This question already has answers here:
Use of 'prototype' vs. 'this' in JavaScript?
(15 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I am wondering if there are any advantages of using any of these over the other, and which way should I go?
Constructor approach:
var Class = function () {
this.calc = function (a, b) {
return a + b;
};
};
Prototype approach:
var Class = function () {};
Class.prototype.calc = function (a, b) {
return a + b;
};
I don't like that, using the prototype, method definitions are separated from the class, and I'm not aware if there is any specific reason I should use this over just the first approach.
Also, is there any benefit of using a function literal to define a "class", over just function definition:
var Class = function () {};
vs
function Class () {};
Thanks!
Methods that inherit via the prototype chain can be changed universally for all instances, for example:
function Class () {}
Class.prototype.calc = function (a, b) {
return a + b;
}
// Create 2 instances:
var ins1 = new Class(),
ins2 = new Class();
// Test the calc method:
console.log(ins1.calc(1,1), ins2.calc(1,1));
// -> 2, 2
// Change the prototype method
Class.prototype.calc = function () {
var args = Array.prototype.slice.apply(arguments),
res = 0, c;
while (c = args.shift())
res += c;
return res;
}
// Test the calc method:
console.log(ins1.calc(1,1,1), ins2.calc(1,1,1));
// -> 3, 3
Notice how changing the method applied to both instances? This is because ins1 and ins2 share the same calc() function. In order to do this with public methods created during construction, you'd have to assign the new method to each instance that has been created, which is an awkward task. This is because ins1 and ins2 would have their own, individually created calc() functions.
Another side effect of creating methods inside the constructor is poorer performance. Each method has to be created every time the constructor function runs. Methods on the prototype chain are created once and then "inherited" by each instance. On the flip side of the coin, public methods have access to "private" variables, which isn't possible with inherited methods.
As for your function Class() {} vs var Class = function () {} question, the former is "hoisted" to the top of the current scope before execution. For the latter, the variable declaration is hoisted, but not the assignment. For example:
// Error, fn is called before the function is assigned!
fn();
var fn = function () { alert("test!"); }
// Works as expected: the fn2 declaration is hoisted above the call
fn2();
function fn2() { alert("test!"); }
The advantage of the prototype approach is efficiency. There is one calc() function object shared between all Class objects (by which I mean objects created by calling the Class constructor). The other way (assigning methods within the constructor) creates a new function object for every Class object, using more memory and taking more processing time when calling the Class constructor. However, this approach does have an advantage: the calc() method has access to local variables within the constructor, which you can use to your advantage:
function Class() {
var calcCallCount = 0;
this.calc = function (a, b) {
++calcCallCount;
alert("Calc called " + calcCallCount + " times");
return a + b;
};
};
Regarding var Class = function() {...} versus function Class() {...}, I generally prefer the latter is because it means the function has a name, which can be useful when debugging. The other difference is that the latter version (a function declaration) is hoisted, meaning that it is available everywhere within the scope in which it is defined, not just after the definition. However, some people prefer to use the former (a function expression) everywhere.
var YourClass = function(){
var privateField = "somevalue";
this.publicField = "somevalue";
this.instanceMethod1 = function(){
//you may access both private and public field from here:
//in order to access public field, you must use "this":
alert(privateField + "; " + this.publicField);
};
}
YourClass.prototype.instanceMethod2 = function(){
//you may access only public field 2 from this method, but not private fields:
alert(this.publicField);
//error: drawaback of prototype methods:
alert(privateField);
};
Advantages of prototype methods:
When you define methods via prototype, they are shared among all YourClass instances. As a result the total size of such instances is < than if you define methods in constructor; There are tests that show how method definition via prototype decrease the total size of html page and as a result a speed of its loading.
another advantage of methods, defined via prototype - is when you use inherited classes, you may override such methods and in the overriden method of the derived class you may invoke the method of base class with the same name, but with methods defined in constructor, you cannot do this.
Related
What is the difference between the following two declarations?
Class.method = function () { /* code */ }
Class.prototype.method = function () { /* code using this.values */ }
Is it okay to think of the first statement as a declaration of a static method, and the second statement as a declaration of an instance method?
Yes, the first function has no relationship with an object instance of that constructor function, you can consider it like a 'static method'.
In JavaScript functions are first-class objects, that means you can treat them just like any object, in this case, you are only adding a property to the function object.
The second function, as you are extending the constructor function prototype, it will be available to all the object instances created with the new keyword, and the context within that function (the this keyword) will refer to the actual object instance where you call it.
Consider this example:
// constructor function
function MyClass () {
var privateVariable; // private member only available within the constructor fn
this.privilegedMethod = function () { // it can access private members
//..
};
}
// A 'static method', it's just like a normal function
// it has no relation with any 'MyClass' object instance
MyClass.staticMethod = function () {};
MyClass.prototype.publicMethod = function () {
// the 'this' keyword refers to the object instance
// you can access only 'privileged' and 'public' members
};
var myObj = new MyClass(); // new object instance
myObj.publicMethod();
MyClass.staticMethod();
Yes, the first one is a static method also called class method, while the second one is an instance method.
Consider the following examples, to understand it in more detail.
In ES5
function Person(firstName, lastName) {
this.firstName = firstName;
this.lastName = lastName;
}
Person.isPerson = function(obj) {
return obj.constructor === Person;
}
Person.prototype.sayHi = function() {
return "Hi " + this.firstName;
}
In the above code, isPerson is a static method, while sayHi is an instance method of Person.
Below, is how to create an object from Person constructor.
var aminu = new Person("Aminu", "Abubakar");
Using the static method isPerson.
Person.isPerson(aminu); // will return true
Using the instance method sayHi.
aminu.sayHi(); // will return "Hi Aminu"
In ES6
class Person {
constructor(firstName, lastName) {
this.firstName = firstName;
this.lastName = lastName;
}
static isPerson(obj) {
return obj.constructor === Person;
}
sayHi() {
return `Hi ${this.firstName}`;
}
}
Look at how static keyword was used to declare the static method isPerson.
To create an object of Person class.
const aminu = new Person("Aminu", "Abubakar");
Using the static method isPerson.
Person.isPerson(aminu); // will return true
Using the instance method sayHi.
aminu.sayHi(); // will return "Hi Aminu"
NOTE: Both examples are essentially the same, JavaScript remains a classless language. The class introduced in ES6 is primarily a syntactical sugar over the existing prototype-based inheritance model.
When you create more than one instance of MyClass , you will still only have only one instance of publicMethod in memory but in case of privilegedMethod you will end up creating lots of instances and staticMethod has no relationship with an object instance.
That's why prototypes save memory.
Also, if you change the parent object's properties, is the child's corresponding property hasn't been changed, it'll be updated.
For visual learners, when defining the function without .prototype
ExampleClass = function(){};
ExampleClass.method = function(customString){
console.log((customString !== undefined)?
customString :
"called from func def.");}
ExampleClass.method(); // >> output: `called from func def.`
var someInstance = new ExampleClass();
someInstance.method('Called from instance');
// >> error! `someInstance.method is not a function`
With same code, if .prototype is added,
ExampleClass.prototype.method = function(customString){
console.log((customString !== undefined)?
customString :
"called from func def.");}
ExampleClass.method();
// > error! `ExampleClass.method is not a function.`
var someInstance = new ExampleClass();
someInstance.method('Called from instance');
// > output: `Called from instance`
To make it clearer,
ExampleClass = function(){};
ExampleClass.directM = function(){} //M for method
ExampleClass.prototype.protoM = function(){}
var instanceOfExample = new ExampleClass();
ExampleClass.directM(); ✓ works
instanceOfExample.directM(); x Error!
ExampleClass.protoM(); x Error!
instanceOfExample.protoM(); ✓ works
****Note for the example above, someInstance.method() won't be executed as,
ExampleClass.method() causes error & execution cannot continue.
But for the sake of illustration & easy understanding, I've kept this sequence.****
Results generated from chrome developer console & JS Bin
Click on the jsbin link above to step through the code.
Toggle commented section with ctrl+/
A. Static Method:
Class.method = function () { /* code */ }
method() here is a function property added to an another function (here Class).
You can directly access the method() by the class / function name. Class.method();
No need for creating any object/instance (new Class()) for accessing the method(). So you could call it as a static method.
B. Prototype Method (Shared across all the instances):
Class.prototype.method = function () { /* code using this.values */ }
method() here is a function property added to an another function protype (here Class.prototype).
You can either directly access by class name or by an object/instance (new Class()).
Added advantage - this way of method() definition will create only one copy of method() in the memory and will be shared across all the object's/instance's created from the Class
C. Class Method (Each instance has its own copy):
function Class () {
this.method = function () { /* do something with the private members */};
}
method() here is a method defined inside an another function (here Class).
You can't directly access the method() by the class / function name. Class.method();
You need to create an object/instance (new Class()) for the method() access.
This way of method() definition will create a unique copy of the method() for each and every objects created using the constructor function (new Class()).
Added advantage - Bcos of the method() scope it has the full right to access the local members(also called private members) declared inside the constructor function (here Class)
Example:
function Class() {
var str = "Constructor method"; // private variable
this.method = function () { console.log(str); };
}
Class.prototype.method = function() { console.log("Prototype method"); };
Class.method = function() { console.log("Static method"); };
new Class().method(); // Constructor method
// Bcos Constructor method() has more priority over the Prototype method()
// Bcos of the existence of the Constructor method(), the Prototype method
// will not be looked up. But you call it by explicity, if you want.
// Using instance
new Class().constructor.prototype.method(); // Prototype method
// Using class name
Class.prototype.method(); // Prototype method
// Access the static method by class name
Class.method(); // Static method
This question already has answers here:
Use of 'prototype' vs. 'this' in JavaScript?
(15 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
When defining javascript objects that behave like classes that have state and functions that manipulate that state is it better to define functions when defining the object like so:
function MyNewClass(){
//State
this.value = ""
this.otherValue = ""
//Functions
this.someFunction = function(){
//Some logic here
}
}
Or it it better practice to define functions on the prototype of the object such as:
function MyNewClass (){
//state
this.value = ""
this.otherValue = ""
}
MyNewClass.prototype.someFunction = function(){
//Some logic here
}
Are there any advantages to defining object functions on the prototype?
Thanks!
Because functions are objects, given the described scenario, we have two behavior:
If you declare the function on the "class" function, every object you
create then it will have a copy of that function (object), so the
memory usage will increase.
However, if you add the function to the prototype, the function will
be shared by all the objects, so there will be a save of memory
You can see the difference for yourself by running this code:
var output = function(s) { document.getElementById("output").innerText += s; }
function MyNewClass() {
this.foo = function() {
output("1");
}
}
MyNewClass.prototype.bar = function(){
output("2");
};
var a = new MyNewClass();
a.foo();
a.bar();
a.foo = function() { output("3") };
MyNewClass.prototype.bar = function() { output("4"); };
a.foo();
a.bar();
var b = new MyNewClass();
b.foo();
b.bar();
The output is: 123414
When you change a function as a member variable, you only change that instance. If you change it in the prototype, it affects all instances.
functions of the object should be declared using prototype because prototype is a common space that is shared by all the objects created by the same constructor function and it also saves memory because all objects do not have there own functions created but they all are pointing to one common place.
you can refer it here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBpPfPjxOhc&list=PLqq-6Pq4lTTaflXUL0v3TSm86nodn0c_u
example
enter code here
//constructor function
function gh(){
this.x=1;
}
//now if you create a object
var p=new gh();
//now i need function show in my object p
function show(){
console.log(x);
}
gh.prototype.show=show();
//it will be added all objects automatically (to understand this study scope chain)
While reading other people's source code and various articles over the web, I found that when different people use "object-oriented-style" programming in JavaScript, they often do it quite differently.
Suppose, I want to create a tiny module having 1 property and 1 function. I've seen at least 4 approaches to this task:
// Option 1
var myObject1 = {
myProp: 1,
myFunc: function () { alert("myProp has value " + this.myProp); }
};
// Option 2
var myObject2 = function () {
return {
myProp: 1,
myFunc: function () { alert("myProp has value " + this.myProp); }
};
}();
// Option 3
var MyObject3 = function () {
this.myProp = 1;
this.myFunc = function () { alert("myProp has value " + this.myProp); }
};
var myObject3 = new MyObject3();
// Option 4
var MyObject4 = function () { };
MyObject4.prototype.myProp = 1;
MyObject4.prototype.myFunc = function () { alert("myProp has value " + this.myProp); };
var myObject4 = new MyObject4();
All these approaches are syntactically different but seem to produce objects that can be used in the same way.
What's the semantic difference between them? Are there cases when for some reason I should choose one of these options over all the rest?
myObject1 is an object literal (singleton). Useful in cases where you want to have just one object of this type. Look at it as a static object.
myObject2 returns an object literal. So right after doing var foo = myObject2(), the variable foo will hold the result { myProp: 1, myFunc: function(){...} } with reference to the parent function that has executed. This is called a closure. This can be used to define a public API or modules, for example.
i.e.:
var foo = (function(){
var privateProp = "I am a private property";
// the object below is returned, privateProp is accessible
// only through foo.publicProp
return {
publicProp: privateProp
}
})();
The privateProp property is now accessible through foo.publicProp.
MyObject3 and MyObject4 are constructor functions. By using the new keyword before the function call, you tell JavaScript to create an instance of that object. This means that every new object created this way will inherit properties and methods from the object definition.
The difference between MyObject3 and MyObject4 is that in the case of the former, every instance of that object will have its own copy of the myProp and myFunc properties, whereas the latter will only reference those properties. That means that no matter how many instances of object MyObject4 you create, there will be only one of myProp and myFunc.
I recommend you look up on how closures, prototypal inheritance, and several object design patterns (modules, etc.) work in JavaScript.
Both 1. and 2. are pretty much identical in your example. You could make 2. make an actual difference by declaring "private" variables in the IIFE's scope, like this:
var myObject2 = function () {
var myPrivateProp = ...;
return {
getPrivateProp: function() { return myPrivateProp; }
};
}();
In general, those create a value, not something that you would call a class of values.
Instead, what 3. and 4. are doing is creating a prototype that can be then used to create more usable values out of it. Whether you actually declare the defaults on the prototype or in the constructor doesn't make much difference.
So, to sum up, 1&2 are something like a "lambda" object, without a named prototype, while 3&4 actually make the thing reusable and recreatable.
JavaScript uses a Prototype system, which is fundamentally different than a Class system. This is my first serious encounter with the language. I had fooled around with it previously, but this is the first time I built a system with proper OO, inheritance, polymorphism, etc.
From what I read there seems to be a few common methods to do member function inheritance in Javascript. Assuming you have a parent foo as following
foo = function(){ this.one = 1; }
foo.prototype.func1 = function(){return this.one;}
The MDN Introduction to JavaScript Inheritance suggests the naive approach of invoking the parent's method in the context of the child, as shown below.
bar = function(){ foo.call(this); }
bar.prototype = Object.create(foo.prototype);
bar.prototype.func1 = function(){ return this.one + foo.prototype.func1();}
This has the advantage of being simple to understand, but can become cumbersome as pointed out in this Salsify Blog post. The blog post outlines an alternate method where a super property is defined in the child prototype, and the name of each member function is attached as a property to the method. This method, however, relies on the caller property of a method, which the article points out will soon be deprecated. Rather than duplicate the entire post, I believe a summary of the important points are these
Object.defineProperty(bar.prototype, "super", {
get: function get() {
...
// methodName is set as a property on each method in an omitted code segment
methodName = get.caller.methodName;
...
Object.getPrototypeOf(this.prototype)[methodName]
}
}
Which is to say that you find the method with the same name in your prototype's prototype. I was wondering if this can be done in a simpler manner, without having to attach the method name as a parameter and without the Function.caller.
foo.prototype.super = function(method) {
superMethod = Object.getPrototypeOf(this.constructor.prototype)[method];
return superMethod.call(this, Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 1));
}
bar.prototype.func1 = function(){ return this.one + super('func1'); }
I'm making a number of assumptions in the above, I'd like to verify some assumptions.
new bar().constructor.prototype === Object.getPrototypeOf(new bar())
If the above is always true, is one preferable over the other?
The Parent's member function will always live in the child's prototype's prototype (assuming that neither of the prototypes were mutated after object creation)
That Object.getPrototypeOf() is not the "language support for accessing super methods" that the blog refers to as being added in ES6
If Object.getPrototypeOf() isn't that language support, what is?
After seeing the error of using this, which does not change throughout the execution and always refers to the instance of the subclass, I've revisited and am thinking I need something like this
Grandfather = function(){};
Grandfather.prototype.function1 = function(){console.log("I am the Grandfather");};
Father = function(){Grandfather.apply(this);};
Father.prototype = Object.create(Grandfather.prototype);
Father.prototype.function1 = function f(){ f.super(); console.log("I am the Father");};
Father.prototype.function1.super = Grandfather.prototype.function1;
Child = function(){Father.apply(this);}
Child.prototype = Object.create(Father.prototype);
Child.prototype.function1 = function f(){ f.super(); console.log("I am the Child");};
Child.prototype.function1.super = Father.prototype.function1;
c = new Child();
c.function1();
// I am the Grandfather
// I am the Father
// I am the Child
And so the question becomes, how to set the super property on to each function in some automatic way?
One such way to do this is shown below, it has the benefit that functions added to the prototype after objects are instantiated still receive the benefit of being able to call superFunc, whereas an approach that sets a super property at class extension time would not set such a property if functions are added to the prototype later.
The downsides of this approach are that it only works in single threaded environment and that it requires functionality inherited from a common base class. It is not threadsafe since some state is held in a what is effectively a static variable of the function. This is fine for my purposes since browsers still have single threaded JavaScript. The requirement that all classes inherit from some base class containing this method isn't a huge blocker (especially if you do a "bad thing" and insert this into Object's prototype).
Grandfather.prototype.superFunc = function f(funcName){
currentPrototype = Object.getPrototypeOf(f.startingPrototype || Object.getPrototypeOf(this));
f.startingPrototype = currentPrototype;
return currentPrototype[funcName]();
}
Child.prototype.function2 = function(){this.superFunc('function2'); console.log("Still in the Child");};
Father.prototype.function2 = function(){this.superFunc('function2'); console.log("Still in the Father");};
GrandFather.prototype.function2 = function(){console.log("Still in the Grandfather");};
c = new Child();
c.function2();
// Still in the Grandfather
// Still in the Father
// Still in the Child
Question 1
new Bar().constructor.prototype should equal Object.getPrototypeOf(new Bar()), provided you haven't overrided Bar.prototype.constructor or Bar.prototype, or return a different object in the Bar constructor. Here's an example:
function Bar() {}
var foo = new Bar();
foo.constructor.prototype === Object.getPrototypeOf(foo); // true
function Bar2() {}
var foo2 = new Bar2();
Bar2.prototype = {};
foo2.constructor.prototype === Object.getPrototypeOf(foo2); // false
function Bar3() {}
var foo3 = new Bar3();
Bar3.prototype.constructor = function NotBar3() {};
foo3.constructor.prototype === Object.getPrototypeOf(foo3); // false
Question 2
If you're looking to get the actual prototype of an object, use Object.getPrototypeOf, as that's unaffected by any of the changes shown above.
Question 3
No, you will not be able to access Foo from new Bar(). In your example, new Bar() would not inherit from Foo.prototype and as a result, there's no way to access Foo unless you make it inherit from Foo.prototype or assign Foo to a property of new Bar() or Bar.prototype.
Question 4/5
No, that's not what they're referring to. ES6 will introduce a separate class contruct, where super takes on a special meaning (similar to how super works in other languages with classes). Here's an example of how classes work in ES6:
class Foo {
constructor() {
this.one = 1;
}
func1() {
return this.one;
}
}
class Bar extends Foo {
func1() {
return this.one + super();
}
}
When you use super in the way you do it'll break when inheritance is more than 2 levels.
Assuming you'd use it the following way:
//changed super to this.super since super is not shown to exist in global scope
bar.prototype.func1(){ return this.one + this.super('func1'); }
See the following example:
function GrandFather(){
this.i = 0;
};
GrandFather.prototype.test = function(){
console.log('test in GrandFather');
};
function Father(){
GrandFather.call(this);
};
Father.prototype = Object.create(GrandFather.prototype);
Father.prototype.constructor = Father;
Father.prototype.super = GrandFather.prototype;
Father.prototype.test = function(){
console.log('test in Father');
//prevent too many recursions
this.i++;
if(this.i>5){
return;
}
this.super.test.call(this);//because test in child was called
// with Child instance as invoking object this will be Child
// and this.super will be Father.prototype
};
function Child(){
Father.call(this);
}
Child.prototype = Object.create(Father.prototype);
Child.prototype.constructor = Child;
Child.prototype.super = Father.prototype;
Child.prototype.test = function(){
console.log('test in Child');
this.super.test.call(this);//because invoking object is Child
//this.super in Father is Child
};
var c = new Child();
c.test();
It's also common practice to start a constructor function with a capital so it's better to use Foo and Bar for constructor function names.
If you want to go through all the trouble of simulating super in JavaScript then the following way would be slightly more robust: http://ejohn.org/blog/simple-javascript-inheritance/
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
}
}