Develop Reference

Issue creating an object to send to API

I'm trying to come up with something in this format:
"hours":{
"<default>":{
"mon_open_close":[...],
"tue_open_close":[...],
"wed_open_close":[...],
"thu_open_close":[...],
"fri_open_close":[...],
"sat_open_close":[...],
"sun_open_close":[...],
}
}
I have a bunch of variables defined like this (one for each day of the week):
var wed_open_close_hours = [operationTime[2].timeFrom+'-'+operationTime[2].timeTill];
That yields something like: [10:00-16:00]
And then have this array:
$all_hours_text = ['mon_open_close', 'tues_open_close' ,'wed_open_close' , 'thu_open_close' , 'fri_open_close' , 'sat_open_close' ,'sun_open_close'];
The issue I have is how to roll it all together and create this one single object. Can someone point me in the right direction?

So if you set
var wed_open_close_hours = [operationTime[2].timeFrom+'-'+operationTime[2].timeTill];
in a global scope, it will also be available as
window.wed_open_close_hours;
Otherwise it's available if you did something like eval("wed_open_close_hours");
So you could do
all_hours_text.map(function(varname) {
if(window[varname+"_hours"]) {
result["hours"]["<default>"][varname] = window[varname+"_hours"];
}
})
or
all_hours_text.map(function(varname) {
result["hours"]["<default>"][varname] = eval(varname+"_hours");
})
However, neither setting variables at the global scope nor using eval is recommended practice. You really should consider factoring the code to something like:
var output = {}
output.hours = {}
output.hours["<default>"] = {}
.,..
output.hours["<default>"].wed_open_close = [operationTime[2].timeFrom+'-'+operationTime[2].timeTill];

Create array of objects Javascript

I created this Object with 3 properties:
Node = {
name : "",
isOkay : true,
rotation : 0.0
};
How would i go creating an array of these objects, in size of 100.
So later i could do something like this:
nodeList[74].name = "Peter";
nodeList[74].isOkay = false;
nodeList[74].rotation = 1.3;
or similar...
I'm really new to this, i found couple of topics about this, but it never compiles properly.
I would be really grateful if anyone could show the proper syntax, Thanks!

I would use this way:
var Node = function() {
this.name = "";
this.isOkay = true;
this.rotation = 0.0
}
var nodeList = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
nodeList.push(new Node());
}
nodeList[0].name = "test";
So you could create a new object(really new) in order to manage it later. Look here.
EDIT:
What I have done is created an object with a constructor method, you can check it on MDN here.
Creating an object like you have done:
var Node = { /* ... */ }
Is like having one object initiated. To have another, you'll have to write another one and so on. With that contructor you may create any instances you want based on that model.

You might want to do this lazily
Depending on the situation might be helpful to do this lazily
var Node = function(name, isOkay,rotation){
if(!(this instanceof Node)) return new Node(name,isOkay,rotation);
else {
this.name = name;
this.isOkay = isOkay;
this.rotation = rotation;
}
}
var NodeCollective = function(numberOfNodes){
if(!(this instanceof NodeCollective)) return new NodeCollective(numberOfNodes);
else{
var _collective={};
var _defaultName = "", _defaultIsOkay = true, _defaultRotation=0.0;
this.length = numberOfNodes;
this.getNode=function(nodeNumber){
if(!_collective.hasOwnProperty(nodeNumber) && nodeNumber < numberOfNodes){
_collective[nodeNumber]=
Node(_defaultName,_defaultIsOkay,_defaultRotation);
}
//I am just assuming I am not going to get garbage
//you can put in checks to make sure everything is kosher
//if you really want to
return _collective[nodeNumber];
};
}
}
but it also depends on what you are trying to do... if you might not be getting all of the nodes in your program then implementing them in some way that avoids greedily creating them could save you a lot of time if the code is executed often, but if the piece of code isn't executed often this might be over kill.

var nodeList = []; // create empty array
nodeList.push(Node); // add the object to the end of the array
nodeList[0].rotation = 1.3; // set rotation property of the object
console.log(nodeList[0]); // prints the object to console

how to get a property name which represent a function in JS

This is some JS code
var methodArr = ['firstFunc','secondFunc','thirdFunc'];
for(var i in methodArr)
{
window[methodName] = function()
{
console.log(methodName);
}
}
My problem is that how to get the name of a function in JS.
In JS, use this.callee.name.toString() can get the function name. But in this situation, it is a null value. How can i get the 'funName' string?
Sorry, I didn't make it clear.
I want to create functions in a for loop, all these functions has almost the same implementation which need its name. But others can call these functions use different name.I want to know what methodName function is called.

it seems a scope problem.
Try this:
var methodArr = ['firstFunc','secondFunc','thirdFunc'];
for(var i in methodArr) {
var methodName = methodArr[i]; // <---- this line missed in your code?
window[methodName] = (function(methodName) {
return function() {
console.log(methodName);
}
})(methodName);
}
window['secondFunc'](); // output: secondFunc

can I emulate a C-like array of pointers in javascript?

I'd like to be able to store the addresses of a bunch of different variables in an array. This allows me to access the variables by name or iterate through them if I need to. Is this possible in JS?
(function(ns){
ns.obj = new function(){
var foo = "foo";
var bar = "bar";
//i really want this:
//var ary = [&foo, &bar];
var ary = [foo, bar];
this.print = function() {
console.log( foo );
console.log( bar );
}
this.setFoo = function( newFoo ) {
//i really want this:
//*(ary[0]) = newFoo;
ary[0] = newFoo;
}
this.printAry = function() {
for( var i=0; i < ary.length; ++i ) {
console.log( ary[i] );
}
}
};
}(window.ns = window.ns || {}) );
ns.obj.print();
ns.obj.setFoo("newfoo!");
ns.obj.printAry();
ns.obj.print();
I looked at this:
JavaScript array of pointers like in C++
But I'd like to be able to use an element of ary on the LHS of an assignment and I don't think that example works in this situation.
WHY ON EARTH DO I WANT TO DO THIS?
A lot of comments so far have (rightfully) asked why I'd want to do this. I'm dealing with a proprietary API that involves an asynchronous object initialization mechanism. Basically I create an instance of an object and then pass it to this initializer to be able to actually use it. The initializer includes a field for an onSuccess handler to notify of successful initialization. My fully initialized object is passed as an argument into this success handler so that I can grab a reference to it.
I'm then free to initialize my next object. It looks kinda like this:
var a = new api.ApiObject();
var b = new api.ApiObject();
var c = new api.ApiObject();
var d = new api.ApiObject();
//omg this is ugly
api.initializeObject( {
objToInit: a,
onSuccess: function(args) {
a = args.obj;
api.initializeObject( {
objToInit: b,
onSuccess: function(args) {
b = args.obj;
api.initializeObject( {
objToInit: c,
onSuccess: function(args) {
c = args.obj;
api.initializeObject( {
objToInit: d,
onSuccess: function(args) {
d = args.obj;
}
} );
}
} );
}
} );
}
} );
a.doCoolStuff();
//and so on
This deeply nested mess just gets worse as I add more api.ApiObjects(). So what do I do to fix this? I can't change the API, but maybe a recursive function could help:
//maybe a recursive function could make this more concise?
function doInitialize( ary ) {
api.initializeObject( {
objToInit: ary[0];
onSuccess: function(args) {
//i'd like to assign this passed in reference to my local
//reference outside this function (var a, b, etc).
//An array of pointers would be useful here.
//how else can I get this assigned out, cuz this doesn't work...
ary[0] = args.obj;
if( ary.length > 1 ) {
ary.splice( 0, 1 );
doInitialize( ary );
}
}
}
}
doInitialize( [a,b,c,d] );
//this won't work because I don't have a reference to the fully initialized object
a.doCoolStuff();
So maybe the better question is: is there an established pattern to deal with asynchronous success chaining like this? I think I've seen other public JS frameworks (like dojo) use this sort of onSuccess chaining... how do I make this not ugly?

I might suggest that if your primary purpose for this is convenience as regards nesting of asynchronous callbacks, that you should consider a deferred/promise system.
I've written a couple of different promise libraries by hand.
jQuery comes with one built in (as do most "ajax libraries").
Here's what this might look like, in a better world:
doThingOne()
.then(doThingTwo)
.then(doThingThree)
.then(launch);
Assuming that doThingOne returns a promise.
A more familiar looking interface for people who use jQuery (or most other promise-using large libraries), might look like this:
var imageLoader = $.Deferred(),
loading = imageLoader.promise();
loading
.done(gallery.render.bind(gallery))
.done(gallery.show.bind(gallery));
var img = new Image(),
url = "...";
img.onload = function () { imageLoader.resolve(img); };
img.onerror = function () { imageLoader.reject("error message"); };
img.src = url;
Very basically, the Deferred above will hold two private arrays (one for "success", one for "failure"), and will extend an interface which allows the async part of the application to "succeed" or "fail", and will pass in whatever is chosen to be data/a callback/etc.
It also extends a promise method, which returns a promise object, containing subscription functions for the two private arrays. So you pass the promise object around to interested parties, and they subscribe callbacks to be iterated through, on success/failure of the async operation (and passed anything which is passed to the .resolve/.reject method of the operation).
This might seem like an inversion or extension of just adding a custom-event/listener/etc...
And it is.
The benefit of the abstraction is that the interface is cleaner.
Hiding this stuff inside of object interfaces, and just passing async promise-objects around can make your code look 100% synchronous:
var images = ImageLoader(),
gallery = ImageGallery(),
photo;
photo = images.load("//url.com/image.png"); // assuming `.load` returns a promise object
gallery.show(photo); // just a promise object, but internally,
//`.show` would subscribe a private method to the promise object
And doing things like having three separate async operations, which can arrive in any order, but must all be successful before advancing, then you can have something like this (again jQuery, but doing it by hand is possible, too).
$.when(promise_obj_1, promise_obj_2, promise_obj_3)
.done(nextPhase);
nextPhase, of course, being a callback which you anticipate to be fired if all three promises are successfully completed.
I'd be happy to provide implementation details for a barebones promise system, if you're like me, and don't like using different libraries without first understanding how each piece works on its own, and being able to replicate its functionality, without copying code.

The answer to the first part of your question is to use an object. You're thinking in C which doesn't have iteratable structs so C programmers reach for arrays. In JS objects are iteratable. So you should write it as:
ary = {
foo : 'foo',
bar : 'bar'
}
Or if we look at your second example:
var apis = {
a : new api.ApiObject(),
b : new api.ApiObject(),
c : new api.ApiObject(),
d : new api.ApiObject()
}
Now, as for the second part of your question. Your pseudo recursive code (pseudo because it's not really recursive in the stack sense since it's async) will now work with the apis object above. But you pass the keys instead of the object:
doInitialize( ['a','b','c','d'] );
Obviously, the bit above can be done dynamically by iterating through the apis object. Anyway, in the onSuccess part of the code you assign the result like this:
apis[ary[0]] = args.obj;
Oh, and obviously the objToInit should now be apis[ary[0]].
Now doing this should work as you expect:
apis.a.doCoolStuff();

How do I create methods for an HTML element?

I'm trying to create a simple, small and basic javascript framework just for learning purposes.
But the thing is that i'm allready stuck at the very basics.
I'm trying to do something like this:
$('testdiv').testFunction();
And the code i've written for that:
var elementID;
var smallFramework = {
$:function(id) {
this.elementID = id;
},
testFunction:function() {
alert(this.elementID);
}
};
window.$ = smallFramework.$;
But in return I get:
$('testdiv) is undefined
Can anyone help me with this small and hopefully easy question?

To get the behavior you're expecting, you need the $ function to return an object with a method named testFunction.
Try:
var smallFramework = // an object for namespacing
{
$:function(id) // the core function - returns an object wrapping the id
{
return { // return an object literal
elementID: id, // holding the id passed in
testFunction: function() // and a simple method
{
alert(this.elementID);
}
};
}
};
Of course, there are many other ways to achieve the behavior you desire.

If you're trying to add methods to an HTML element you could do something along these lines.
$ = function( elementId ) {
var element = document.getElementById( elementId );
element.testFunction = function(){
alert( this.id );
return this; // for chaining
}
return element;
}
$('test').testFunction();

Try
smallFramework.$('testdiv');
instead. According to the code you posted, that's where your $ function ended up.
Or alternatively, it looks like you're trying to replicate something like jQuery. You might want to try something like this.
var $ = smallFramework = (function () {
var f =
{
find:function(id) {
f.elementID = id;
return f; //every function should return f, for chaining to work
},
testFunction:function() {
alert(f.elementID);
return f;
}
}
return f.find //the find function will be assigned to $.
//and also assigned to smallFramework.
//the find function returns f, so you get access to testFunction via chaining
// like $("blah").testFunction()
})() //note this function gets called immediately.
this code may look confusing to someone new to JavaScript because it depends heavily on the concept of closures. I suggest that if this doesn't make sense, spend some time at Douglas Crockford's JavaScript website. This is important because the code above will bite if you happen to use this in the find function because this won't be bound to f, as you may expect it to be when you use it from $ or smallFramework.