Related
I recently read about the fact that there is a possibility of defining getters/setters in JavaScript. It seems extremely helpful - the setter is a kind of 'helper' which can parse the value to be set first, before actually setting it.
For example, I currently have this code:
var obj = function(value) {
var test = !!value; // 'test' has to be a boolean
return {
get test() { return test },
set test(value) { test = !!value }
};
};
var instance = new obj(true);
This code always converts value to a boolean. So if you code instance.test = 0, then instance.test === false.
However, for this to work you have to actually return an object, which means that the new instance is not of type obj but just is a plain object. This means that changing the prototype of obj has no effect on instances. For example, this does not work - instance.func is undefined:
obj.prototype.func = function() { console.log(this.value); };
because instance is not of type obj. To get the prototype functions work, I guess I should not return a plain object, but rather not return anything so that instance would just be of type obj, like a regular constructor works.
The problem then is how to implement getters/setters? I can only find articles describing how to add these to an object, not as being part of the constructor of a custom type.
So how do I implement getters/setters in the constructor so as to be able to both use getters/setters and extending the prototype?
You can't do that.
You can set setter/getters for properties of objects though. I advice you use ES5 Object.defineProperties though. of course this only works in modern browsers.
var obj = function() {
...
Object.defineProperties(this, {
"test": {
"get": function() { ... },
"set": function() { ... }
}
});
}
obj.prototype.func = function() { ... }
var o = new obj;
o.test;
o.func();
Usually you want class methods. The answer by #Raynos on May 7, 2011 gets the job done, but it defines an instance method, not a class method.
The following illustrates a class definition with a the getter and setter being part of the class. This definition is a lot like the answer by #Raynos, but with two differences in the code: (1) The "defineProperties()" action has been moved out of the constructor. (2) The argument to "defineProperties()"as been changed from the instance object "this", to the constructor's prototype object.
function TheConstructor(side) {
this.side = side;
}
Object.defineProperties(TheConstructor.prototype, {
area: {
get: function() { return this.side * this.side; }
,set: function(val) { this.side = Math.sqrt(val); }
}
});
// Test code:
var anInstance = new TheConstructor(2);
console.log("initial Area:"+anInstance.area);
anInstance.area = 9;
console.log("modified Area:"+anInstance.area);
Which produces these results:
initial Area:4
modified Area:9
Although usually the distinction between class versus instance
definition is just a matter of style, there is a purpose to
good style, and there is a case where the distinction matters:
the memoized getter. The purpose for a memoized getter is
described here: Smart/self-overwriting/lazy getters
Define the getter at the class level when the memoized value is to
pertain to the entire class. For example, a configuration file
should be read only once; the resulting values should then apply
for the duration of the program. The following sample code
defines a memoized getter at the class level.
function configureMe() {
return 42;
}
Object.defineProperties(TheConstructor.prototype, {
memoizedConfigParam: {
get: function() {
delete TheConstructor.prototype.memoizedConfigParam;
return TheConstructor.prototype.memoizedConfigParam = configureMe();
}
,configurable: true
}
});
// Test code:
console.log("memoizedConfigParam:"+anInstance.memoizedConfigParam);
Produces:
memoizedConfigParam:42
As can be seen in the example, memoized getters have the
characteristic that the getter function deletes itself,
then replaces itself with a simple value that
(presumably) will never change.
Note that 'configurable' must be set to 'true'.
Define the getter at the instance level when the memoized value
depends upon the contents of instance. The definition moves
inside the constructor, and the object of attention is 'this'.
function TheConstructorI(side) {
this.side = side;
Object.defineProperties(this, {
memoizedCalculation: {
get: function() {
delete this.memoizedCalculation;
return this.memoizedCalculation = this.expensiveOperation();
}
,configurable: true
}
});
}
TheConstructorI.prototype.expensiveOperation = function() {
return this.side * this.side * this.side;
}
//Test code:
var instance2 = new TheConstructorI(2);
var instance3 = new TheConstructorI(3);
console.log("memoizedCalculation 2:"+instance2.memoizedCalculation);
console.log("memoizedCalculation 3:"+instance3.memoizedCalculation);
Produces:
memoizedCalculation 2:8
memoizedCalculation 3:27
If you want to guarantee (rather than presume) that the memoized
value will never be changed, the 'writable' attribute needs to
be changed. That makes the code a bit more complicated.
function TheConstructorJ(side) {
this.side = side;
Object.defineProperties(this, {
memoizedCalculation: {
get: function() {
delete this.memoizedCalculation;
Object.defineProperty( this, 'memoizedCalculation'
,{ value : this.expensiveOperation()
,writable : false
});
return this.memoizedCalculation;
}
,configurable: true
}
});
}
TheConstructorJ.prototype.expensiveOperation = function() {
return this.side * this.side * this.side;
}
//Test code:
var instanceJ = new TheConstructorJ(2);
console.log("memoizedCalculation:"+instanceJ.memoizedCalculation);
instanceJ.memoizedCalculation = 42; // results in error
Produces:
memoizedCalculation:8
>Uncaught TypeError: Cannot assign to read only property 'memoizedCalculation' of object '#<TheConstructorJ>'
The OP's original question, from March 7, 2011, presented basic
getter and setter syntax, noted that it worked on an object but
not on 'this', and asked how to define getters and setters within
a constructor. In addition to all the examples above, there is
also a "cheap-shot" way of doing it: create a new object within
the constructor, like the OP did, but then assign the object to
be a member within 'this'. So, the original code would look like
this:
var MyClass = function(value) {
var test = !!value; // 'test' has to be a boolean
this.data = {
get test() { return test },
set test(value) { test = !!value }
};
};
var instance = new MyClass(true);
// But now 'data' is part of the access path
instance.data.test = 0;
console.log(instance.data.test);
Produces:
false
Believe it or not, I have actually run into situations where
this "cheap-shot" is the best solution. Specifically, I used this
technique when I had records from several tables encapsulated within
a single class, and wanted to present a unified view as though
they were a single record called 'data'.
Have fun.
IAM_AL_X
Update for ES6 -- have a look at section 19.3.1 of Alex Rauschmayer's book Exploring ES6 http://exploringjs.com/es6/ch_maps-sets.html#sec_weakmaps-private-data which demonstrates how to use WeakMaps with getters and setters to hold private data. Combining with section 16.2.2.3 http://exploringjs.com/es6/ch_classes.html#leanpub-auto-getters-and-setters would result in something like
# module test_WeakMap_getter.js
var _MyClassProp = new WeakMap();
class MyClass {
get prop() {
return _MyClassProp.get( this );
}
set prop(value) {
_MyClassProp.set( this, value );
}
}
var mc = new MyClass();
mc.prop = 5 ;
console.log( 'My value is', mc.prop );
$ node --use_strict test_WeakMap_getter.js
My value is 5
function Obj(value){
this.value = !!value;
}
Obj.prototype = {
get test () {
return this.value;``
},
set test (value) {
this.value = !!this.value;
}
};
var obj = new Obj(true);
I know this might be extremely late but I figured out a different way to accomplish what you want and for the sake of people, like myself, googling for an answer to this here it is.
function Constructor(input){
this.input = input;
}
Object.__defineGetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "value", function(){
return this.input * 2;
});
var test = new Constructor(5);
alert(test.value) // 10
I've tested this in chrome, safari, mobile safari, firefox and they all work (latest versions of course)
#Alex I see it as more option and more power, programming is art, #Nat share his finding with us, and for that I thank him. Maybe someone want to do it that way.
I'm sure the setter version is the same but just changing that g to a s.
i.g:
function Constructor(input){
this.input = input;
}
Object.__defineGetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "value", function(){
return this.input * 2;
});
Object.__defineSetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "bar", function(foo){
return this.input *= foo;
});
var test = new Constructor(5);
console.log(test.value); // 10
test.bar = 5;
console.log(test.input); //25
With that said, this feature is deprecated, advices to not to use in production coding.
I need to inject my own function instead of the existing one, while keeping all of the original properties. So given this code:
var lib = {
func: function(foo) { return 1+foo; }
};
lib.func.bar = 10;
lib.func.bar2 = function() { return this(this.bar); };
// current behavior: lib.func.bar2() returns 11
// needed behavior: lib.func.bar2() to return 12, without changing bar2()
I need to replace the original func with my own version, while keeping all of its existing functionality intact:
var newFunc = function(foo) { return foo + 2; }
// copy the old lib.func.* to the newFunc
$.each(lib.func, function(k,v) { newFunc[k] = v; });
lib.func = newFunc;
The above seems to work, since when i call lib.func.bar2(), the result is 12, but this seems overly complex and potentially might cause other issues. What is the right way? Is there a way to bind the lib.func context to the newFunc somehow? or some other way?
You should assign the properties to the new function, not the old one:
$.each(obj.func, function(k,v) { newFunc[k] = v; });
If you want to alter what a function does when called, without creating a new different function, that would require altering the [[Code]] internal property, but most implementations don't expose it.
However, you can try this approach:
function code() {
return 123; /* Whatever */
}
function f() {
return code.apply(this, arguments); /* Redirect call to `code` */
}
f(); // 123
code = function() {
return 'abc'; /* Whatever else */
};
f(); // 'abc
My understanding of prototypical inheritance is every object has a prototype property. If a property doesn't exist on an object then it's prototype object is checked, so on and so on up the chain.
In this example my prototype object is a simple object with a counter property.
I'm expecting every instance to share the same prototype but they appear to get new instances. The output of this code is 00, I was expecting 01.
Am I missing something obvious?
"use strict";
var ConstructorFunction = function () {};
ConstructorFunction.prototype = {
counter: 0,
count: function () {
return this.counter++;
}
};
var a = new ConstructorFunction();
var b = new ConstructorFunction();
$("#output").append(a.count());
$("#output").append(b.count());
Here is the jsfiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/hdA6G/5/
It is true that the prototype properties are shares across all instances. The problem is that you never change the prototype property. Take a look at your fiddle with some extra logs:
"use strict";
var ConstructorFunction = function () {};
ConstructorFunction.prototype = {
counter: 0,
count: function () {
return ++this.counter;
}
};
var a = new ConstructorFunction();
var b = new ConstructorFunction();
$("#output").append(a.hasOwnProperty("counter") + " "); //false
a.count();
$("#output").append(a.hasOwnProperty("counter") + " "); //true
As you see, as soon as you call ++this.counter, a local property will be created which will be used from that on.
I assume that this is what happens:
++this.counter is interpreted as this.counter = this.counter + 1. First, the part right of the equal sign is evaluated and since your instance doesn't have a counter property, the counter property of the prototype is used. The value of this property will be added to 1 and then assigned to this.counter, which now creates a local property, in the same way that it does, when you assign a property that hasn't been there at all, like a.xy = 1. xy will be a local property of the instance in that case.
EDIT
There are two workarounds that still would let you use the prototype property:
1) explicitly set the prototype property inside of the count method:
ConstructorFunction.prototype.count = function() {
return ++this.constructor.prototype.counter;
};
2) call the count method with apply and use the prototype as context:
a.count.apply(a.constructor.prototype);
BUT, if you set the prototype property the way you did, you will get problems with both of these methods.
ConstructorFunction.prototype = {
//...
};
This overrides the complete prototype object and therefore also the constructor property of it. The constructor property will now point to the next higher object in the prototype chain, the Object object. To fix that, you could either set the constructor manually after you assigned the prototype object:
ConstructorFunction.prototype.constructor = ConstructorFunction;
or assign every property of the prototype object seperately:
ConstructorFunction.prototype.counter = 0;
ConstructorFunction.prototype.count = function () {
return ++this.counter;
};
Consider using a closure so you can keep that variable private and shared across instances:
var Class = (function ClassModule() {
var counter = 0;
function Class() {}
Class.prototype = {
count: function() {
return counter++;
}
};
return Class;
}());
var class1 = new Class();
var class2 = new Class();
console.log(class1.count()); //=> 0
console.log(class2.count()); //=> 1
The counter variable is kept in context with the closure (module pattern), and won't be duplicated with each new instance.
In prototype based OOD, sharing means to share the same definition and use it for different contexts. If you need a static property to be shared between contexts you can do as given below
var ConstructorFunction = function (context) {
this.count = function () {
return context + "," + (++this.counter) + "," + (++ConstructorFunction.staticCounter);
};
};
ConstructorFunction.prototype.counter = 0;
ConstructorFunction.staticCounter = 0;
var context1 = new ConstructorFunction("context1");
var context2 = new ConstructorFunction("context2");
$("#output").append(context1.count());
$("#output").append(" ");
$("#output").append(context2.count());
http://jsfiddle.net/hdA6G/1/
and a better way to define it
var ConstructorFunction = function (context) {
this.context = context;
this.counter = 0;
};
ConstructorFunction.staticCounter = 0;
ConstructorFunction.prototype.count = function () {
return this.context + "," + (++this.counter) + "," + (++ConstructorFunction.staticCounter);
};
http://jsfiddle.net/hdA6G/3/
You have your inheritance backwards, the prototype inherits from the base object. I think this is more similar to what you are trying to accomplish.
function MyObject () {
this.count = 0;
};
ConstructorFunction.prototype = {
counter: function () {
return this.count++;
},
print: function () {
return this.count;
}
};
Var Foo = new MyObject();
console.log(Foo.counter()); // 1
console.log(Foo.counter()); // 2
console.log(Foo.print()); // 2
I hope this helps.
edit
If you want your counter shared across all instances then it should go in you base object.
function MyObject () {
this.count = 0;
this.counter = function () {
return this.count++; //may not need the this
}
};
I know this is an old post, but I am new to Javascrpt and while experimenting I came across something similar, so wanted to put in my 2 cents.
It seems every object gets its own copy of variables declared in prototype once it is instantiated using new. From then on, accessing using this will do the usual look up and find the private copy which is operated upon.
However, if you create a prototype variable after creation of all objects, that variable will be shared and behaves like static. I think it is fairly simple to reason why this happens, but, nonetheless, I found this to be an interesting hack. I am not sure if this is a bug in technical specs that might be resolved in future versions, or side effect of standard behavior, so don't know if this is reliable. I am not even sure if this is a newly introduced 'feature' in later versions of the language. Actually, I started googling about this fact and came across this post.
Try this code.
var Worker = function (name) {
this.name = name;
}
Worker.prototype.jobs = 0;
Worker.prototype.Work = function () {
console.log("jobs finished", this.name, ++this.jobs);
}
Worker.prototype.WorkCount = function () {
console.log("work count", this.name, this.workCount);
}
var ca = new Worker("ca");
var cb = new Worker("cb");
ca.Work();// shows 1
cb.Work();// shows 1
ca.WorkCount();// shows undefined
cb.WorkCount();// shows undefined
Worker.prototype.workCount = 2;
ca.WorkCount();// shows 2
cb.WorkCount();// shows 2
I recently read about the fact that there is a possibility of defining getters/setters in JavaScript. It seems extremely helpful - the setter is a kind of 'helper' which can parse the value to be set first, before actually setting it.
For example, I currently have this code:
var obj = function(value) {
var test = !!value; // 'test' has to be a boolean
return {
get test() { return test },
set test(value) { test = !!value }
};
};
var instance = new obj(true);
This code always converts value to a boolean. So if you code instance.test = 0, then instance.test === false.
However, for this to work you have to actually return an object, which means that the new instance is not of type obj but just is a plain object. This means that changing the prototype of obj has no effect on instances. For example, this does not work - instance.func is undefined:
obj.prototype.func = function() { console.log(this.value); };
because instance is not of type obj. To get the prototype functions work, I guess I should not return a plain object, but rather not return anything so that instance would just be of type obj, like a regular constructor works.
The problem then is how to implement getters/setters? I can only find articles describing how to add these to an object, not as being part of the constructor of a custom type.
So how do I implement getters/setters in the constructor so as to be able to both use getters/setters and extending the prototype?
You can't do that.
You can set setter/getters for properties of objects though. I advice you use ES5 Object.defineProperties though. of course this only works in modern browsers.
var obj = function() {
...
Object.defineProperties(this, {
"test": {
"get": function() { ... },
"set": function() { ... }
}
});
}
obj.prototype.func = function() { ... }
var o = new obj;
o.test;
o.func();
Usually you want class methods. The answer by #Raynos on May 7, 2011 gets the job done, but it defines an instance method, not a class method.
The following illustrates a class definition with a the getter and setter being part of the class. This definition is a lot like the answer by #Raynos, but with two differences in the code: (1) The "defineProperties()" action has been moved out of the constructor. (2) The argument to "defineProperties()"as been changed from the instance object "this", to the constructor's prototype object.
function TheConstructor(side) {
this.side = side;
}
Object.defineProperties(TheConstructor.prototype, {
area: {
get: function() { return this.side * this.side; }
,set: function(val) { this.side = Math.sqrt(val); }
}
});
// Test code:
var anInstance = new TheConstructor(2);
console.log("initial Area:"+anInstance.area);
anInstance.area = 9;
console.log("modified Area:"+anInstance.area);
Which produces these results:
initial Area:4
modified Area:9
Although usually the distinction between class versus instance
definition is just a matter of style, there is a purpose to
good style, and there is a case where the distinction matters:
the memoized getter. The purpose for a memoized getter is
described here: Smart/self-overwriting/lazy getters
Define the getter at the class level when the memoized value is to
pertain to the entire class. For example, a configuration file
should be read only once; the resulting values should then apply
for the duration of the program. The following sample code
defines a memoized getter at the class level.
function configureMe() {
return 42;
}
Object.defineProperties(TheConstructor.prototype, {
memoizedConfigParam: {
get: function() {
delete TheConstructor.prototype.memoizedConfigParam;
return TheConstructor.prototype.memoizedConfigParam = configureMe();
}
,configurable: true
}
});
// Test code:
console.log("memoizedConfigParam:"+anInstance.memoizedConfigParam);
Produces:
memoizedConfigParam:42
As can be seen in the example, memoized getters have the
characteristic that the getter function deletes itself,
then replaces itself with a simple value that
(presumably) will never change.
Note that 'configurable' must be set to 'true'.
Define the getter at the instance level when the memoized value
depends upon the contents of instance. The definition moves
inside the constructor, and the object of attention is 'this'.
function TheConstructorI(side) {
this.side = side;
Object.defineProperties(this, {
memoizedCalculation: {
get: function() {
delete this.memoizedCalculation;
return this.memoizedCalculation = this.expensiveOperation();
}
,configurable: true
}
});
}
TheConstructorI.prototype.expensiveOperation = function() {
return this.side * this.side * this.side;
}
//Test code:
var instance2 = new TheConstructorI(2);
var instance3 = new TheConstructorI(3);
console.log("memoizedCalculation 2:"+instance2.memoizedCalculation);
console.log("memoizedCalculation 3:"+instance3.memoizedCalculation);
Produces:
memoizedCalculation 2:8
memoizedCalculation 3:27
If you want to guarantee (rather than presume) that the memoized
value will never be changed, the 'writable' attribute needs to
be changed. That makes the code a bit more complicated.
function TheConstructorJ(side) {
this.side = side;
Object.defineProperties(this, {
memoizedCalculation: {
get: function() {
delete this.memoizedCalculation;
Object.defineProperty( this, 'memoizedCalculation'
,{ value : this.expensiveOperation()
,writable : false
});
return this.memoizedCalculation;
}
,configurable: true
}
});
}
TheConstructorJ.prototype.expensiveOperation = function() {
return this.side * this.side * this.side;
}
//Test code:
var instanceJ = new TheConstructorJ(2);
console.log("memoizedCalculation:"+instanceJ.memoizedCalculation);
instanceJ.memoizedCalculation = 42; // results in error
Produces:
memoizedCalculation:8
>Uncaught TypeError: Cannot assign to read only property 'memoizedCalculation' of object '#<TheConstructorJ>'
The OP's original question, from March 7, 2011, presented basic
getter and setter syntax, noted that it worked on an object but
not on 'this', and asked how to define getters and setters within
a constructor. In addition to all the examples above, there is
also a "cheap-shot" way of doing it: create a new object within
the constructor, like the OP did, but then assign the object to
be a member within 'this'. So, the original code would look like
this:
var MyClass = function(value) {
var test = !!value; // 'test' has to be a boolean
this.data = {
get test() { return test },
set test(value) { test = !!value }
};
};
var instance = new MyClass(true);
// But now 'data' is part of the access path
instance.data.test = 0;
console.log(instance.data.test);
Produces:
false
Believe it or not, I have actually run into situations where
this "cheap-shot" is the best solution. Specifically, I used this
technique when I had records from several tables encapsulated within
a single class, and wanted to present a unified view as though
they were a single record called 'data'.
Have fun.
IAM_AL_X
Update for ES6 -- have a look at section 19.3.1 of Alex Rauschmayer's book Exploring ES6 http://exploringjs.com/es6/ch_maps-sets.html#sec_weakmaps-private-data which demonstrates how to use WeakMaps with getters and setters to hold private data. Combining with section 16.2.2.3 http://exploringjs.com/es6/ch_classes.html#leanpub-auto-getters-and-setters would result in something like
# module test_WeakMap_getter.js
var _MyClassProp = new WeakMap();
class MyClass {
get prop() {
return _MyClassProp.get( this );
}
set prop(value) {
_MyClassProp.set( this, value );
}
}
var mc = new MyClass();
mc.prop = 5 ;
console.log( 'My value is', mc.prop );
$ node --use_strict test_WeakMap_getter.js
My value is 5
function Obj(value){
this.value = !!value;
}
Obj.prototype = {
get test () {
return this.value;``
},
set test (value) {
this.value = !!this.value;
}
};
var obj = new Obj(true);
I know this might be extremely late but I figured out a different way to accomplish what you want and for the sake of people, like myself, googling for an answer to this here it is.
function Constructor(input){
this.input = input;
}
Object.__defineGetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "value", function(){
return this.input * 2;
});
var test = new Constructor(5);
alert(test.value) // 10
I've tested this in chrome, safari, mobile safari, firefox and they all work (latest versions of course)
#Alex I see it as more option and more power, programming is art, #Nat share his finding with us, and for that I thank him. Maybe someone want to do it that way.
I'm sure the setter version is the same but just changing that g to a s.
i.g:
function Constructor(input){
this.input = input;
}
Object.__defineGetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "value", function(){
return this.input * 2;
});
Object.__defineSetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "bar", function(foo){
return this.input *= foo;
});
var test = new Constructor(5);
console.log(test.value); // 10
test.bar = 5;
console.log(test.input); //25
With that said, this feature is deprecated, advices to not to use in production coding.
Just for the kicks i am trying to create a simple data object in javascript. Here is the code.
var roverObject = function(){
var newRover = {};
var name;
var xCord;
var ycord;
var direction;
newRover.setName = function(newName) {
name = newName;
};
newRover.getName = function() {
return name;
};
newRover.setDirection = function(newDirection) {
direction = newDirection;
};
newRover.getDirection = function() {
return direction;
};
newRover.setXCord = function(newXCord) {
xCord = newXCord;
};
newRover.getXCord = function() {
return xCord;
};
newRover.setYCord = function(newYCord) {
yCord = newYCord;
};
newRover.getYCord = function() {
return yCord;
};
newRover.where = function(){
return "Rover :: "+ name +" is at Location("+xCord+","+yCord+") pointing to "+direction;
};
return newRover;
};
rover1 = new roverObject();
rover2 = new roverObject();
rover1.setName("Mars Rover");
rover1.setDirection("NORTH");
rover1.setXCord(2);
rover1.setYCord(2);
console.log(rover1.where());
console.log(rover1);
rover2.setName("Moon Rover");
rover2.setDirection("SOUTH");
rover2.setXCord(1);
rover2.setYCord(1);
console.log(rover2.where());
console.log(rover2);
There are few questions that I have around this creation.
I want to create an object where the properties/attributes of object are private and not visible to world. Am I successful in doing that? Can I really not access the object attributes?
Is there a better way to create this kind of object?
If I want to inherit this object, I should do a newObject.prototype = roverObjectwill that work? And will that make sense most of all.
Finally I have a wierd problem. Notice the last method of objet "where" which returns a concatenated string. Here I tried following code instead.
newRover.where = function(){
return "Rover :: "+ name +" is at Location("+xCord+","+yCord+") pointing to "+direction;
}();
and then did a following console.log
console.log(rover1.where);
console.log(rover2.where);
It threw following error for me:
cannot access optimized closure
Why would it say that? What am I doing wrong?
Thanks for all the help. Any review comments would be appreciated too!
Cheers
Am I successful in doing that? Can I really not access the object attributes?
Indeed. You don't have object attributes, you have local variables in the roverObject function. Local variables can't be accessed from outside, only from the functions inside the roverObject function that have a closure over them.
That you are calling roverObject as a constructor, with new roverObject, is irrelevant, as you are returning a different object from the function. Saying var rover1= roverObject() without the new would do exactly the same thing. Notably the object returned by [new] roverObject is a plain Object as you created it from {}; rover1 instanceof roverObject is false.
If you wanted instanceof to work, you would have to call with new, and use this instead of newRover in the constructor function.
If I want to inherit this object, I should do a newObject.prototype = roverObject will that work? And will that make sense most of all.
No. You currently have no allowance for prototyping. You are using a separate copy of each method for each instance of the roverObject. You can do certainly objects this way but it's a different approach than prototyping. If you wanted to make something like a subclass of roverObject in the arrangement you have now, you'd say something like:
function AdvancedRover() {
var rover= new roverObject();
rover.doResearch= function() {
return rover.where()+' and is doing advanced research';
};
return rover;
}
Note since the ‘private’ local variables in the base class constructor really are private, even the subclass cannot get at them. There's no ‘protected’.
newRover.where = function(){ ... }();
What's that trying to do? I can't get the error you do; all the above does is assigns the string with the location to where (before the setter methods have been called, so it's full of undefineds).
Is there a better way to create this kind of object?
Maybe. see this question for a discussion of class/instance strategies in JavaScript.
Q1: you can create 'private' members in javascript 'classes'. In javascript, privacy is not determined by any access specifier. Instead, access needs to be specifically instrumented. Example:
function MyClass() {
this.val = 100; // public;
var privateVal = 200;
function getVal() { return this.val; } // private method;
this.getPrivateVal = function() { // public method, accessor to private variable
return privateVal;
}
}
Object scope in javascript is governed by a queer concept called closures. AFAIK, there is no parallel concept in any other popular launguage like C+/Java etc.
While I understand what closures are, I cannot put it in words. Perhaps a demonstration will help you:
function closureDemo() {
var done=false;
function setDone() { done=true; }
doLater(setDone);
}
function doLater(func) { setTimeout(func,1000); }
closureDemo();
now, while setDone is called from within doLater, it can still access done in closureDemo, even though done is not in scope (in the conventional procedural sense).
I think you will understand more when you read this.
Q2: I can only say what I do; I don't know if it is better or not. If I wrote your code, it would look like this:
function RoverObject() {
var newRover = {}; // privates
var name;
var xCord;
var ycord;
var direction;
this.setName = function(newName) {
name = newName;
};
this.getName = function() {
return name;
};
this.setDirection = function(newDirection) {
direction = newDirection;
};
// and so on...
this.where = function(){
return "Rover :: "+ name +" is at Location("+xCord+","+yCord+") pointing to "+direction;
};
}
var rover1 = new RoverObject();
Points to note:
capitalization of "class name"'s first letter
use of this instead of roverObject
this function is a pure constructor. it returns nothing.
Q3: if you want to do inheritance, then my method (use of this) will not work. Instead, the public methods should be a part of the prototype of RoverObject. Read this. Excellent material.
Hope that helps.
EDIT: There is a problem with the way your code is doing work. Problems:
your function does not do what its name suggests. Its name had better be createRoverObject, because that's exactly what it is doing. It is not working like a class constructor
the methods supported by your class are part of the object, but the data members are not. While this may work (and it is not, as your console.log() problem suggests), it is not a good way to implement a class in javascript. The problem here is of closures. Again, i'm unable to articulate what the problem specifically is, but I can smell it.
With regards to 4. - you are trying to log the function, not the result of calling the function. Should be console.log(rover1.where()); My guess firebug(I assume it's firebug's console.log) does not like to log function definitions.
EDIT Oh I get it, you are actually executing the where funcion when you assign rover.where. Are you trying to get what looks like a property to actually be a function? If that's the case it won't work. It will have to be a function if you want it to be evaluated when it's called.
What happens in you case where gets executed in the constructor function. At that point you are still creating the roverObject closure and hence it's too early to access it's private variables.
This is just addressing point 1 of your post.
Here's a good article on javascript private members and more:
Private Members in JavaScript
Defining your object like this gives you private members.
function RolloverObject() {
var name;
var xCord;
var ycord;
var direction;
this.setName = function(newName) { name = newName; };
this.getName = function() { return name; };
this.setDirection = function(newDirection) { direction = newDirection; };
this.getDirection = function() { return direction; };
this.setXCord = function(newXCord) { xCord = newXCord; };
this.getXCord = function() { return xCord; };
this.setYCord = function(newYCord) { yCord = newYCord; };
this.getYCord = function() { return yCord; };
this.where = function() {
return "Rover :: " + name + " is at Location(" + xCord + "," + yCord + ") pointing to " + direction;
};
}
var rolloverObject = new RolloverObject();