I'm trying to better understand namespacing in javascript and found an example of a javascript Immediately-invoked Function Expression that is taking the window object as a parameter. Here is the code from it:
var CG = CG || {};
CG.main = (function(window) {
var FOCAL_LENGTH = 8.0;
var context, width, height, startTime;
var init = function() {
var element = document.getElementById("canvas1");
context = element.getContext("2d");
width = element.width;
height = element.height;
startTime = (new Date()).getTime() / 1000.0;
tick();
}
var original_onload = window.onload || function() {};
window.onload = function() {
original_onload();
CG.main.init();
}
return {
init: init,
draw: draw_shape,
clear: clear_canvas
};
}(window));
At the end of the namespace definition, there is a line with window in parenthesis which I am confused as to the functionality of. I think that the purpose of adding the parameter of window to the end of the definition is to bind the global window variable to the namespace which will then add different properties to the window, but I can't really be sure.
In another example there is a random variable name passed into the definition of a namespace, and at the end of the namespace definition, the actual name of the namespace is passed as a parameter:
var namespace = namespace || {};
// here a namespace object is passed as a function
// parameter, where we assign public methods and
// properties to it
(function( o ){
o.foo = "foo";
o.bar = function(){
return "bar";
};
})(namespace);
console.log(namespace);
So there are really a couple of questions here:
What is the functionality of passing a parameter at the end of the namespace definition?
If my intuition for how this all works is incorrect, what is the general structure for this kind of namespace creation javascript?
Clearly I'm very new to this so any help would be appreciated, thanks.
I will try to explain this as well as I can but my understanding of it comes from Kyle Simpson. He's awesome, you should look him up. :-D
You are asking a question about immediately invoked function expressions (IIFE), passing arguments to them, and why someone would do that.
First, the reason IIFEs are being used in this context is to restrict the scope of variables.
This is important because as programs become larger and many pieces are added on you can easily have conflicts from one variable to another.
app.js could have
variable = "thing";
and shortly after somethingelse.js could have
variable = "not thing";
That is a huge problem. It is avoided in javascript by creating "modules" or functions that immediately run and run once.
That way, the variables and methods you create in your function don't "pollute the global scope/namespace."
BUT, what if you NEEDED or WANTED something to be available on the global window object?
Well, you could do that by adding it to the "window" which is the global scope in javascript.
(function Module(window){
var _thing = "private thing that only exists in this function";
window.thing = _thing;
//IS NOW AVAILABLE GLOBALLY AND EXPLICITLY ON WINDOW OBJECT
//window.onload you can wait for DOM/page before running the rest
})(window);
You also could have named it anything you wanted inside your function:
(function niftyModule(global){
global.variable = "nifty text!";
})(window)
This becomes especially important when you are using multiple libraries.
For some reason, everyone likes to use "$" as the representation of their library so you can access their private methods (which are really just functions inside an IIFE too! (its a really popular way to build good stuff).
So, what if you are using jQuery and 2 other libraries that also use $ to access their public methods/api??
Easy, you can assign which one you want to assign what variable inside your function/module scope by passing it in as an argument!
(function NiftyModule(window, $){
//Now, every time you use $ in here it means jQuery and not something else!
})(window, jQuery);
It is important to play around with functions and scope. Build some variables in different ways.
For example, is....
var text = "nifty text";
the same as
text = "nifty text";
How about if you do the same thing inside functions? How do those two versions differ?
Also, get used to building your own programs in IIFEs and properly restricting the scope of the code you are writing.
You can also return objects from functions which have the methods and variables you want to access globally on them without adding them to the window object.
It is complicated at first but in the future it saves you a lot of trouble and bugs!
Finally, In your example of:
//initialize a global variable called namespace. If this already
//existed then assign it the previous values. If not, make it an empty
//object.
var namespace = namespace || {};
//pass namespace into an IIFE. Within the IIFE refer to namespace as "o"
(function( o ){
//assign a variable to namespace
o.foo = "foo";
//assign a method to namespace
o.bar = function(){
return "bar";
};
})(namespace);
//now when you log namespace it will have those properties.
console.log(namespace);
Related
The problem : I want to iterate over my list of functions, and modify them in place, using code like:
for(var funcProperty in scope) {
scope['_'+funcProperty] = scope[funcProperty];
scope[funcProperty] = wrapFunctionInTryCatchBlock(scope['_'+funcProperty]);
}
I want to do this without explicitly having to go through all my functions, and add them to some object, thereby creating the required scope. I don't want to do that because then all the functions, which call each other, will have to have their names modified and lengthened to become:
funcName becomes scopeObject.funcName : annoying.
I could do this quite easily if my functions were in the global object, i.e, Window, however I don't want to pollute the global namespace, so I have put them in a module, like so:
var MyModule = (function() {
function privateFunc1(...) {...}
function privateFunc2(...) {...}
var public_api = {
coolName : privateFunc1
};
return public_api;
}());
However, I can see and find no way to access the scope object that exists in the immediately executed function call the return value of which is assigned to MyModule.
I tried doing this, from within MyModule:
console.log(this)
To see if we did have access to the scope, somehow, yet, of course, it turned out that this referred to Window.
My question is really: What is the scope object that the methods in MyModule private scope are assigned to, since it is not the global object, and it does exist, since all the functions have implicit access to it. Is there any way I as a JavaScript programmer can explicitly access the scope object and enumerate its properties or is that FORBIDDEN?
I'm not going to rush to accept this as the answer, but I have found one possible solution that I am happy with.
Definition of "happy with" in this case is : minimal extra work, almost no changes to existing code.
The solution
We modify the module code like so:
// $ = wrapFunctionInTryCatchBlock
function $(fun) {
return function() {
try {
return fun.apply(this,arguments);
} catch(err) {
console.log("Error",err,err.stack);
}
};
}
var MyModule = (function() {
var privateFun1 = $(privateFun1(...){...});
var privateFun2 = $(privateFun2(...){...});
var public_api = {
coolName : privateFun1
};
return public_api;
}());
Why this works
We get the desired code modification (function wrapping), essentially in place since the variables assigned to function expressions have exactly the same scope as the original named functions themselves.
A VIM regex to help
I also created a VIM regex to help with this, at least the assignment line anyway:
s/function \(\w\+\)\(.\+\)$/var \1 = $(function \1\2/g
If I were to make a new function using the Function constructor, how could I give it a non-temporary scope to access besides window (meaning the scope only has to be evaluated once, not every time the function is called)? The purpose is to construct multiple variables that require some pretty costly calculations, and I don't want to reconstruct them every time the function is called, but I also don't want to store them in window. Any ideas?
You could bind your function to the specific context using bind keyword:
var context = {};
var f = new Function("args", "return this").bind(context);
f(); // context
Since bind is defined in ECMA 5th, it may not be present in all browsers, here's a workaround
For the above described purpose, you use static functions. You cannot prevent scope from being evaluated at every call, because this is the way JavaScript works, but you can speed it up by not having window in the scoping chain.
var namespace = {};
namespace.someMethod = function() {
// do something here.
};
Now anywhere in your code, you can call that method by using namespace.someMethod();. Just be careful. The above is a static method. You can call it without instantiating. But you MUST NOT use this.property inside a static function. It is a potentially very dangerous operation, as it may give an extension access to the global object and basically un-restricted permissions.
And the above is a static JavaScript method. It does not have window in the scoping chain.
Here's how to create a constructor using the same pattern. When you want to use a constructor, you always instantiate before using. For that you have the new keyword.
var namespace = {};
namespace.coordinate = function(x, y) {
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
};
namespace.coordinate.prototype.addCoordinates = function() {
return this.x + this.y;
};
Now anywhere in your code you can do:
var coordinateObject = new namespace.coordinate(5,10);
// you have created a new instance.
alert(coordinateObject.addCoordinates());// will alert 15;
// now you can make as many as you want. They will behave as instances.
// This means they do not interfere with each other in any way.
// They just have the same properties and methods, but the instance values
// Can be entirely different.
var secondCoordinateObject = new namespace.coordinate(10, 25);
alert(secondCoordinateObject.addCoordinates());// will output 35.
You have successufully created an instance of your namespace.coordinate class. Using the pattern I gave you, you can replicate almost the entire functionality of Java or C or any other Object Oriented language.
var yourNamespace = {
func1: function() {
},
func2: function() {
}
};
...
yourNamespace.func1();
you can call the function that you want by calling the function from name space like this yourNamespace.func1();
The ever-growing method of creating, storing, hiding, revealing, and grouping variables & functions is through the magic of "closures", Javascript's most powerful and yet unsung feature:
var groupObj = (function (setUp) {
// maintained by reference, hidden
var _priVar = setUp * 2;
// maintained by reference, revealed (through returned object)
var _pubVar = 8;
var _pubFunc = function (x) {
_priVar += x;
_pubVar += x;
}
var lostVar = setUp * 99; // not referenced, hidden, so evaporates!
return {
'pubVar' : _pubVar,
'pubFunc' : _pubFunc
}
}(4)); // runs immediately with 4 as setUp, revealing pubVar & pubFunc
Then...
groupObj.pubFunc(7); // runs public function, adds 7 to both variables
alert('public variable: ' + groupObj.pubVar); // alerts public variable
A closure occurs whenever there is a function inside of another function. A variable inside of the outter function will be maintained so long as it is referenced by the inner function, kind of a "no-mans land" where a variable is forced to exist by a reference to it from a lower scope, but is hidden from the higher scope due to the innate principles of Javascript.
There are a few other ways to use closures, replacing the object constructor, one-off conflict-free private functions, and more. There are many posts here about them.
We have a lot of setup JS code that defines panels, buttons, etc that will be used in many other JS files.
Typically, we do something like:
grid.js
var myGrid = .....
combos.js
var myCombo = .....
Then, in our application code, we:
application.js
function blah() {
myGrid.someMethod()
}
someother.js
function foo() {
myCombo.someMethod();
myGrid.someMethod();
}
So, should we be using the var myGrid or is better to use window.myGrid
What's the difference?
A potentially important difference in functionality is that window.myGrid can be deleted, and var myGrid can not.
var test1 = 'value';
window.test2 = 'value';
console.log( delete window.test1 ); // false ( was not deleted )
console.log( delete window.test2 ); // true ( was deleted )
console.log( test1 ); // 'value' ( still accessible )
console.log( test2 ); // ReferenceError ( no longer exists )
I would suggest creating a namespace variable var App = {};
App.myGrid = ...
That way you can limit the pollution of the global namespace.
EDIT: Regarding the number of variables issue - 2 possible solutions come to mind:
You can further namespace them by type(Grids, Buttons, etc) or by relationship(ClientInfoSection, AddressSection, etc)
You encapsulate your methods in objects that get instantiated with the components you have
ex: you have
function foo() {
myCombo.someMethod();
myGrid.someMethod();
}
becomes:
var Foo = function(combo, grid) {
var myCombo = combo;//will be a private property
this.myGrid = grid;//will be a public property
this.foo = function() {//public method
myCombo.someMethod();
myGrid.someMethod();
}
}
App.myFoo = new Foo(someCombo, someGrid);
App.myFoo.foo();
this way you limit the amount of little objects and only expose what you need (namely the foo function)
PS: if you need to expose the internal components then add them to this inside the constructor function
One nice use of window.variable is that you can check it without having a javascript error. For example, if you have:
if (myVar) {
//do work
}
and myVar is not defined anywhere on the page, you will get a javascript error. However:
if (window.myVar) {
//do work
}
gives no error, and works as one would expect.
var myVar = 'test' and window.myVar = 'test' are roughly equivalent.
Aside from that, as other said, you should descend from one global object to avoid polluting the global namespace.
In global scope the two are in fact equivalent functionality-wise. In function scope, var is certainly preferable when the behaviour of closures is desired.
I would just use var all of the time: firstly, it's consistent with the usually preferred behaviour in closures (so it's easier to move your code into a closure if you decide to do so later), and secondly, it just feels more semantic to me to say that I'm creating a variable than attaching a property of the window. But it's mostly style at this point.
The general answer to the question would be to use var.
More specifically, always put your code in an Immediately Invoked Function Expression (IIFE):
(function(){
var foo,
bar;
...code...
})();
This keeps variables like foo and bar from polluting the global namespace. Then, when you explicitly want a variable to be on the global object (typically window) you can write:
window.foo = foo;
JavaScript has functional scope, and it's really good to take full advantage of it. You wouldn't want your app to break just because some other programmer did something silly like overwrote your timer handle.
In addition to other answers, worth noting is that if you don't use var inside a function while declaring a variable, it leaks into global scope automatically making it a property of window object (or global scope).
To expand on what Liviu said, use:
App = (function() {
var exports = {};
/* code goes here, attach to exports to create Public API */
return exports;
})();
By doing that you can hide some of your implementation specific code, which you may not want exposed by using var's inside. However, you can access anything attached to the exports object.
This question already has answers here:
Why use the javascript function wrapper (added in coffeescript) ".call(this)"
(2 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
While reviewing the source code for CoffeeScript on Github, I noticed that most, if not all, of the modules are defined as follows:
(function() {
...
}).call(this);
This pattern looks like it wraps the entire module in an anonymous function and calls itself.
What are the pros (and cons) of this approach? Are there other ways to accomplish the same goals?
Harmen's answer is quite good, but let me elaborate a bit on where this is done by the CoffeeScript compiler and why.
When you compile something with coffee -c foo.coffee, you will always get a foo.js that looks like this:
(function() {
...
}).call(this);
Why is that? Well, suppose you put an assignment like
x = 'stringy string'
in foo.coffee. When it sees that, the compiler asks: Does x already exist in this scope, or an outer scope? If not, it puts a var x declaration at the top of that scope in the JavaScript output.
Now suppose you write
x = 42
in bar.coffee, compile both, and concatenate foo.js with bar.js for deployment. You'll get
(function() {
var x;
x = 'stringy string';
...
}).call(this);
(function() {
var x;
x = 42;
...
}).call(this);
So the x in foo.coffee and the x in bar.coffee are totally isolated from one another. This is an important part of CoffeeScript: Variables never leak from one .coffee file to another unless explicitly exported (by being attached to a shared global, or to exports in Node.js).
You can override this by using the -b ("bare") flag to coffee, but this should only be used in very special cases. If you used it with the above example, the output you'd get would be
var x;
x = 'stringy string';
...
var x;
x = 42;
...
This could have dire consequences. To test this yourself, try adding setTimeout (-> alert x), 1 in foo.coffee. And note that you don't have to concatenate the two JS files yourself—if you use two separate <script> tags to include them on a page, they still effectively run as one file.
By isolating the scopes of different modules, the CoffeeScript compiler saves you from the headache of worrying whether different files in your project might use the same local variable names. This is common practice in the JavaScript world (see, for instance, the jQuery source, or just about any jQuery plugin)—CoffeeScript just takes care of it for you.
The good thing about this approach is that it creates private variables, so there won't be any conflict with variable names:
(function() {
var privateVar = 'test';
alert(privateVar); // test
})();
alert(typeof privateVar); // undefined
The addition of .call(this) makes the this keyword refer to the same value as it referred to outside the function. If it is not added, the this keyword will automatically refer to the global object.
A small example to show the difference follows:
function coffee(){
this.val = 'test';
this.module = (function(){
return this.val;
}).call(this);
}
var instance = new coffee();
alert(instance.module); // test
function coffee(){
this.val = 'test';
this.module = (function(){
return this.val;
})();
}
var instance = new coffee();
alert(typeof instance.module); // undefined
This is similar syntax to this:
(function() {
}());
which is called an immediate function. the function is defined and executed immediately. the pros to this is that you can place all of your code inside this block, and assign the function to a single global variable, thus reducing global namespace pollution. it provides a nice contained scope within the function.
This is the typical pattern i use when writing a module:
var MY_MODULE = (function() {
//local variables
var variable1,
variable2,
_self = {},
etc
// public API
_self = {
someMethod: function () {
}
}
return _self;
}());
not sure what the cons might be exactly, if someone else knows of any i would be happy to learn about them.
Looking at some JavaScript libraries and other people's code I've seen two common patterns, I don't know if there is a difference or advantage in using one of them. The patterns look sort of like this:
1.
var app = (function () {
// Private vars
// Module
var obj = {
prop: "",
method: function () {}
};
return obj;
})();
2.
(function () {
// Private vars
// Module
var obj = {
prop: "",
method: function () {}
};
window.app = obj;
})();
Are this patterns the same or do one of them has an advantage or different use than the other?
Thanks in advance.
The second assumes the existence of an object called window in the parent scope and assigns a property there.
The first one leaves it up to the caller to make the assignment, and does not depend on a window being defined (which it probably is only inside of a web browser).
So, I'd say the first one is definitely better (more self-contained, less environment-dependent).
tl;dr: pick one method and be consistent.
In my opinion, the first method has a slight advantage for readability. In my head, when I read it, I see that, "module app is being defined," and that everything inside of this closure belongs to that module. This is a natural decomposition for me and imposes the object oriented nature of the module about to be defined.
Another reason I favor the first method is that it is cleaner to change the scope into which a module is defined. Every module you define wont need to be part of the global scope. Using the second method, if the scope isn't injected by passing in a parent object as Jared Farrish illustrates with his jQuery example, then you run the risk of breaking your code if you decide to change the name of that parent object. This example illustrates the point:
var namespace = {
subns: { ... }
};
(function() {
var module = { ... };
namespace.subns.someModule = module;
}());
Anytime the identifiers namespace or subns change, you also have to update this module and any other module that follows this pattern and adds itself to the same object.
All in all, neither method one nor method two (with dependency inject) is "better" than the other, it is simply a matter of preference. The only benefit that can come from this discussion is that you should pick one method and be consistent.
They are both accomplishing the same thing, to create an object in the global namespace at the time the code is run.
One isn't more "hardcoded" than the other, since neither is doing any kind of function prototyping in which you could create clones of the object with the new keyword. It's just a matter of preference, in my opinion.
For instance, jquery does something akin to the latter:
(function( window, undefined ) {
// Use the correct document accordingly with window argument (sandbox)
var document = window.document;
var jQuery = (function() {
// Define a local copy of jQuery
var jQuery = function( selector, context ) {
// The jQuery object is actually just the init constructor 'enhanced'
return new jQuery.fn.init( selector, context, rootjQuery );
},
// Map over jQuery in case of overwrite
_jQuery = window.jQuery,
// Map over the $ in case of overwrite
_$ = window.$,
...
But Prototype JS Library does the former:
var Prototype = {
Version: '1.6.1',
Browser: (function(){
var ua = navigator.userAgent;
var isOpera = Object.prototype.toString.call(window.opera) == '[object Opera]';
return {
IE: !!window.attachEvent && !isOpera,
Opera: isOpera,
WebKit: ua.indexOf('AppleWebKit/') > -1,
Gecko: ua.indexOf('Gecko') > -1 && ua.indexOf('KHTML') === -1,
MobileSafari: /Apple.*Mobile.*Safari/.test(ua)
}
})(),
...
I don't know of any reason why one is better than the other, or that they accomplish their task differently (to create the app object in the window namespace).
In the first example, if app defined within another function, app will only be available in that local scope, whereas in the second example the app variable is explicitly assigned to the global scope.
In the second example, the app will only be assigned to the global scope if defined in the global scope outside of functions.
The second form has a slight advantage in that you have a completely self contained function; for example you could then have a standard header and footer for your JS files.
The part I'm not completely sold on is the local variable inside the block. I tend to prefer this:
(function () {
// Private vars
// Module
window.app = {
prop: "",
method: function () {}
};
})();
although that breaks down a bit when you're doing more than one thing, such as building up an object with multiple methods rather than a single object as in this example.