Passing arguments to a Javascript IIFE constructor

Passing arguments to a Javascript IIFE constructor - javascript

I'm trying to get my head around Javascript OO, using the IIFE module pattern to mimic a class:
var MyClass = (function() {
// Constructor
return function() {
return {
foo: 'foo'
}
}
}());
I'm passing arguments with something like:
var MyClass = (function() {
// Constructor
return function(arg) {
return {
foo: function() {
return 'foo'+arg
}
}
}
}());
To mimic classical inheritance I am using the pattern suggested here:
function inherit(base, child, obj) {
child.prototype = Object.create(base.prototype);
child.prototype.constructor = child;
obj&&Object.keys(obj).forEach(function(key){
child.prototype[key] = obj[key];
})
}
var Base = (function() {
var init = function() {};
init.prototype = {
foo: function() {
return "foo";
}
};
return init;
}());
var Child = (function() {
var init = function() {
Base.call(this);
};
inherit(Base, init, {
bar: function() {
return 'bar';
}
});
return init;
}());
So far so good. My only problem is in understanding how to pass parameters to my class constructor when I'm doing inheritance in the above way. I like the fact that in the 'pure' IIFE module I can simply refer to the constructor parameter in any functions defined within it, so that they become closures. But how do I access constructor params when I'm adding these subsequent functions using the constructor variable, as in the inheritance example above? I suppose I could do something like:
var init = function(arg) {
this.theArg = arg;
};
Then I can access it within anything subsequent:
init.prototype = {
foo: function() {
return "foo"+this.theArg;
}
};
And for the child:
var init = function(arg) {
Base.call(this, arg);
};
This makes arg available to the outside world, so to make it read-only I suppose a getter would work:
var init = function(arg) {
var theArg = arg;
this.getArg = function() { return theArg };
};
On the face of it I can't see anything wrong with that, and I can't think of a better alternative. Is there one? Am I missing something obvious?

I can't think of a better alternative. Is there one?
No. Not in your example.
I like the fact that in the 'pure' IIFE module I can simply refer to the constructor parameter in any functions defined within it, so that they become closures.
You can access args in each function because, in your first example, you are defining foo on each object instance separately. Therefore each definition of foo has a separate closure containing the args passed when it was defined.
This is also only possible, because foo is defined within the scope containing your args.
But how do I access constructor params when I'm adding these subsequent functions ... in the inheritance example above?
By using the classical inheritance patten you found, you are now defining the foo function on the constructor prototype. This means that only a single foo definition exists which is inherited by all instances created using your constructor. So foo can not be made specific to each instance anymore.
As you have figured, it also means foo is no longer defined inside the scope containing args and has no direct access.
You are therefore correct by assigning args to this.thisArgs which allows foo to access thisArgs on each instance. You have made foo a general case function that can handle any instance it is applied to.
Passing arguments to the IIFE constructor: The IIFE itself is not the constructor, it simply builds the constructor object. The IIFE's scope has long since been returned by the time the constructor itself is invoked.
Am I missing something obvious?
Yes. Javascript is a prototypical language. It was never meant to be like "classical" languages. Just let it be Javascript. :)

Related

Creating inheritance on revealing modular pattern objects

I'm trying to create some kind of inheritance between objects:
var foo = (function(){
function doFooStuff(){
console.log(arguments.callee.name);
}
return {
doFooStuff: doFooStuff
}
})();
var bar = (function(){
$.extend(this, foo);
function doBarStuff(){
console.log(arguments.callee.name);
doFooStuff();
}
return {
doBarStuff: doBarStuff,
}
})();
bar.doBarStuff();
bar.doFooStuff(); //<-- Uncaught TypeError:
//Object #<Object> has no method 'doFooStuff'
http://jsfiddle.net/wRXTv/
Why isn't doFooStuff accessible here? Would you recommend another approach than using $.extend?

$.extend(this, foo);
this is not the object which you return from the function below (in fact it cannot be since it's created after this call), but the global object - check MDN's introduction to the this keyword.
For what you want to do, there are two ways:
Copy all properties from foo onto your bar object after it is created:
var bar = (function() {
…
return {…};
})();
$.extend(bar, foo);
You can do that as well directly on the returned object:
return $.extend({…}, foo);
A variant of this pattern allows you to overwrite foo properties. Copy foo into an empty object, then write your bar properties to it:
return $.extend({}, foo, {…});
Use prototypical inheritance. Create an object that inherits its properties from foo, and then write your bar properties to it:
return $.extend(Object.create(foo), {…});
Now when foo changes afterward, you still can access those new properties on bar (unless they're shadowed by own properties). Notice that Object.create might not be supported in legacy environments, but you can easily shim it.
As noted by #raina77ow, your doBarStuff function is flawed too. The doFooStuff function is not in the scope of your function, and you cannot change that. You never will be able to access the private declared functions and variables from the foo module, only those that are public - if you did need them, consider a different pattern or app design. However, doFooStuff is a property on the exported (public) foo object, from which bar inherits (regardless in which of the above demonstrated ways). Therefore, you can access it as a method of bar as well, usually by using this.doFooStuff().

You attempt to work with revealing module as if it were a constructor. Hence an attempt to extend this, wrong for many reasons. The most glaring, I suppose, is that neither the function is used as a constructor (no new) nor its context is changed. In plain words, this just points to a global object here.
But that's not the only problem. Consider that part of your code:
function doBarStuff(){
console.log(arguments.callee.name);
doFooStuff();
}
Here doFooStuff won't be in the scope even if you somehow manage to extend this. ) Remember, the scope resolution doesn't involve the context object.
So what's the solution? Well, I often use aggregation in similar cases:
var foo = (function(){
function doFooStuff(){
console.log(arguments.callee.name);
}
return {
doFooStuff: doFooStuff
}
})();
var bar = (function(){
var _super = foo;
function doBarStuff(){
console.log(arguments.callee.name);
_super.doFooStuff();
}
// static parent: further changes on `foo` won't affect `bar`,
// as $.extend takes the parent's current state
return $.extend({}, _super, {
doBarStuff: doBarStuff,
});
// dynamic parent: further changes on `foo` will affect `bar`,
// as extended object now has `foo` in its prototype chain
return $.extend(Object.create(_super), {
doBarStuff: doBarStuff,
});
})();
JS Fiddle.
Yes, it's aggregation, not inheritance. But so what? I'm still able to get the main prize - removing code duplication AND I'm able to control the usage of parent functions within the child module.

The problem with your code is that this in $.extend(this,foo) refers to the window object and not foo. Anonymous function are run in window's context.
I would recommend using a John Resig implementation of classical inheritance in javascript.
http://ejohn.org/blog/simple-javascript-inheritance/.
Extract:
var Person = Class.extend({
init: function(isDancing){
this.dancing = isDancing;
},
dance: function(){
return this.dancing;
}
});
var Ninja = Person.extend({
init: function(){
this._super( false );
},
dance: function(){
// Call the inherited version of dance()
return this._super();
},
swingSword: function(){
return true;
}
});
var p = new Person(true);
p.dance(); // => true
var n = new Ninja();
n.dance(); // => false
n.swingSword(); // => true
// Should all be true
p instanceof Person && p instanceof Class &&
n instanceof Ninja && n instanceof Person && n instanceof Class

It is because this is an anonymous function. This part of your function deceleration:
var foo = (function(){
function doFooStuff(){
console.log(arguments.callee.name);
}
return {
doFooStuff: doFooStuff
}
})();
Do you see that you are immediately invoking this function call and ultimately do not have access to doFooStuff within your return statement.
If you remove the anonymous function deceleration, it will work.

JavaScript Classes

I understand basic JavaScript pseudo-classes:
function Foo(bar) {
this._bar = bar;
}
Foo.prototype.getBar = function() {
return this._bar;
};
var foo = new Foo('bar');
alert(foo.getBar()); // 'bar'
alert(foo._bar); // 'bar'
I also understand the module pattern, which can emulate encapsulation:
var Foo = (function() {
var _bar;
return {
getBar: function() {
return _bar;
},
setBar: function(bar) {
_bar = bar;
}
};
})();
Foo.setBar('bar');
alert(Foo.getBar()); // 'bar'
alert(Foo._bar); // undefined
But there are un-OOP-like properties to both of these patterns. The former does not provide encapsulation. The latter does not provide instantiation. Both patterns can be modified to support pseudo-inheritance.
What I'd like to know is if there is any pattern that allows:
Inheritance
Encapsulation (support for "private" properties/methods)
Instantiation (can have multiple instances of the "class", each with its own state)

what about this :
var Foo = (function() {
// "private" variables
var _bar;
// constructor
function Foo() {};
// add the methods to the prototype so that all of the
// Foo instances can access the private static
Foo.prototype.getBar = function() {
return _bar;
};
Foo.prototype.setBar = function(bar) {
_bar = bar;
};
return Foo;
})();
And now we have instantiation, encapsulation and inheritance.
But, there still is a problem. The private variable is static because it's shared across all instances of Foo. Quick demo :
var a = new Foo();
var b = new Foo();
a.setBar('a');
b.setBar('b');
alert(a.getBar()); // alerts 'b' :(
A better approach might be using conventions for the private variables : any private variable should start with an underscore. This convention is well known and widely used, so when another programmer uses or alters your code and sees a variable starting with underscore, he'll know that it's private, for internal use only and he won't modify it.
Here's the rewrite using this convention :
var Foo = (function() {
// constructor
function Foo() {
this._bar = "some value";
};
// add the methods to the prototype so that all of the
// Foo instances can access the private static
Foo.prototype.getBar = function() {
return this._bar;
};
Foo.prototype.setBar = function(bar) {
this._bar = bar;
};
return Foo;
})();
Now we have instantiation, inheritance, but we've lost our encapsulation in favor of conventions :
var a = new Foo();
var b = new Foo();
a.setBar('a');
b.setBar('b');
alert(a.getBar()); // alerts 'a' :)
alert(b.getBar()); // alerts 'b' :)
but the private vars are accessible :
delete a._bar;
b._bar = null;
alert(a.getBar()); // alerts undefined :(
alert(b.getBar()); // alerts null :(

I think what you're looking for is the "Revealing Prototype Pattern".
Dan Wahlin has a great blog post: http://weblogs.asp.net/dwahlin/archive/2011/08/03/techniques-strategies-and-patterns-for-structuring-javascript-code-revealing-prototype-pattern.aspx
and even better Pluralsight course on this and other related JavaScript structures: http://pluralsight.com/training/courses/TableOfContents?courseName=structuring-javascript&highlight=dan-wahlin_structuring-javascript-module1!dan-wahlin_structuring-javascript-module2!dan-wahlin_structuring-javascript-module5!dan-wahlin_structuring-javascript-module4!dan-wahlin_structuring-javascript-module3#structuring-javascript-module1

Closures are your friend!
Simply add the following tiny function to your top-level namespace and you're ready to OOP, complete with
encapsulation, with static and instance, private and public variables
and methods
inheritance
class-level injection (eg. for singleton services)
no constraints, no framework, just plain old Javascript
function clazz(_class, _super) {
var _prototype = Object.create((_super || function() {}).prototype);
var _deps = Array.isArray(_class) ? _class : [_class]; _class = _deps.pop();
_deps.push(_super);
_prototype.constructor = _class.apply(_prototype, _deps) || _prototype.constructor;
_prototype.constructor.prototype = _prototype;
return _prototype.constructor;
}
The above function simply wires up the given class' prototype and eventual parent constructor, and returns the resulting constructor, ready for instantiation.
Now you can most naturally declare your base classes (ie. that extend {}) in a few lines of code, complete with static, instance, public and private properties and methods:
MyBaseClass = clazz(function(_super) { // class closure, 'this' is the prototype
// local variables and functions declared here are private static variables and methods
// properties of 'this' declared here are public static variables and methods
return function MyBaseClass(arg1, ...) { // or: this.constructor = function(arg1, ...) {
// local variables and functions declared here are private instance variables and methods
// properties of 'this' declared here are public instance variables and methods
};
});
Extending a class? All the more natural as well:
MySubClass = clazz(function(_super) { // class closure, 'this' is the prototype
// local variables and functions are private static variables and methods
// properties of this are public static variables and methods
return function MySubClass(arg1, ...) // or: this.constructor = function(arg1, ...) {
// local variables and functions are private instance variables and methods
_super.apply(this, arguments); // or _super.call(this, arg1, ...)
// properties of 'this' are public instance variables and methods
};
}, MyBaseClass); // extend MyBaseClass
In other words, pass the parent class constructor to the clazz function, and add _super.call(this, arg1, ...) to the child class' constructor, which calls the parent class' constructor with the required arguments. As with any standard inheritance scheme, the parent constructor call must come first in the child constructor.
Note that you're free to either explicitly name the contructor with this.constructor = function(arg1, ...) {...}, or this.constructor = function MyBaseClass(arg1, ...) {...} if you need simple access to the constructor from the code inside the constructor, or even simply return the constructor with return function MyBaseClass(arg1, ...) {...} as in the above code. Whichever you feel most comfortable with.
Simply instantiate objects from such classes as you normally would from a constructor: myObj = new MyBaseClass();
Notice how closures nicely encapsulate all of a class' functionality, including its prototype and constructor, providing a natural namespace for static and instance, private and public properties and methods. The code within a class closure is completely free of constraints. No framework, no constraints, just plain old Javascript. Closures rule!
Oh, and if you want to inject singleton dependencies (eg. services) into your class (ie. prototype), clazz will do this for you à la AngularJS:
DependentClass = clazz([aService, function(_service, _super) { // class closure, 'this' is the prototype
// the injected _service dependency is available anywhere in this class
return function MySubClass(arg1, ...) // or: this.constructor = function(arg1, ...) {
_super.apply(this, arguments); // or _super.call(this, arg1, ...)
// the injected _service dependency is also available in the constructor
};
}], MyBaseClass); // extend MyBaseClass
As the above code attempts to illustrate, to inject singletons into a class simply place the class closure as the last entry into an array with all its dependencies. Also add the corresponding parameters to the class closure in front of the _super parameter and in the same order as in the array. clazz will inject the dependencies from the array as arguments into the class closure. The dependencies are then available anywhere within the class closure, including the constructor.
In fact, since the dependencies are injected into the prototype, they are available to static methods even before any object is instantiated from the class. This is very powerful for wiring up your apps or unit and end-to-end tests. It also removes the need to inject singletons into constructors, which otherwise unnecessarily clobbers the constructor's code.
Check this fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/5uzmyvdq/1/
Feedback and suggestions most welcome!

Javascript is certainly OOP. You always have polymorphism, however you have to sacrifice either encapsulation or instantiation which is the problem you ran into.
Try this to just brush up on your options.
http://www.webmonkey.com/2010/02/make_oop_classes_in_javascript/
Also an old question that I had bookmarked:
Is JavaScript object-oriented?

JavaScript classes are introduced in ECMAScript 6 and are syntactical sugar over JavaScript's existing prototype-based inheritance. The class syntax is not introducing a new object-oriented inheritance model to JavaScript. JavaScript classes provide a much simpler and clearer syntax to create objects and deal with inheritance.
You can see more in this link Mozilla Community
Github

I was thinking about this particular subject recently and the limitations of the various approaches. The best solution I've been able to come up with is below.
It seems to solve the problems with inheritance, instantiation and ecapsulation (at least from tests on Google Chrome v.24) although probably at a cost in memory usage.
function ParentClass(instanceProperty) {
// private
var _super = Object.create(null),
privateProperty = "private " + instanceProperty;
// public
var api = Object.create(_super);
api.constructor = this.constructor;
api.publicMethod = function() {
console.log( "publicMethod on ParentClass" );
console.log( privateProperty );
};
api.publicMethod2 = function() {
console.log( "publicMethod2 on ParentClass" );
console.log( privateProperty );
};
return api;
}
function SubClass(instanceProperty) {
// private
var _super = ParentClass.call( this, instanceProperty ),
privateProperty = "private sub " + instanceProperty;
// public
var api = Object.create(_super);
api.constructor = this.constructor;
api.publicMethod = function() {
_super.publicMethod.call(this); // call method on ParentClass
console.log( "publicMethod on SubClass" );
console.log( privateProperty );
}
return api;
}
var par1 = new ParentClass(0),
par2 = new ParentClass(1),
sub1 = new SubClass(2),
sub2 = new SubClass(3);
par1.publicMethod();
par2.publicMethod();
sub1.publicMethod();
sub2.publicMethod();
par1.publicMethod2();
par2.publicMethod2();
sub1.publicMethod2();
sub2.publicMethod2();

One problem with a lot of JS classes out there is that they do not secure their fields and methods which means that anyone using it may accidentally replace a method. For example the code:
function Class(){
var name="Luis";
var lName="Potter";
}
Class.prototype.changeName=function(){
this.name="BOSS";
console.log(this.name);
};
var test= new Class();
console.log(test.name);
test.name="ugly";
console.log(test.name);
test.changeName();
test.changeName=function(){
console.log("replaced");
};
test.changeName();
test.changeName();
will output:
ugly
BOSS
replaced
replaced
As you can see the changeName function gets overriden. The following code would secure the class methods and fields and the getters and setters would be used to access them making this more of a "regular" class found in other languages.
function Class(){
var name="Luis";
var lName="Potter";
function getName(){
console.log("called getter");
return name;
};
function setName(val){
console.log("called setter");
name = val
};
function getLName(){
return lName
};
function setLName(val){
lName = val;
};
Object.defineProperties(this,{
name:{
get:getName,
set:setName,
enumerable:true,
configurable:false
},
lastName:{
get:getLName,
set:setLName,
enumerable:true,
configurable:false
}
});
}
Class.prototype.changeName=function(){
this.name="BOSS";
};
Object.defineProperty(Class.prototype, "changeName", {
writable:false,
configurable:false
});
var test= new Class();
console.log(test.name);
test.name="ugly";
console.log(test.name);
test.changeName();
test.changeName=function(){
console.log("replaced")
};
test.changeName();
test.changeName();
This outputs:
called getter
Luis
called setter
called getter
ugly
called setter
called setter
called setter
Now your class methods cannot be replaced by random values or functions and the code in the getters and setters always run when attempting to read or write to field.

This closure allows instantiation and encapsulation but no inheritance.
function Foo(){
var _bar = "foo";
return {
getBar: function() {
return _bar;
},
setBar: function(bar) {
_bar = bar;
}
};
};
a = Foo();
b = Foo();
a.setBar("bar");
alert(a.getBar()); // "bar"
alert(b.getBar()); // "foo"

Difference between two JavaScript object types

I see objects in JavaScript organized most commonly in the below two fashions. Could someone please explain the difference and the benefits between the two? Are there cases where one is more appropriate to the other?
Really appreciate any clarification. Thanks a lot!
First:
var SomeObject;
SomeObject = (function() {
function SomeObject() {}
SomeObject.prototype.doSomething: function() {
},
SomeObject.prototype.doSomethingElse: function() {
}
})();
Second:
SomeObject = function() {
SomeObject.prototype.doSomething: function() {
},
SomeObject.prototype.doSomethingElse: function() {
}
}

Both of those examples are incorrect. I think you meant:
First:
var SomeObject;
SomeObject = (function() {
function SomeObject() {
}
SomeObject.prototype.doSomething = function() {
};
SomeObject.prototype.doSomethingElse = function() {
};
return SomeObject;
})();
(Note the return at the end of the anonymous function, the use of = rather than :, and the semicolons to complete the function assignments.)
Or possibly you meant:
function SomeObject() {
}
SomeObject.prototype.doSomething = function() {
};
SomeObject.prototype.doSomethingElse = function() {
};
(No anonymous enclosing function.)
Second:
function SomeObject() {
}
SomeObject.prototype = {
doSomething: function() {
},
doSomethingElse: function() {
}
};
(Note that the assignment to the prototype is outside the SomeObject function; here, we use : because we're inside an object initializer. And again we have the ; at the end to complete the assignment statement.)
If I'm correct, there's very little difference between them. Both of them create a SomeObject constructor function and add anonymous functions to its prototype. The second version replaces the SomeObject constructor function's prototype with a completely new object (which I do not recommend), where the first one just augments the prototype that the SomeObject constructor function already has.
A more useful form is this:
var SomeObject;
SomeObject = (function() {
function SomeObject() {
}
SomeObject.prototype.doSomething = doSomething;
function doSomething() {
}
SomeObject.prototype.doSomethingElse = doSomethingElse;
function doSomethingElse()
}
return SomeObject;
})();
There, the functions we assign to doSomething and doSomethingElse have names, which is useful when you're walking through code in a debugger (they're shown in call stacks, lists of breakpoints, etc.). The anonymous function wrapping everything is there so that the doSomething and doSomethingElse names don't pollute the enclosing namespace. More: Anonymouses anonymous
Some of us take it further:
var SomeObject;
SomeObject = (function() {
var p = SomeObject.prototype;
function SomeObject() {
}
p.doSomething = SomeObject$doSomething;
function SomeObject$doSomething() {
}
p.doSomethingElse = SomeObject$doSomethingElse;
function SomeObject$doSomethingElse()
}
return SomeObject;
})();
...so that not only do we see doSomething, but SomeObject$doSomething in the lists. Sometimes that can get in the way, though, it's a style choice. (Also note I used the anonymous function to enclose an alias for SomeObject.prototype, to make for less typing.)

First off, both snippets will not parse for me (Chrome) - you should use = in place of :. That said, my humble opinion follows.
The latter snippet is slightly strange, because you actually define methods on SomeObject's prototype at the time of the object construction, rather than at the parse time. Thus, if you have re-defined some method on SomeObject.prototype, it will get reverted to the original version once a new object is constructed. This may result in unexpected behavior for existing objects of this type.
The former one looks fine, except that the (function { ...} ())() wrapper may not be necessary. You can declare just:
function SomeObject() {}
SomeObject.prototype.doSomething = function() {}
SomeObject.prototype.doSomethingElse = function() {}

The actual difference between first and second in your questions is just:
var o = (function () {})(); # call this (A)
and
var o = function () {}; # call this (B)
Unfortunately, neither of the examples that you gave are written correctly and, while I don't think either will actually give an error at parse-time, both will break in interesting ways when you try to do things with the result.
To give you an answer about the difference between (A) and (B), (A) is the immediate function application pattern. The JavaScript Patterns book has a good discussion, which I recommend.
The actual problems in your code have been explained by other people while I was writing this. In particular T.J. Crowder points out important things.

jQuery-style function that can be accessed like an object

I am creating an AJAX API for a web service and I want to be able to call jQuery-like accessors.
jQuery seems to be able to execute 'jQuery' as a function, but also use it to directly access the object that is the result of the function EG:
jQuery();
jQuery.each({});
This is the trick that I can't seem to pull off:
myAPI('foo'); //output: 'foo'
myAPI('foo').changeBar(); //output: 'foo' 1
myAPI.changeBar(); //Error: not a function
I have seen the answers to similar questions, which are helpful, but don't really answer my question.
#8734115 - Really interesting, but you can't access the methods that were set by f.prototype.
#2953314 - Uses Multiple operations to create object instead of a single function.
here is my code:
(function(window) {
var h = function(foo) {
// The h object is actually just the init constructor 'enhanced'
return new h.fn.init(foo);
};
/**
* Methods defined at protoype.
*/
h.fn = h.prototype = {
constructor: h,
init: function(foo) {
console.log(foo);
return this;
},
splice : function () {},
length : 0,
bar : 0,
changeBar : function() {
this.bar++;
return this.bar;
}
};
h.fn.init.prototype = h.fn;
//Publish
window.myAPI =h;
}( window));
I'm sure I'm missing something simple :(

What jQuery is doing there is using jQuery as both a function and as a pseudo-namespace. That is, you can call jQuery: var divs = jQuery("div"); and you can use properties on it, e.g.: jQuery.each(...);.
This is possible because in JavaScript, functions are first-class objects, and so you can add arbitrary properties to them:
function foo() {
alert("Foo!");
}
foo.bar = function() {
alert("Bar!");
};
foo(); // "Foo!"
foo.bar(); // "Bar!"
That's literally all there is to it.
Within the call to bar, this will be the foo function (because this is determined entirely by how a function is called, not where it's defined). jQuery doesn't use this to refer to itself (usually it uses this to refer to DOM elements, sometimes to other things like array elements; when referring to itself, since it's a single thing, it just uses jQuery).
Now, you might want to ensure that your functions have proper names (whereas the function I assigned to bar above is anonymous — the property has a name, but the function does not). In that case, you might get into the module pattern:
var foo = (function() {
function foo() {
alert("Foo!");
}
function foo_bar() {
alert("Bar!");
}
foo.bar = foo_bar;
return foo;
})();
foo(); // "Foo!"
foo.bar(); // "Bar!"
That pattern also has the advantage that you can have private data and functions held within the scoping function (the big anonymous function that wraps everything else) that only your code can use.
var foo = (function() {
function foo() {
reallyPrivate("Foo!");
}
function foo_bar() {
reallyPrivate("Bar!");
}
function reallyPrivate(msg) {
alert(msg);
}
foo.bar = foo_bar;
return foo;
})();
foo(); // "Foo!"
foo.bar(); // "Bar!"
reallyPrivate("Hi"); // Error, `reallyPrivate` is undefined outside of the scoping function
In your code, you're assigning things to the prototype property of the function. That only comes into play when the function is called as a constructor function (e.g., via new). When you do that, the object created by new receives the function's prototype property as its underlying prototype. But that's a completely different thing, unrelated to what jQuery does where it's both a function and a pseudo-namespace.

You do not need any of that weirdness, to use stuff like $.each
you just attach functions to the function object instead
of the prototype object:
function Constructor() {
if (!(this instanceof Constructor)) {
return new Constructor();
}
}
Constructor.prototype = {
each: function() {
return "instance method";
}
};
Constructor.each = function() {
return "static method";
};
var a = Constructor();
a.each(); //"instance method"
Constructor.each(); //"static method"

javascript singleton question

I just read a few threads on the discussion of singleton design in javascript. I'm 100% new to the Design Pattern stuff but as I see since a Singleton by definition won't have the need to be instantiated, conceptually if it's not to be instantiated, in my opinion it doesn't have to be treated like conventional objects which are created from a blueprint(classes). So my wonder is why not just think of a singleton just as something statically available that is wrapped in some sort of scope and that should be all.
From the threads I saw, most of them make a singleton though traditional javascript
new function(){}
followed by making a pseudo constructor.
Well I just think an object literal is enough enough:
var singleton = {
dothis: function(){},
dothat: function(){}
}
right? Or anybody got better insights?
[update] : Again my point is why don't people just use a simpler way to make singletons in javascript as I showed in the second snippet, if there's an absolute reason please tell me. I'm usually afraid of this kind of situation that I simplify things to much :D

I agree with you, the simplest way is to use a object literal, but if you want private members, you could implement taking advantage of closures:
var myInstance = (function() {
var privateVar;
function privateMethod () {
// ...
}
return { // public interface
publicMethod1: function () {
// private members can be accessed here
},
publicMethod2: function () {
// ...
}
};
})();
About the new function(){} construct, it will simply use an anonymous function as a constructor function, the context inside that function will be a new object that will be returned.
Edit: In response to the #J5's comment, that is simple to do, actually I think that this can be a nice example for using a Lazy Function Definition pattern:
function singleton() {
var instance = (function() {
var privateVar;
function privateMethod () {
// ...
}
return { // public interface
publicMethod1: function () {
// private members can be accessed here
},
publicMethod2: function () {
// ...
}
};
})();
singleton = function () { // re-define the function for subsequent calls
return instance;
};
return singleton(); // call the new function
}
When the function is called the first time, I make the object instance, and reassign singleton to a new function which has that object instance in it's closure.
Before the end of the first time call I execute the re-defined singleton function that will return the created instance.
Following calls to the singleton function will simply return the instance that is stored in it's closure, because the new function is the one that will be executed.
You can prove that by comparing the object returned:
singleton() == singleton(); // true
The == operator for objects will return true only if the object reference of both operands is the same, it will return false even if the objects are identical but they are two different instances:
({}) == ({}); // false
new Object() == new Object(); // false

I have used the second version (var singleton = {};) for everything from Firefox extensions to websites, and it works really well. One good idea is to not define things inside the curly brackets, but outside it using the name of the object, like so:
var singleton = {};
singleton.dothis = function(){
};
singleton.someVariable = 5;

The ES5 spec lets us use Object.create():
var SingletonClass = (function() {
var instance;
function SingletonClass() {
if (instance == null) {
instance = Object.create(SingletonClass.prototype);
}
return instance;
}
return {
getInstance: function() {
return new SingletonClass();
}
};
})();
var x = SingletonClass.getInstance();
var y = SingletonClass.getInstance();
var z = new x.constructor();
This is nice, since we don't have to worry about our constructor leaking, we still always end up with the same instance.
This structure also has the advantage that our Singleton doesn't construct itself until it is required. Additionally, using the closure as we do here prevents external code from using our "instance" variable, accidentally or otherwise. We can build more private variables in the same place and we can define anything we care to export publically on our class prototype.

The singleton pattern is implemented by creating a class with a method that creates a new instance of the class if one does not exist. If an instance already exists, it simply returns a reference to that object. 1
(function (global) {
var singleton;
function Singleton () {
// singleton does have a constructor that should only be used once
this.foo = "bar";
delete Singleton; // disappear the constructor if you want
}
global.singleton = function () {
return singleton || (singleton = new Singleton());
};
})(window);
var s = singleton();
console.log(s.foo);
var y = singleton();
y.foo = "foo";
console.log(s.foo);
You don't just declare the singleton as an object because that instantiates it, it doesn't declare it. It also doesn't provide a mechanism for code that doesn't know about a previous reference to the singleton to retrieve it. The singleton is not the object/class that is returned by the singleton, it's a structure. This is similar to how closured variables are not closures, the function scope providing the closure is the closure.

I am just posting this answer for people who are looking for a reliable source.
according to patterns.dev by Lydia Hallie, Addy Osmani
Singletons are actually considered an anti-pattern, and can (or.. should) be avoided in JavaScript.
In many programming languages, such as Java or C++, it's not possible to directly create objects the way we can in JavaScript. In those object-oriented programming languages, we need to create a class, which creates an object. That created object has the value of the instance of the class, just like the value of instance in the JavaScript example.
Since we can directly create objects in JavaScript, we can simply use
a regular object to achieve the exact same result.

I've wondered about this too, but just defining an object with functions in it seems reasonable to me. No sense creating a constructor that nobody's ever supposed to call, to create an object with no prototype, when you can just define the object directly.
On the other hand, if you want your singleton to be an instance of some existing "class" -- that is, you want it to have some other object as its prototype -- then you do need to use a constructor function, so that you can set its prototype property before calling it.

The latter code box shows what I've seen JS devs call their version of OO design in Javascript.
Singetons are meant to be singular objects that can't be constructed (except, I suppose, in the initial definition. You have one, global instance of a singleton.

The point of using the "pseudo constructor" is that it creates a new variable scope. You can declare local variables inside the function that are available inside any nested functions but not from the global scope.
There are actually two ways of doing it. You can call the function with new like in your example, or just call the function directly. There are slight differences in how you would write the code, but they are essentially equivalent.
Your second example could be written like this:
var singleton = new function () {
var privateVariable = 42; // This can be accessed by dothis and dothat
this.dothis = function () {
return privateVariable;
};
this.dothat = function () {};
}; // Parentheses are allowed, but not necessary unless you are passing parameters
or
var singleton = (function () {
var privateVariable = 42; // This can be accessed by dothis and dothat
return {
dothis: function () {
return privateVariable;
},
dothat: function () {}
};
})(); // Parentheses are required here since we are calling the function
You could also pass arguments to either function (you would need to add parentheses to the first example).

Crockford (seems to) agree that the object literal is all you need for a singleton in JavaScript:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-j5RwC92YU8J:www.crockford.com/codecamp/The%2520Good%2520Parts%2520ppt/5%2520functional.ppt+singleton+site:www.crockford.com&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk

How about this:
function Singleton() {
// ---------------
// Singleton part.
// ---------------
var _className = null;
var _globalScope = null;
if ( !(this instanceof arguments.callee) ) {
throw new Error("Constructor called as a function.");
}
if ( !(_className = arguments.callee.name) ) {
throw new Error("Unable to determine class name.")
}
_globalScope = (function(){return this;}).call(null);
if ( !_globalScope.singletons ) {
_globalScope.singletons = [];
}
if ( _globalScope.singletons[_className] ) {
return _globalScope.singletons[_className];
} else {
_globalScope.singletons[_className] = this;
}
// ------------
// Normal part.
// ------------
var _x = null;
this.setx = function(val) {
_x = val;
}; // setx()
this.getx = function() {
return _x;
}; // getx()
function _init() {
_x = 0; // Whatever initialisation here.
} // _init()
_init();
} // Singleton()
var p = new Singleton;
var q = new Singleton;
p.setx(15);
q.getx(); // returns 15

I stole this from CMS / CMS' answer, and changed it so it can be invoked as:
MySingleton.getInstance().publicMethod1();
With the slight alternation:
var MySingleton = { // These two lines
getInstance: function() { // These two lines
var instance = (function() {
var privateVar;
function privateMethod () {
// ...
console.log( "b" );
}
return { // public interface
publicMethod1: function () {
// private members can be accessed here
console.log( "a" );
},
publicMethod2: function () {
// ...
privateMethod();
}
};
})();
singleton = function () { // re-define the function for subsequent calls
return instance;
};
return singleton(); // call the new function
}
}

Develop Reference

JavaScript is the programming language of the Web.

Passing arguments to a Javascript IIFE constructor - javascript

Related

Creating inheritance on revealing modular pattern objects

JavaScript Classes

Difference between two JavaScript object types

jQuery-style function that can be accessed like an object

javascript singleton question

Categories

Resources