Develop Reference

Javascript code organization data driven application

I'm currently working on the front-end of a medium/large-scale data-driven Asp.net MVC application and I have some doubts about the right code-organization/design pattern to follow.
The web application is made by multiple pages containing many Kendo UI MVC widgets defined with Razor template.
For those who are unfamiliar with Kendo, the razor syntax is translated to Javascript as the following snippet:
I defined inside my Script folder two main folders, and I structured my js files as follow:
shared //Contains the shared js files
-file1.js
-file2.js
pages //One file per page
page1.js
page2.js
...
Ticket.js // page 4 :)
Each js file is a separate module defined with the following pattern:
Note: Inside init function is registered every callback function to the window events and occasionally a $(document).ready(function(){}) block.
;(function () {
"use strict";
function Ticket(settings) {
this.currentPageUrls = settings.currentPageUrls;
this.currentPageMessages = settings.currentPageMessages;
this.currentPageEnums = settings.currentPageEnums;
this.currentPageParameters = settings.currentPageParameters;
this.gridManager = new window.gridManager(); //usage of shared modules
this.init();
}
Ticket.prototype.init = function () {
$("form").on("submit", function () {
$(".window-content-sandbox").addClass("k-loading");
});
...
}
Ticket.prototype.onRequestStart = function (e) {
...
}
//private functions definition
function private(a, b, c){
}
window.Ticket = Ticket;
}());
Once I need my Javascript functions defined in a module I include the associated Javascript file in the page.
An istance of my object is stored inside a variable and, on top of that, a function is bound to the widget event (see: onRequestStart).
HTML/JAVASCRIPT
#(Html.Kendo().DropDownList()
.Name("Users")
.DataValueField("Id")
.DataTextField("Username")
.DataSource(d => d.Read(r => r.Action("UsersAsJson", "User"))
.Events(e => e.RequestStart("onRequestStart"))))
var settings = {};
var ticket = new window.Ticket(settings);
function onRequestStart(e){
ticket.onRequestStart(e);
}
I feel like my design pattern might be unfriendly to other front-end delevoper as I am, mostly because I choose not to implement the Javascript modules within Jquery plugin.
First, Am I doing everything the wrong way?
Second, is my design pattern suitable for a Javascript test-framework?
Third, which are the must-have scenarios for Jquery plugins?
Update
Added the Javascript output by the above Razor syntax.

Folder structure
In terms of functionality (shared) and modules (modular approach), the development or application code should represent what you can encounter in HTML. A simple ctrl+f over your solution should yield all possible changes. From that experience over the years I personally prefer dividing it in:
app (application code)
classes (reusable)
modules (singleton)
lib (package manager/grunt/gulp/...)
jquery (proper library names/unminified dist file or root file)
kendo
File names
Representing what something does and to be able to reuse it in a blink of an eye is what will cut your development time. Choosing proper names has value as I'm sure you are aware. My file names always starts with the namespace usually in short followed by a reusable "search" term:
app/prototypes
ns.calendar.js (multiple configs)
ns.maps.js (combinations or single uses)
ns.places.js (forms or map add-ons)
ns.validation.js (multiple forms and general handling)
app/singletons
ns.cookiebox.js (single config)
ns.socialmedia.js (single config)
ns.dom.js (provides a place for dom corrections, global resize events, small widgets, ...)
To add, what you called shared, is functionality that's meant to be global. A great example would be to use underscore library. Or create a collection of functions (device detection, throttle, helpers in general) on your own to reuse throughout projects => ns.fn.js
Since you add them only once throughout your namespace, it's also built as singleton and can be added to the modules folder or directly in the app root.
As last addition a loader file to kickstart your point of control => ns.load.js in the app root. This file holds the single DOM ready event to bind protoypes and modules.
So you might want to rethink your idea of dividing into pages. Trust me, I've been there. At some point you'll notice how functionality grows too large in order to configure all pages separately and therefor repeatedly.
File structure
To be honest I like Tip 1 of #TxRegex answer the most, with a small addition to bind the namespace and pass it from file to file as it get's loaded.
Core principle: IIFE bound to window object
window.NameSpace = (function($, ns){
'strict'
function private(){}
var x;
ns.SearchTerm = {};
return ns;
}(window.jQuery, window.NameSpace || {}));
For more example code I'd like to point out my github account.
Bundling
Try to achieve a single bundled and minified file from lib to app, loaded in the head on async for production releases. Use separated and unminified script files on defer for development and debug purposes. You must avoid inline script with global dependencies throughout the whole project if you do this.
path to js/lib/**/*.js (usually separated to keep sequential order)
path to js/app/ns.load.js
path to js/app/ns.fn.js
path to js/app/**/*.js (auto update the bundle)
Output => ns.bundle.js
=> ns.bundle.min.js
This way you'll avoid render blocking issues in JavaScript and speed up the loading process which in turn boosts SEO. Also enables you to combine functionality for mobile layouts and desktop layouts on the fly without memory issues or jerky behavior. Minifies really well and generates little overhead in calling instances from the loader file. As a single bundle will be cached throughout your pages it all depends on how many dependencies or libraries you can cut from the bundle. Ideally for medium and large projects where code can be shared and plugged in to different projects.
More info on this in another post.
Conclusion
First, Am I doing everything the wrong way?
Not at all, your modular approach seems ok...
It's missing a global namespace, which is hard to avoid without at least one. You create one for each module but it seems better to group them all under one namespace so you can differentiate library code from application code in the window object.
Kendo seems to create inline scripts? Can't you counter the placement server side?
Second, is my design pattern suitable for a Javascript test-framework?
Except for the Kendo instances, you can add a layer for testing purposes. Remember if jQuery is your dependency inline, you'll have to render block it's loading. Otherwise => jQuery is undefined
Exclude Kendo dependencies from the bundle if you can't control the inline script. Move to a </body> bundled solution.
Third, which are the must-have scenarios for Jquery plugins?
modular approach
configurable approach for multiple instances (tip: moving all strings from your logic, see how Kendo uses object literals)
package manager to separate the "junk" from the "gold"
grunt/gulp/... setup to separate scss and css from js
try to achieve a data-attribute binding, so once all is written, you configure new instances through HTML.
Write once, adapt easily where necessary and configure plenty!

The organization and pattern seems fine, but I have some tips:
Tip 1:
Instead of setting specific global variables within your module, perhaps you could return the object instead. So instead of doing this:
;(function () {
"use strict";
function Ticket(settings) {
console.log("ticket created", settings);
}
...
window.Ticket = Ticket;
}());
You would do this:
;window.Ticket = (function () {
"use strict";
function Ticket(settings) {
console.log("ticket created", settings);
}
...
return Ticket;
}());
The reason for this is to be able to take your module code and give it a different global variable name if needed. If there is a name conflict, you can rename it to MyTicket or whatever without actually changing the module's internal code.
Tip 2:
Forget Tip 1, global variables stink. Instead of creating a seperate global variable for each object type, why not create an object manager and use a single global variable to manage all your objects:
window.myCompany = (function () {
function ObjectManager(modules) {
this.modules = modules || {};
}
ObjectManager.prototype.getInstance = function(type, settings) {
if (!type || !this.modules.hasOwnProperty(type)) {
throw "Unrecognized object type:";
}
return new this.modules[type](settings);
};
ObjectManager.prototype.addObjectType = function(type, object) {
if (!type) {
throw "Type is required";
}
if(!object) {
throw "Object is required";
}
this.modules[type] = object;
};
return new ObjectManager();
}());
Now each of your modules can be managed with this single global object that has your company name attached to it.
;(function () {
"use strict";
function Ticket(settings) {
console.log("ticket created", settings);
}
...
window.myCompany.addObjectType("Ticket", Ticket);
}());
Now you can easily get an instance for every single object type like this:
var settings = {test: true};
var ticket = window.myCompany.getInstance("Ticket", settings);
And you only have one global variable to worry about.

You can try separating your files in different components asuming each component has a folder.
for example: page 1 is about rectangles so you make a folder call rectangle inside that folder you create 3 files rectangle.component.html, rectangle.component.css, rectangle.component.js (optional rectangle.spec.js for testing).
app
└───rectangle
rectangle.component.css
rectangle.component.html
rectangle.component.js
so if anything bad happends to a rectangle you know where is the problem
a good way to isolate variables and execute in the right place is to use a router basically what this does it check at the url and executes the portion of code you asign to that page
hope it helps let me know if you need more help.

An object disappears after packing a JavaScript library

I have created a JavaScript library and packed it with these options selected : Shrink Variables and Base62 Encoded at this url: http://dean.edwards.name/packer/. In this library I have declared an object ax, but when I use the packed version in my web page I get an error saying Uncaught ReferenceError: ax is not defined.
The original code of this library looks like below.
var ax = {
scaleUp:function(win) {
//code omitted
},
downGrade:function(win) {
//code omitted
}
}
In my web page in which I am using this library, I have code like below. This code works, if instead of packing, I minify it using Microsoft's Minifier or just use the original JavaScript library without minification or packing.
var result = ax.downGrade(w);
Question :
Why is the variable ax not accessible with packed version? Do I need to add something else when using the packed version?
UPDATE 1:
I could not get the packed file to work but packing my code through another compression utility at following url worked in my case: http://jsutility.pjoneil.net/. It provided an equally good compression.
I am still not sure why the utility at original url failed to produce a working version of my library, even though my original code works without any errors on any web page.

Check your console for errors before trying to call ax. Explicitly place semi-colons where they belong.Example at the end of the definition for ax you should put a semi-colon, even though in standard code it's good as is. Remove the explicit var declarations. When I did these things:
ax = {
scaleUp:function(win) {
alert("up");
},
downGrade:function(win) {
alert("down");
}
};
result = ax.downGrade();
Ran without issue in jsFiddle and console: http://jsfiddle.net/7kdnw65n/. I suspect it has to do with how the algorithm "shrinks" the variables. The resulting pack was:
eval(function(p,a,c,k,e,r){e=String;if(!''.replace(/^/,String)){while(c--)r[c]=k[c]||c;k=[function(e){return r[e]}];e=function(){return'\\w+'};c=1};while(c--)if(k[c])p=p.replace(new RegExp('\\b'+e(c)+'\\b','g'),k[c]);return p}('0={5:1(2){3("6")},4:1(2){3("7")}};8=0.4();',9,9,'ax|function|a|alert|downGrade|scaleUp|up|down|result'.split('|'),0,{}))

trying to map someFunction.jQuery to "$"

I found a function (via this person's github) that I might use in my script that mimics the functionality of an API object.
Here's the relevant code from the link:
unsafeWindow = (function() {
var e1 = document.createElement('p')
e1.setAttribute('onclick', 'return window;');
return e1.onclick();
})();
Where the poster says you can use the function in the format unsafeWindow.jQuery
Now, I want to be able to use $ instead of the jQuery keyword elsewhere in my code. I tried learning from this stack overflow question to simplify it and re-wrote the code like so:
(function($){
var e1 = document.createElement('p')
e1.setAttribute('onclick', 'return window;');
return e1.onclick();
})(jQuery);
But it didn't work. I guess I could just try something like $ = unsafeWindow.jQuery in order to map to the $, but I wanted to try to do it in the format seen above.

You would map $ to unsafeWindow.jQuery like so:
unsafeWindow = ( function () {
var dummyElem = document.createElement('p');
dummyElem.setAttribute ('onclick', 'return window;');
return dummyElem.onclick ();
} ) ();
var $ = unsafeWindow.jQuery;
// Now you can use the page's jQuery. EG:
$("body").append ('<p>Content added by unsafeWindow.jQuery</p>');
But keep in mind:
This is a Hack, and it will probably stop working around Chrome version 28.
It may still fail due to a race condition about when userscripts fire. To fix that, add // #run-at document-end to the userscript's metadata block.
Don't do things this way! It will only cause grief, side effects and maintenance headaches.
For userscripts: use this technique (best cross-browser)  or  this technique (relies on page's jQuery, but the example shows how to use GM_ functions too).
For full extensions or content scripts:, use this technique (use the manifest.json and keep everything properly sandboxed).

Auto-load/include for JavaScript

I have file called common.js and it's included in each page of my site using <script />.
It will grow fast as my sites functionality will grow (I hope; I imagine). :)
Lets example I have a jQuery event:
$('#that').click(function() {
one_of_many_functions($(this));
}
For the moment, I have that one_of_many_functions() in common.js.
Is it somehow possible that JavaScript automatically loads file one_of_many_functions.js when such function is called, but it doesn't exist? Like auto-loader. :)
The second option I see is to do something like:
$('#that').click(function() {
include('one_of_many_functions');
one_of_many_functions($(this));
}
That not so automatically, but still - includes wanted file.
Is any of this possible? Thanks in an advice! :)

It is not possible to directly auto-load external javascripts on demand. It is, however, possible to implement a dynamic inclusion mechanism similar to the second route you mentioned.
There are some challenges though. When you "include" a new external script, you aren't going to be able to immediately use the included functionality, you'll have to wait until the script loads. This means that you'll have to fragment your code somewhat, which means that you'll have to make some decisions about what should just be included in the core vs. what can be included on demand.
You'll need to set up a central object that keeps track of which assets are already loaded. Here's a quick mockup of that:
var assets = {
assets: {},
include: function (asset_name, callback) {
if (typeof callback != 'function')
callback = function () { return false; };
if (typeof this.assets[asset_name] != 'undefined' )
return callback();
var html_doc = document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0];
var st = document.createElement('script');
st.setAttribute('language', 'javascript');
st.setAttribute('type', 'text/javascript');
st.setAttribute('src', asset_name);
st.onload = function () { assets._script_loaded(asset_name, callback); };
html_doc.appendChild(st);
},
_script_loaded: function (asset_name, callback) {
this.assets[asset_name] = true;
callback();
}
};
assets.inlude('myfile.js', function () {
/* do stuff that depends on myfile.js */
});

Sure it's possible -- but this can become painful to manage. In order to implement something like this, you're going to have to maintain an index of functions and their corresponding source file. As your project grows, this can be troublesome for a few reasons -- the 2 that stick out in my mind are:
A) You have the added responsibility of maintaining your index object/lookup mechanism so that your scripts know where to look when the function you're calling cannot be found.
B) This is one more thing that can go wrong when debugging your growing project.
I'm sure that someone else will mention this by the time I'm finished writing this, but your time would probably be better spent figuring out how to combine all of your code into a single .js file. The benefits to doing so are well-documented.

I have created something close to that a year ago. In fact, I have found this thread by search if that is something new on the field. You can see what I have created here: https://github.com/thiagomata/CanvasBox/blob/master/src/main/New.js
My project are, almost 100% OOP. So, I used this fact to focus my solution. I create this "Class" with the name "New" what is used to, first load and after instance the objects.
Here a example of someone using it:
var objSquare = New.Square(); // Square is loaded and after that instance is created
objSquare.x = objBox.width / 2;
objSquare.y = objBox.height / 2;
var objSomeExample = New.Stuff("some parameters can be sent too");
In this version I am not using some json with all js file position. The mapping is hardcore as you can see here:
New.prototype.arrMap = {
CanvasBox: "" + window.MAIN_PATH + "CanvasBox",
CanvasBoxBehavior: "" + window.MAIN_PATH + "CanvasBoxBehavior",
CanvasBoxButton: "" + window.MAIN_PATH + "CanvasBoxButton",
// (...)
};
But make this more automatic, using gulp or grunt is something what I am thinking to do, and it is not that hard.
This solution was created to be used into the project. So, the code may need some changes to be able to be used into any project. But may be a start.
Hope this helps.
As I said before, this still is a working progress. But I have created a more independent module what use gulp to keep it updated.
All the magic que be found in this links:
https://github.com/thiagomata/CanvasBox/blob/master/src/coffee/main/Instance.coffee
https://github.com/thiagomata/CanvasBox/blob/master/src/node/scripts.js
https://github.com/thiagomata/CanvasBox/blob/master/gulpfile.js
A special look should be in this lines of the Instance.coffee
###
# Create an instance of the object passing the argument
###
instaceObject = (->
ClassElement = (args) ->
window[args["0"]].apply this, args["1"]
->
ClassElement:: = (window[arguments["0"]])::
objElement = new ClassElement(arguments)
return objElement
)()
This lines allows me to initialize a instance of some object after load its file. As is used in the create method:
create:()->
#load()
return instaceObject(#packageName, arguments)

How to isolate different javascript libraries on the same page?

Suppose we need to embed a widget in third party page. This widget might use jquery for instance so widget carries a jquery library with itself.
Suppose third party page also uses jquery but a different version.
How to prevent clash between them when embedding widgets? jquery.noConflict is not an option because it's required to call this method for the first jquery library which is loaded in the page and this means that third party website should call it. The idea is that third party site should not amend or do anything aside putting tag with a src to the widget in order to use it.
Also this is not the problem with jquery in particular - google closure library (even compiled) might be taken as an example.
What solutions are exist to isolate different javascript libraries aside from obvious iframe?
Maybe loading javascript as string and then eval (by using Function('code to eval'), not the eval('code to eval')) it in anonymous function might do the trick?

Actually, I think jQuery.noConflict is precisely what you want to use. If I understand its implementation correctly, your code should look like this:
(function () {
var my$;
// your copy of the minified jQuery source
my$ = jQuery.noConflict(true);
// your widget code, which should use my$ instead of $
}());
The call to noConflict will restore the global jQuery and $ objects to their former values.

Function(...) makes an eval inside your function, it isn't any better.
Why not use the iframe they provide a default sandboxing for third party content.
And for friendly ones you can share text data, between them and your page, using parent.postMessage for modern browser or the window.name hack for the olders.

I built a library to solve this very problem. I am not sure if it will help you of course, because the code still has to be aware of the problem and use the library in the first place, so it will help only if you are able to change your code to use the library.
The library in question is called Packages JS and can be downloaded and used for free as it is Open Source under a Creative Commons license.
It basically works by packaging code inside functions. From those functions you export those objects you want to expose to other packages. In the consumer packages you import these objects into your local namespace. It doesn't matter if someone else or indeed even you yourself use the same name multiple times because you can resolve the ambiguity.
Here is an example:
(file example/greeting.js)
Package("example.greeting", function() {
// Create a function hello...
function hello() {
return "Hello world!";
};
// ...then export it for use by other packages
Export(hello);
// You need to supply a name for anonymous functions...
Export("goodbye", function() {
return "Goodbye cruel world!";
});
});
(file example/ambiguity.js)
Package("example.ambiguity", function() {
// functions hello and goodbye are also in example.greeting, making it ambiguous which
// one is intended when using the unqualified name.
function hello() {
return "Hello ambiguity!";
};
function goodbye() {
return "Goodbye ambiguity!";
};
// export for use by other packages
Export(hello);
Export(goodbye);
});
(file example/ambiguitytest.js)
Package("example.ambiguitytest", ["example.ambiguity", "example.greeting"], function(hello, log) {
// Which hello did we get? The one from example.ambiguity or from example.greeting?
log().info(hello());
// We will get the first one found, so the one from example.ambiguity in this case.
// Use fully qualified names to resolve any ambiguities.
var goodbye1 = Import("example.greeting.goodbye");
var goodbye2 = Import("example.ambiguity.goodbye");
log().info(goodbye1());
log().info(goodbye2());
});
example/ambiguitytest.js uses two libraries that both export a function goodbye, but it can explicitly import the correct ones and assign them to local aliases to disambiguate between them.
To use jQuery in this way would mean 'packaging' jQuery by wrapping it's code in a call to Package and Exporting the objects that it now exposes to the global scope. It means changing the library a bit which may not be what you want but alas there is no way around that that I can see without resorting to iframes.
I am planning on including 'packaged' versions of popular libraries along in the download and jQuery is definitely on the list, but at the moment I only have a packaged version of Sizzle, jQuery's selector engine.

Instead of looking for methods like no conflict, you can very well call full URL of the Google API on jQuery so that it can work in the application.

<script src="myjquery.min.js"></script>
<script>window.myjQuery = window.jQuery.noConflict();</script>
...
<script src='...'></script> //another widget using an old versioned jquery
<script>
(function($){
//...
//now you can access your own jquery here, without conflict
})(window.myjQuery);
delete window.myjQuery;
</script>
Most important points:
call jQuery.noConflict() method IMMEDIATELY AFTER your own jquery and related plugins tags
store the result jquery to a global variable, with a name that has little chance to conflict or confuse
load your widget using the old versioned jquery;
followed up is your logic codes. using a closure to obtain a private $ for convience. The private $ will not conflict with other jquerys.
You'd better not forget to delete the global temp var.