I'm pretty new to javascript and I read about the module pattern to provide some sort of namespace and have both private and public members, for example:
var module = (function() {
var s = "Hello, i'm private and in closure!";
return {
myString : s,
myFunc: function() { alert(s); }
};
})();
I do see the benefits of that, because it gives you some of the advantages of object-oriented programming. But I've seen a lot of examples of an IIFE that doesn't get assigned to a variable. This (as far as I see) has no advantages at all compared to a normal function that you invoke:
1. IIFE
(function() {
var s = "Hello I'm private!";
$('#myButton').on('click', function() {
alert(s);
});
})();
2. Normal function
function Initialize() {
var s = "Hello I'm private!";
$('#myButton').on('click', function() {
alert(s);
});
}
Initialize();
They both have private variables that avoid the need of creating global variables and they both execute without returning any value to a variable.
Although the second one gives you the option of choosing a good name that says a lot more than a potential large IIFE without the name, leaving the reader to find out what's happening. The answer I see everywhere is 'to avoid namespace pollution' but both approaches do that, the first one is just a bit harder to understand?
In short:
What is the benefit of using an IIFE over a normal function that I'm missing? Why should I use them?
Sometimes you need to define and call function at the same time and only once so in this case anonymous function helps you. In such situations giving functions a name and then calling them is just excess.
Further sometimes you wants to create a namespace for your variables. So anonymous functions helps you there too. For example
(function($) {
$.fn.pluginName = function(opt) {
// implementation goes here...
}
}(jQuery));
In above case you can safely use $ as jQuery synonym in your code.
If you define a function with name as shown below, then it will create global variable with function name as you defined.
function myFunction() {
// function code goes here.
}
myFunction();
But if you define it without name then it won't create any global variable and your global namespace will not be polluted.
(function myFunction() {
// function code goes here.
}());
Function with names are useful only when you need to call them from different places in your code.
Related
I see some code snippet as below while learning the Javascript, I am not sure about it, could you please advise what this structure exactly does, and when to use?
(function abc()
{
//action code here
})();
example
(function test() {
alert(1);
})();
Thank you much.
The best you can do is to read this article:
JavaScript Module Pattern: In-Depth
Smalle cite:
Anonymous Closures
This is the fundamental construct that makes it all possible, and really is the single best feature of JavaScript. We’ll simply create an anonymous function, and execute it immediately. All of the code that runs inside the function lives in a closure, which provides privacy and state throughout the lifetime of our application.
(function () {
// ... all vars and functions are in this scope only
// still maintains access to all globals
}());
But really go through this article and observe what we do have, thanks to others, who described JS patterns for us...
Because the more imprtant piece is the MODULE pattern
Module Export
Sometimes you don’t just want to use globals, but you want to declare them. We can easily do this by exporting them, using the anonymous function’s return value. Doing so will complete the basic module pattern, so here’s a complete example:
var MODULE = (function () {
var my = {},
privateVariable = 1;
function privateMethod() {
// ...
}
my.moduleProperty = 1;
my.moduleMethod = function () {
// ...
};
return my;
}());
Hello i have the following issue i am not quite sure how to search for it:
function(){
var sites;
var controller = {
list: function(){
sites = "some value";
}
}
}
So the question is how to access the sites variable from the top defined as
var sites
EDIT:
Here is a more complete part. i am Using marionette.js. i don't want to define the variable attached to the Module (code below) variable but keep it private to the Module, hope that makes sense. Here is the code that works:
Admin.module("Site", function(Module, App, Backbone, Marionette, $, _ ) {
Module.sites = null;
Module.Controller = {
list: function (id) {
Module.sites = App.request("site:entities");
}
};
});
and i would like instead of
Module.sites=null;
to do
var sites;
That sort of thing does make a difference right? Because in the first case i would be defining an accessible variable from outside where as the second case it would be a private one. i am a bit new to javascript so please try to make it simple.
if you are looking for global access, just declare the variable outside the function first, make your changes to the variable inside the function, then you can get the value whenever you need it.
I have found some info on this: sadly what i am trying to do doesn't seem possible.
Can I access a private variable of a Marionette module in a second definition of that module?
So i guess i have to do _variable to make developers know its private.
Disclaimer: I have no experience using Marionette, however, what you're describing sounds very doable.
One of the most powerful (in my opinion) features of JavaScript is closures. What this means is that any function declared from within another function has access to the variables declared in the outer function.
For example:
var func;
function foo() {
var answer = 42;
func = function () {
// I have access to variable answer from in here.
return answer++;
};
}
// By calling foo(), I will assign the function func that has access "answer"
foo();
// Now I can call the func() function and it has access to the "answer"
// variable even though it was in a scope that doesn't exist anymore.
// Outputs:
// 42
// 43
console.log(func());
console.log(func());
What this means is that if you declare var sites from within your module definition function as you described, you should have access to it from within any of your inner anonymous functions. The only exception is if Marionette is re-writing your functions (by using the Function function and toString()), which seems unlikely but possible.
Your original example should would as described, my suspicion is that there is something else going wrong with the code that is unrelated to your scope.
I am not a really good JavaScript user but I can get things done with it. I am not proud of the code I have written in JavaScript, so I decided to change that. Here is my first step:
I am trying create my own library for a project and the below is the initial structure.
window.fooLib = {};
(function (foo) {
"use strict";
foo.doSomeStuff = function(param1) {
console.log(new AccommProperty(param1));
}
//some internal function
function AccommProperty(nameValue) {
var _self = this;
_self.name = nameValue;
}
}(fooLib));
I used immediately invoked function expression here to initialize my variable. In this case it is fooLib.
I am not sure if I should do some other things to make window.fooLib more safe. I mean it can be overridden by any other code which will run after my code if I understand JavaScript correctly.
What are your thoughts?
If you want to prevent overwriting your variables, you may use Object.defineProperty() with writable:false, configurable:false. In your case:
(function () {
"use strict";
var foo = {};
//some internal function
function AccommProperty(nameValue) {
var _self = this;
_self.name = nameValue;
}
foo.doSomeStuff = function(param1) {
console.log(new AccommProperty(param1));
}
Object.defineProperty(window, "foolib", {value:foo});
}());
Still, there is no good reason for that. It would need EcamScript 5.1 to work, and there are no shims around; maybe something with getters/setters to prevent overwriting with the = operator.
But also, there should be no need to make your library un-overwritable. Just don't use code on your site that overrides the lib. Or maybe someone even wants to overwrite your functions with another, better lib with the same interface?
If the question is about a library to be shared, with possible namespace conflicts to others, you may have a look at jQuery.noConflict.
Every JavaScript object can be overriden. This is the nature of JavaScript and it is impossible to change it. So you cannot make your code safe in that sense.
As for selfinvoked functions: you should use them when you want to have local variables but viisible to all your functions. So in your case AccommProperty is such variable. Defining doSomeStuff inside scope makes no difference unless doSomeStuff will use variables defined inside scope.
So when you want to hide variables from user and/or you need globals and you are affraid of name conflicts use selfinvoked functions.
I am not sure if I should do some other things to make window.fooLib more safe. I mean it can be overridden by any other code which will run after my code if I understand JavaScript correctly.
You could try making window.fooLib a local variable instead. Using closures and nested functions one can emulate a namespace where you can put all your data instead of putting it into the global scope or attaching it to window object:
(function() {
// all functions nested in foo() have access to fooLib.
fooLib = {}
fooLib.doSomeStuff = function(param1) {
console.log(param1);
console.log(fooLib);
}
//some internal function
function AccommProperty() {
console.log(fooLib);
}
}());
See Javascript Closures: Encapsulating Related Functionality for more details.
I've got the first file in my code directory as follows
myNamespace.js
var myNamespace = {};
Then my subsequent files can look as one of the two following ways.
first
(function (ns) {
ns.DoStuff = function(){
// do stuff
}
})(myNamespace);
second
myNamespace.DoStuff = function(){
//do stuff
}
So what is the difference between these two methods? Both seem to work for me. Is there a more generally accepted convention?
sorry, still new to javascript
Your first approach will not work. It would create DoStuff on the global object (most likely window). You would need to replace this with ns, after you did that, there is no difference between the two approaches.
The former will have the adventage that you might be able to closure all your application/file related stuff into that outer self-invoking closure function. So you won't clobber the global namespace.
(function (ns) {
var foo = 10,
bar = 42;
ns.DoStuff = function(){
console.log('foo is ', foo, ' and its not available globally');
}
})(myNamespace);
You have an error in your first one, you've used this where I'm pretty sure you meant ns:
ns.DoStuff = function() {
};
Leaving that aside, your first approach tends to be better because you've created a nice little scoping function for yourself, which allows you to have private data and functions available to all of the public methods you create on your namespace, without making them globals. E.g.:
(function(ns) {
function privateFunction() {
}
ns.DoStuff = function() {
privateFunction(); // <=== works fine
};
})(myNamespace);]
privateFunction(); // <=== doesn't work, because it's private
I like doing it that way partially because I have thing against anonymous functions, and so I wouldn't define DoStuff as above, but rather like this:
(function(ns) {
ns.DoStuff = Namespace$DoStuff;
function Namespace$DoStuff() {
}
})(myNamespace);
Now the function I've assigned to myNamespace.DoStuff has a proper name, which helps me out when I'm debugging my code. But that name doesn't pollute the global namespace, which helps me stay sane and avoid conflicts with other code.
Long story short, I have a long code that uses jQuery. Lots of files, functions, etc. A less than ideal amount of our users are having issues with our code because some addons, toolbars and the like they have installed breaks our JavaScript code because of jQuery gets included twice and nasty stuff like that.
I thought I could just
Include jQuery
Use $.noConflict
Then include the whole rest of my code between something like:
.
(function($) {
// All of my code goes here.
})(jQuery);
I haven't checked if this fixes our issues with those users, but it does work. The problem is, in one part of the site (image upload) we have an iframe that needs to call some of those functions defined in our big chunk of code. I've tried putting those functions out of this unnamed function call, but it uses, on itself, other functions which have to be there.
Any idea or workaround of how could I be able to access functions defined inside that function (shown above) from a code that's outside of it?
Thanks!
You cannot access a function context from the "outside world". Well, to be accorate you could do it in some older js engines which allowed for accessing .__parent__ attributes, but that is old'n'busted and no longer available.
However, you would need to either expose some functions within your closure, or you creating a namespace object where you write all of your logic in (which also has to be available in the parent context).
So I'd suggest something like
(function( $ ) {
function myFunc() {
// do stuff
}
function anotherFunc() {
}
window.myFunc = myFunc; // expose myFunc globally
}( jQuery ));
Maybe even better:
var myNameSpace = { };
(function( $ ) {
myNameSpace.myFunc = function() {
// do stuff
};
}( jQuery ));
// somewhere else
myNameSpace.myFunc();
It is not an ideal practice, but you can declare those functions in the global scope.
(function($) {
globalFunct = function (arg1, arg2) { // Don't use var keyword
...
};
})(jQuery);
It isn't ideal because you can run into naming collisions, much like you are observing with jQuery. Improve upon this approach by putting all of your globally-accessible methods in a "package." Choose a unique name for it. This will prevent collisions.
// Somewhere outside of your anonymous function, in the global scope
var myPackage = {};
(function($) {
myPackage.globalFunct = function (arg1, arg2) {
...
};
})(jQuery);
Then call that method by invoking myPackage.globalFunct().
Why are you wrapping your code in a call to the jQuery function object which you pass in to your self-executing anonymous function; are you meaning to create a jQuery object from all of your code?
In order to expose your code to the outside world, you need to assign your functions and objects to an object which is outside of the scope of your code, such as the window object.
For example, if you had created an object containing various methods and properties that you wanted to expose, you could do this:
//Your self-executing anonymous function
(function($)
{
//Object which contains various useful methods and properties
var useful = {...};
//Expose it to the outside world
window.Useful = useful;
})(jQuery);
EDIT: as others have noted, it is not an ideal solution as you will indeed run into naming collisions if you are not careful. Also, using an object external to your anonymous function as a namespacing object (as others have stated) is my preferred method
Yes, you can "export" the function from within a closure:
Yes, you can "export" the function from within a closure:
(function() {
function a() {
console.log("a");
}
function b() {
a();
console.log("b");
}
// make b globally available
window.b = b;
})();
b();
window.PARTY_CATS_jQuery = jQuery.noConflict(true);
(function($) {
$(function() {
// All of my code goes here.
});
})(COMPANY_NAME_jQuery);
Then just use PARTY_CATS_jQuery in your global functions
If you feel PARTY_CATS_ is not a unique enough name pick something safer like BABY_KILLER_jQuery