
Again you can use Child function as follows to get similar result,
let childObject = Child("Secret Message")
console.log(childObject.getMessage()) // logs "Message is Secret Message"
console.log(childObject.getProps()) // logs "Secret Message"
Javascript is very easy language. We can do almost anything. Happy JavaScripting... Hope I was able to give you an idea to use in your case.
Use extendFunction.js
init = extendFunction(init, function(args) {
doSomethingHereToo();
});
But in your specific case, it's easier to extend the global onload function:
extendFunction('onload', function(args) {
doSomethingHereToo();
});
I actually really like your question, it's making me think about different use cases.
For javascript events, you really want to add and remove handlers - but for extendFunction, how could you later remove functionality? I could easily add a .revert method to extended functions, so init = init.revert() would return the original function. Obviously this could lead to some pretty bad code, but perhaps it lets you get something done without touching a foreign part of the codebase.
I'd like to 'proxy' (not sure if that's the term at all) a function inside a function object for easy calling.
Given the following code
function Soldier() {
this.el = $("<div></div>").addClass('soldier');
this.pos = this.el.position; // $(".soldier").position(), or so I thought
}
In the console:
s = new Soldier();
$("#gamemap").append(s.el); // Add the soldier to the game field
s.pos === s.el.position // this returns true
s.el.position() // Returns Object {top: 0, left: 0}
s.pos() // Returns 'undefined'
What am I doing wrong in this scenario and is there an easy way to achieve my goal (s.pos() to return the result of s.el.position()) ?
I thought about s.pos = function() { return s.el.position(); } but looks a bit ugly and not apropriate. Also I'd like to add more similar functions and the library will become quite big to even load.
When you're calling s.pos(), its this context is lost.
You can simulate this behavior using call():
s.pos.call(s); // same as s.pos()
s.pos.call(s.el); // same as s.el.position()
This code is actually ok:
s.pos = function() { return s.el.position(); }
An alternative is using bind():
s.pos = s.el.position.bind(el);
You can use the prototype, that way the functions will not be created separately for every object:
Soldier.prototype.pos = function(){ return this.el.position(); }
I'd recommend to use the prototype:
Soldier.prototype.pos = function() { return this.el.position(); };
Not ugly at all, and quite performant actually.
If you want to directly assign it in the constructor, you'll need to notice that the this context of a s.pos() invocation would be wrong. You therefore would need to bind it:
…
this.pos = this.el.position.bind(this.el);
It's because the context of execution for position method has changed. If you bind the method to work inside the element context it will work.
JS Fiddle
function Soldier() {
this.el = $("<div></div>").addClass('soldier');
this.pos = this.el.position.bind(this.el);
}
var s = new Soldier();
$("#gamemap").append(s.el);
console.log(s.pos());
Here is a simplified snippet from some code I wrote for managing tablet gestures on canvas elements
first a function that accepts an element and a dictionary of callbacks and register the events plus adding other features like 'hold' gestures:
function registerStageGestures(stage, callbacks, recieverArg) {
stage.inhold = false;
stage.timer = null;
var touchduration = 1000;
var reciever = recieverArg || window;
stage.onLongTouch = function(e) {
if (stage.timer) clearTimeout(stage.timer);
stage.inhold = true;
if (callbacks.touchholdstart) callbacks.touchholdstart.call(reciever, e);
};
stage.getContent().addEventListener('touchstart', function(e) {
e.preventDefault();
calcTouchEventData(e);
stage.timer = setTimeout(function() {
stage.onLongTouch(e);
}, touchduration);
if (callbacks.touchstart) callbacks.touchholdstart.call(reciever, e);
});
stage.getContent().addEventListener('touchmove', function(e) {
e.preventDefault();
if (stage.timer) clearTimeout(stage.timer);
if (stage.inhold) {
if (callbacks.touchholdmove) callbacks.touchholdmove.call(reciever, e);
} else {
if (callbacks.touchmove) callbacks.touchmove.call(reciever, e);
}
});
stage.getContent().addEventListener('touchend', function(e) {
e.preventDefault();
if (stage.timer) clearTimeout(stage.timer);
if (stage.inhold) {
if (callbacks.touchholdend) callbacks.touchholdend.call(reciever, e);
} else {
if (callbacks.touchend) callbacks.touchend.call(reciever, e);
}
stage.inhold = false;
});
}
later I call registerStageGestures on a few elements (represented by 'View' objects) in the same page. Something like:
function View() {
var self=this;
..
function InitView() {
...
registerStageGestures(kineticStage, {
touchstart: function(e) {
// do something
},
touchmove: function(e) {
// do something
},
touchendunction(e) {
// do something
},
touchholdstart: function(e) {
// do something
},
touchholdmove: function(e) {
// do something
},
touchholdend: function(e) {
// do something
},
}, self);
Everything works fine, however I'm left wondering about two things in the implementation of registerStageGestures:
First, is it necessary to make inhold, timer and onLongTouch members of the stage ? or will closures make everything works well if they are local vars in registerStageGestures ?
Second, is it necessary to call the callbacks with '.call(receiver,' syntax ? I'm doing this to make sure the callback code will run in the context of the View but I'm not sure if it's needed ?
any input is much appreciated
Thanks!
First, is it necessary to make inhold, timer and onLongTouch members
of the stage ? or will closures make everything works well if they are
local vars in registerStageGestures ?
As far as registerStageGestures() is concerned, var inhold, var timer and function onLongTouch(e) {...}. would suffice. The mechanism by which an inner function has automatic access to its outer function's members is known as "closure". You would only need to set stage.inhold, stage.timer and stage.onLongTouch if some other piece of code needs access to these settings as properties of stage.
Second, is it necessary to call the callbacks with '.call(receiver,'
syntax ? I'm doing this to make sure the callback code will run in the
context of the View but I'm not sure if it's needed ?
Possibly, depending on how those callbacks are written. .call() and .apply() are sometimes used when calling functions that use this internally. In both cases, the first parameter passed defines the object to be interpreted as this. Thus, javascript gives you the means of defining general purpose methods with no a priori assumption about the object to which those methods will apply when called. Similarly, you can call a method of an object in such a way that it acts on another object.
EDIT:
For completeness, please note that even in the absence of this in a function, .apply() can be very useful as it allows multiple parameters to be specified as elements of a single array, eg the ubiquitous jQuery.when.apply(null, arrayOfPromises)...
There are some simple answers, here.
First, closure:
Closure basically says that whatever is defined inside of a function, has access to the rest of that function's contents.
And all of those contents are guaranteed to stay alive (out of the trash), until there are no more objects left, which ere created inside.
A simple test:
var testClosure = function () {
var name = "Bob",
recallName = function () { return name; };
return { getName : recallName };
};
var test = testClosure();
console.log(test.getName()); // Bob
So anything that was created inside can be accessed by any function which was also created inside (or created inside of a function created in a function[, ...], inside).
var closure_2x = function () {
var name = "Bob",
innerScope = function () {
console.log(name);
return function () {
console.log("Still " + name);
}
};
return innerScope;
};
var inner_func = closure_2x();
var even_deeper = inner_func(); // "Bob"
even_deeper(); // "Still Bob"
This applies not only to variables/objects/functions created inside, but also to function arguments passed inside.
The arguments have no access to the inner-workings(unless passed to methods/callbacks), but the inner-workings will remember the arguments.
So as long as your functions are being created in the same scope as your values (or a child-scope), there's access.
.call is trickier.
You know what it does (replaces this inside of the function with the object you pass it)...
...but why and when, in this case are harder.
var Person = function (name, age) {
this.age = age;
this.getAge = function () {
return this.age;
};
};
var bob = new Person("Bob", 32);
This looks pretty normal.
Honestly, this could look a lot like Java or C# with a couple of tweaks.
bob.getAge(); // 32
Works like Java or C#, too.
doSomething.then(bob.getAge);
? Buh ?
We've now passed Bob's method into a function, as a function, all by itself.
var doug = { age : 28 };
doug.getAge = bob.getAge;
Now we've given doug a reference to directly use bobs methid -- not a copy, but a pointer to the actual method.
doug.getAge(); // 28
Well, that's odd.
What about what came out of passing it in as a callback?
var test = bob.getAge;
test(); // undefined
The reason for this, is, as you said, about context...
But the specific reason is because this inside of a function in JS isn't pre-compiled, or stored...
this is worked out on the fly, every time the function is called.
If you call
obj.method();
this === obj;
If you call
a.b.c.d();
this === a.b.c;
If you call
var test = bob.getAge;
test();
...?
this is equal to window.
In "strict mode" this doesn't happen (you get errors really quickly).
test.call(bob); //32
Balance restored!
Mostly...
There are still a few catches.
var outerScope = function () {
console.log(this.age);
var inner = function () {
console.log("Still " + this.age);
};
inner();
};
outerScope.call(bob);
// "32"
// "Still undefined"
This makes sense, when you think about it...
We know that if a function figures out this at the moment it's called -- scope has nothing to do with it...
...and we didn't add inner to an object...
this.inner = inner;
this.inner();
would have worked just fine (but now you just messed with an external object)...
So inner saw this as window.
The solution would either be to use .call, or .apply, or to use function-scoping and/or closure
var person = this,
inner = function () { console.log(person.age); };
The rabbit hole goes deeper, but my phone is dying...
The main reason why I want it is that I want to extend my initialize function.
Something like this:
// main.js
window.onload = init();
function init(){
doSomething();
}
// extend.js
function extends init(){
doSomethingHereToo();
}
So I want to extend a function like I extend a class in PHP.
And I would like to extend it from other files too, so for example I have the original init function in main.js and the extended function in extended.js.
With a wider view of what you're actually trying to do and the context in which you're doing it, I'm sure we could give you a better answer than the literal answer to your question.
But here's a literal answer:
If you're assigning these functions to some property somewhere, you can wrap the original function and put your replacement on the property instead:
// Original code in main.js
var theProperty = init;
function init(){
doSomething();
}
// Extending it by replacing and wrapping, in extended.js
theProperty = (function(old) {
function extendsInit() {
old();
doSomething();
}
return extendsInit;
})(theProperty);
If your functions aren't already on an object, you'd probably want to put them there to facilitate the above. For instance:
// In main.js
var MyLibrary = {
init: function init() {
}
};
// In extended.js
(function() {
var oldInit = MyLibrary.init;
MyLibrary.init = extendedInit;
function extendedInit() {
oldInit.call(MyLibrary); // Use #call in case `init` uses `this`
doSomething();
}
})();
But there are better ways to do that. Like for instance, providing a means of registering init functions.
// In main.js
var MyLibrary = (function() {
var initFunctions = [];
return {
init: function init() {
var fns = initFunctions;
initFunctions = undefined;
for (var index = 0; index < fns.length; ++index) {
try { fns[index](); } catch (e) { }
}
},
addInitFunction: function addInitFunction(fn) {
if (initFunctions) {
// Init hasn't run yet, remember it
initFunctions.push(fn);
} else {
// `init` has already run, call it almost immediately
// but *asynchronously* (so the caller never sees the
// call synchronously)
setTimeout(fn, 0);
}
}
};
})();
Here in 2020 (or really any time after ~2016), that can be written a bit more compactly:
// In main.js
const MyLibrary = (() => {
let initFunctions = [];
return {
init() {
const fns = initFunctions;
initFunctions = undefined;
for (const fn of fns) {
try { fn(); } catch (e) { }
}
},
addInitFunction(fn) {
if (initFunctions) {
// Init hasn't run yet, remember it
initFunctions.push(fn);
} else {
// `init` has already run, call it almost immediately
// but *asynchronously* (so the caller never sees the
// call synchronously)
setTimeout(fn, 0);
// Or: `Promise.resolve().then(() => fn());`
// (Not `.then(fn)` just to avoid passing it an argument)
}
}
};
})();
There are several ways to go about this, it depends what your purpose is, if you just want to execute the function as well and in the same context, you can use .apply():
function init(){
doSomething();
}
function myFunc(){
init.apply(this, arguments);
doSomethingHereToo();
}
If you want to replace it with a newer init, it'd look like this:
function init(){
doSomething();
}
//anytime later
var old_init = init;
init = function() {
old_init.apply(this, arguments);
doSomethingHereToo();
};
The other methods are great but they don't preserve any prototype functions attached to init. To get around that you can do the following (inspired by the post from Nick Craver).
(function () {
var old_prototype = init.prototype;
var old_init = init;
init = function () {
old_init.apply(this, arguments);
// Do something extra
};
init.prototype = old_prototype;
}) ();
Another option could be:
var initial = function() {
console.log( 'initial function!' );
}
var iWantToExecuteThisOneToo = function () {
console.log( 'the other function that i wanted to execute!' );
}
function extendFunction( oldOne, newOne ) {
return (function() {
oldOne();
newOne();
})();
}
var extendedFunction = extendFunction( initial, iWantToExecuteThisOneToo );
2017+ solution
The idea of function extensions comes from functional paradigm, which is natively supported since ES6:
function init(){
doSomething();
}
// extend.js
init = (f => u => { f(u)
doSomethingHereToo();
})(init);
init();
As per #TJCrowder's concern about stack dump, the browsers handle the situation much better today. If you save this code into test.html and run it, you get
test.html:3 Uncaught ReferenceError: doSomething is not defined
at init (test.html:3)
at test.html:8
at test.html:12
Line 12: the init call, Line 8: the init extension, Line 3: the undefined doSomething() call.
Note: Much respect to veteran T.J. Crowder, who kindly answered my question many years ago, when I was a newbie. After the years, I still remember the respectfull attitude and I try to follow the good example.
This is very simple and straight forward. Look at the code. Try to grasp the basic concept behind javascript extension.
First let us extend javascript function.
function Base(props) {
const _props = props
this.getProps = () => _props
// We can make method private by not binding it to this object.
// Hence it is not exposed when we return this.
const privateMethod = () => "do internal stuff"
return this
}
You can extend this function by creating child function in following way
function Child(props) {
const parent = Base(props)
this.getMessage = () => `Message is ${parent.getProps()}`;
// You can remove the line below to extend as in private inheritance,
// not exposing parent function properties and method.
this.prototype = parent
return this
}
Now you can use Child function as follows,
let childObject = Child("Secret Message")
console.log(childObject.getMessage()) // logs "Message is Secret Message"
console.log(childObject.getProps()) // logs "Secret Message"
We can also create Javascript Function by extending Javascript classes, like this.
class BaseClass {
constructor(props) {
this.props = props
// You can remove the line below to make getProps method private.
// As it will not be binded to this, but let it be
this.getProps = this.getProps.bind(this)
}
getProps() {
return this.props
}
}
Let us extend this class with Child function like this,
function Child(props) {
let parent = new BaseClass(props)
const getMessage = () => `Message is ${parent.getProps()}`;
return { ...parent, getMessage} // I have used spread operator.
}
Again you can use Child function as follows to get similar result,
let childObject = Child("Secret Message")
console.log(childObject.getMessage()) // logs "Message is Secret Message"
console.log(childObject.getProps()) // logs "Secret Message"
Javascript is very easy language. We can do almost anything. Happy JavaScripting... Hope I was able to give you an idea to use in your case.
as I understand it, you are trying to fetch the applications connected to the user account. You can do this by making a request on the API, I don't know if discord.js covers this part of the API
endpoint: https://discord.com/api/users/#me/connections
Request type: GET Header:
Authorization: "Beareryou token"
response: [
{...}
]
Use extendFunction.js
init = extendFunction(init, function(args) {
doSomethingHereToo();
});
But in your specific case, it's easier to extend the global onload function:
extendFunction('onload', function(args) {
doSomethingHereToo();
});
I actually really like your question, it's making me think about different use cases.
For javascript events, you really want to add and remove handlers - but for extendFunction, how could you later remove functionality? I could easily add a .revert method to extended functions, so init = init.revert() would return the original function. Obviously this could lead to some pretty bad code, but perhaps it lets you get something done without touching a foreign part of the codebase.
EDIT: OK, I believe the following solutions are valid:
Use the jQuery AOP plugin. It basically wraps the old function together with the hook into a function sandwich and reassigns it to the old function name. This causes nesting of functions with each new added hook.
If jQuery is not usable for you, just pillage the source code, there did not seem to be any jQuery dependencies in the plugin, and the source is simple and very small.
Have an object describing all hooks and their targets and one to store the initial unmodified function. When adding a new hook, the wrapping would be redone around the original function, instead of re-wrap the the previous wrapping function.
You escape nested functions, and get two objects to handle instead. Potentially, this could also mean easier hook handling, if you add/remove hooks often and out of order.
I'll go with the first, since it's already done, and I don't have performance to worry about. And since the original functions are not affected, even if I switch hooking methods, I'll only need to redo the hook adding, which might be just some simple search&replace operations.
Hi,
Is it possible to create a mechanism, in which function A might have a set of hooks(functions that will execute before/after function A)?
Ideally, function A would not be aware of hooking functionality, so that I do not have to modify the source code of function A to call the hooks. Something like:
A = function(){
alert("I'm a naive function");
};
B = function(){
alert("I'm having a piggyback ride on function A!"+
"And the fool doesn't even know it!");
};
addHook(B, A)//add hook B to function A
A()
//getting alerts "I'm a naive function"/"I'm having a
//piggyback ride on function A! And the fool doesn't even know it!"
I've been trying to hack something up for a couple of hours, but so far no luck.
Might not be pretty but it seems to work...
<script>
function A(x) { alert(x); return x; }
function B() { alert(123); }
function addHook(functionB, functionA, parent)
{
if (typeof parent == 'undefined')
parent = window;
for (var i in parent)
{
if (parent[i] === functionA)
{
parent[i] = function()
{
functionB();
return functionA.apply(this, arguments)
}
break;
}
}
}
addHook(B, A);
A(2);
</script>
Take a look at jQuery's AOP plugin. In general, google "javascript aspect oriented programming".
Very simple answer:
function someFunction() { alert("Bar!") }
var placeholder=someFunction;
someFunction=function() {
alert("Foo?");
placeholder();
}
This answer is not definitive, but rather demonstrative of a different technique than those offered thus far. This leverages the fact that a function in Javascript is a first-class object, and as such, a) you can pass it as a value to another function and b) you can add properties to it. Combine these traits with function's built-in "call" (or "apply") methods, and you have yourself a start toward a solution.
var function_itself = function() {
alert('in function itself');
}
function_itself.PRE_PROCESS = function() {
alert('in pre_process');
}
function_itself.POST_PROCESS = function() {
alert('in post_process');
}
var function_processor = function(func) {
if (func.PRE_PROCESS) {
func.PRE_PROCESS.call();
}
func.call();
if (func.POST_PROCESS) {
func.POST_PROCESS.call();
}
}
The following function will give you before and after hooks that can be stacked. So if you have a number of potential functions that need to run before the given function or after the given function then this would be a working solution. This solution does not require jQuery and uses native array methods (no shims required). It should also be context sensitive so if you are calling the original function with a context if should run each before and after function likewise.
// usage:
/*
function test(x) {
alert(x);
}
var htest = hookable(test);
htest.addHook("before", function (x) {
alert("Before " + x);
})
htest.addHook("after", function (x) {
alert("After " + x);
})
htest("test") // => Before test ... test ... After test
*/
function hookable(fn) {
var ifn = fn,
hooks = {
before : [],
after : []
};
function hookableFunction() {
var args = [].slice.call(arguments, 0),
i = 0,
fn;
for (i = 0; !!hooks.before[i]; i += 1) {
fn = hooks.before[i];
fn.apply(this, args);
}
ifn.apply(this, arguments);
for (i = 0; !!hooks.after[i]; i++) {
fn = hooks.after[i];
fn.apply(this, args);
}
}
hookableFunction.addHook = function (type, fn) {
if (hooks[type] instanceof Array) {
hooks[type].push(fn);
} else {
throw (function () {
var e = new Error("Invalid hook type");
e.expected = Object.keys(hooks);
e.got = type;
return e;
}());
}
};
return hookableFunction;
}
Here's what I did, might be useful in other applications like this:
//Setup a hooking object
a={
hook:function(name,f){
aion.hooks[name]=f;
}
}a.hooks={
//default hooks (also sets the object)
};
//Add a hook
a.hook('test',function(){
alert('test');
});
//Apply each Hook (can be done with for)
$.each(a.hooks,function(index,f){
f();
});
I don't know if this will be useful. You do need to modify the original function but only once and you don't need to keep editing it for firing hooks
https://github.com/rcorp/hooker