Develop Reference

Javascript code organization data driven application

I'm currently working on the front-end of a medium/large-scale data-driven Asp.net MVC application and I have some doubts about the right code-organization/design pattern to follow.
The web application is made by multiple pages containing many Kendo UI MVC widgets defined with Razor template.
For those who are unfamiliar with Kendo, the razor syntax is translated to Javascript as the following snippet:
I defined inside my Script folder two main folders, and I structured my js files as follow:
shared //Contains the shared js files
-file1.js
-file2.js
pages //One file per page
page1.js
page2.js
...
Ticket.js // page 4 :)
Each js file is a separate module defined with the following pattern:
Note: Inside init function is registered every callback function to the window events and occasionally a $(document).ready(function(){}) block.
;(function () {
"use strict";
function Ticket(settings) {
this.currentPageUrls = settings.currentPageUrls;
this.currentPageMessages = settings.currentPageMessages;
this.currentPageEnums = settings.currentPageEnums;
this.currentPageParameters = settings.currentPageParameters;
this.gridManager = new window.gridManager(); //usage of shared modules
this.init();
}
Ticket.prototype.init = function () {
$("form").on("submit", function () {
$(".window-content-sandbox").addClass("k-loading");
});
...
}
Ticket.prototype.onRequestStart = function (e) {
...
}
//private functions definition
function private(a, b, c){
}
window.Ticket = Ticket;
}());
Once I need my Javascript functions defined in a module I include the associated Javascript file in the page.
An istance of my object is stored inside a variable and, on top of that, a function is bound to the widget event (see: onRequestStart).
HTML/JAVASCRIPT
#(Html.Kendo().DropDownList()
.Name("Users")
.DataValueField("Id")
.DataTextField("Username")
.DataSource(d => d.Read(r => r.Action("UsersAsJson", "User"))
.Events(e => e.RequestStart("onRequestStart"))))
var settings = {};
var ticket = new window.Ticket(settings);
function onRequestStart(e){
ticket.onRequestStart(e);
}
I feel like my design pattern might be unfriendly to other front-end delevoper as I am, mostly because I choose not to implement the Javascript modules within Jquery plugin.
First, Am I doing everything the wrong way?
Second, is my design pattern suitable for a Javascript test-framework?
Third, which are the must-have scenarios for Jquery plugins?
Update
Added the Javascript output by the above Razor syntax.

Folder structure
In terms of functionality (shared) and modules (modular approach), the development or application code should represent what you can encounter in HTML. A simple ctrl+f over your solution should yield all possible changes. From that experience over the years I personally prefer dividing it in:
app (application code)
classes (reusable)
modules (singleton)
lib (package manager/grunt/gulp/...)
jquery (proper library names/unminified dist file or root file)
kendo
File names
Representing what something does and to be able to reuse it in a blink of an eye is what will cut your development time. Choosing proper names has value as I'm sure you are aware. My file names always starts with the namespace usually in short followed by a reusable "search" term:
app/prototypes
ns.calendar.js (multiple configs)
ns.maps.js (combinations or single uses)
ns.places.js (forms or map add-ons)
ns.validation.js (multiple forms and general handling)
app/singletons
ns.cookiebox.js (single config)
ns.socialmedia.js (single config)
ns.dom.js (provides a place for dom corrections, global resize events, small widgets, ...)
To add, what you called shared, is functionality that's meant to be global. A great example would be to use underscore library. Or create a collection of functions (device detection, throttle, helpers in general) on your own to reuse throughout projects => ns.fn.js
Since you add them only once throughout your namespace, it's also built as singleton and can be added to the modules folder or directly in the app root.
As last addition a loader file to kickstart your point of control => ns.load.js in the app root. This file holds the single DOM ready event to bind protoypes and modules.
So you might want to rethink your idea of dividing into pages. Trust me, I've been there. At some point you'll notice how functionality grows too large in order to configure all pages separately and therefor repeatedly.
File structure
To be honest I like Tip 1 of #TxRegex answer the most, with a small addition to bind the namespace and pass it from file to file as it get's loaded.
Core principle: IIFE bound to window object
window.NameSpace = (function($, ns){
'strict'
function private(){}
var x;
ns.SearchTerm = {};
return ns;
}(window.jQuery, window.NameSpace || {}));
For more example code I'd like to point out my github account.
Bundling
Try to achieve a single bundled and minified file from lib to app, loaded in the head on async for production releases. Use separated and unminified script files on defer for development and debug purposes. You must avoid inline script with global dependencies throughout the whole project if you do this.
path to js/lib/**/*.js (usually separated to keep sequential order)
path to js/app/ns.load.js
path to js/app/ns.fn.js
path to js/app/**/*.js (auto update the bundle)
Output => ns.bundle.js
=> ns.bundle.min.js
This way you'll avoid render blocking issues in JavaScript and speed up the loading process which in turn boosts SEO. Also enables you to combine functionality for mobile layouts and desktop layouts on the fly without memory issues or jerky behavior. Minifies really well and generates little overhead in calling instances from the loader file. As a single bundle will be cached throughout your pages it all depends on how many dependencies or libraries you can cut from the bundle. Ideally for medium and large projects where code can be shared and plugged in to different projects.
More info on this in another post.
Conclusion
First, Am I doing everything the wrong way?
Not at all, your modular approach seems ok...
It's missing a global namespace, which is hard to avoid without at least one. You create one for each module but it seems better to group them all under one namespace so you can differentiate library code from application code in the window object.
Kendo seems to create inline scripts? Can't you counter the placement server side?
Second, is my design pattern suitable for a Javascript test-framework?
Except for the Kendo instances, you can add a layer for testing purposes. Remember if jQuery is your dependency inline, you'll have to render block it's loading. Otherwise => jQuery is undefined
Exclude Kendo dependencies from the bundle if you can't control the inline script. Move to a </body> bundled solution.
Third, which are the must-have scenarios for Jquery plugins?
modular approach
configurable approach for multiple instances (tip: moving all strings from your logic, see how Kendo uses object literals)
package manager to separate the "junk" from the "gold"
grunt/gulp/... setup to separate scss and css from js
try to achieve a data-attribute binding, so once all is written, you configure new instances through HTML.
Write once, adapt easily where necessary and configure plenty!

The organization and pattern seems fine, but I have some tips:
Tip 1:
Instead of setting specific global variables within your module, perhaps you could return the object instead. So instead of doing this:
;(function () {
"use strict";
function Ticket(settings) {
console.log("ticket created", settings);
}
...
window.Ticket = Ticket;
}());
You would do this:
;window.Ticket = (function () {
"use strict";
function Ticket(settings) {
console.log("ticket created", settings);
}
...
return Ticket;
}());
The reason for this is to be able to take your module code and give it a different global variable name if needed. If there is a name conflict, you can rename it to MyTicket or whatever without actually changing the module's internal code.
Tip 2:
Forget Tip 1, global variables stink. Instead of creating a seperate global variable for each object type, why not create an object manager and use a single global variable to manage all your objects:
window.myCompany = (function () {
function ObjectManager(modules) {
this.modules = modules || {};
}
ObjectManager.prototype.getInstance = function(type, settings) {
if (!type || !this.modules.hasOwnProperty(type)) {
throw "Unrecognized object type:";
}
return new this.modules[type](settings);
};
ObjectManager.prototype.addObjectType = function(type, object) {
if (!type) {
throw "Type is required";
}
if(!object) {
throw "Object is required";
}
this.modules[type] = object;
};
return new ObjectManager();
}());
Now each of your modules can be managed with this single global object that has your company name attached to it.
;(function () {
"use strict";
function Ticket(settings) {
console.log("ticket created", settings);
}
...
window.myCompany.addObjectType("Ticket", Ticket);
}());
Now you can easily get an instance for every single object type like this:
var settings = {test: true};
var ticket = window.myCompany.getInstance("Ticket", settings);
And you only have one global variable to worry about.

You can try separating your files in different components asuming each component has a folder.
for example: page 1 is about rectangles so you make a folder call rectangle inside that folder you create 3 files rectangle.component.html, rectangle.component.css, rectangle.component.js (optional rectangle.spec.js for testing).
app
└───rectangle
rectangle.component.css
rectangle.component.html
rectangle.component.js
so if anything bad happends to a rectangle you know where is the problem
a good way to isolate variables and execute in the right place is to use a router basically what this does it check at the url and executes the portion of code you asign to that page
hope it helps let me know if you need more help.

how should I write my define to work with curl.js?

I'm reading Addy Osmani's excellent blog post about writing AMD modules. I start with a simple chunk of js that I lifted from his post:
define('modTest', [],
// module definition function
function () {
// return a value that defines the module export
// (i.e the functionality we want to expose for consumption)
// create your module here
var myModule = {
doStuff:function(){
console.log('Yay! Stuff');
}
}
return myModule;
}
);
I took out the dependencies on foo and bar. Just want a simple object that logs to the console.
So I save that in /js/modTest.js and then try to load it:
curl(['/js/modTest.js'])
.then(function(mt) {
console.log("Load complete");
console.log("mt:");
console.log(mt);
mt.doStuff()
}, function(ex) {alert(ex.message);})
Result: error: Multiple anonymous defines in URL. OK that didn't work. Tried adding in a namespace: define('myCompany/modTest', [],, same result. Tried adding an empty string in the dependency array, same result.
Also tried curl(['modTest.js'], function(dep){console.log(dep)}); with the same result.
Is the code in Addy's blog post incorrect? Am I doing something wrong? Maybe a bug in curl?
Update 5/24: I ditched curl.js in favor of require.js. Zero odd errors, very little work to change over. I did have to deal with amdefine a bit to get my code running client and server side (one object is in both places, so grunt had to be configured to take care of that). My defines generally look like:
define(->
class AlphaBravo
...
And never have any trouble loading.

You asked curl() to fetch a module called "/js/modTest.js". It found the file and loaded it and found a module named "modTest", so it complained. :) (That error message is horribly wrong, though!)
Here's how you can fix it (pick one):
1) Remove the ID from your define(). The ID is not recommended. It's typically only used by AMD build tools and when declaring modules inside test harnesses.
2) Refer to the module by the ID you gave it in the define(). (Again, the ID is not recommended in most cases.)
curl(['modTest'], doSomething);
3) Map a package (or a path) to the folder with your application's modules. It's not clear to me what that would be from your example since modTest appears to be a stand-alone module. However, if you were to decide to organize your app's files under an "app" package, you packages config might look like this:
packages: [ { name: 'app', location: 'app' } ]
Then, when you have code that relies on the modTest module, you can get to it via an ID of "app/modTest".
curl(['app/modTest'], doSomething);
I hope that helps clear things up!
Fwiw, Addy's example could actually work with the right configuration, but I don't see any configuration in that post (or my eyes missed it). Something like this might work:
packages: [ { name: 'app', location: '.' } ]
-- John

I've just had a similar problem which turned out to be the include order I was using for my other libraries. I'm loading handlebars.js, crossroads.js, jquery and a few other libraries into my project in the traditional way (script tags in head) and found that when I place the curl.js include first, I get this error, but when I include it last, I do not get this error.
My head tag now looks like this:
<script type="text/javascript" src="/js/lib/jquery.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/js/lib/signals.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/js/lib/crossroads.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/js/lib/handlebars.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/js/lib/curl.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/js/main.js"></script>

You have a problem with your define call. It is NAMED
See AMD spec for full story on how to write defines, but here is what I would expect to see in your js/modTest.js file:
define(/* this is where the difference is */ function () {
// return a value that defines the module export
// (i.e the functionality we want to expose for consumption)
// create your module here
var myModule = {
doStuff:function(){
console.log('Yay! Stuff');
}
}
return myModule;
}
);
Now, the boring explanation:
CurlJS is awesome. In fact, after dealing with both, RequireJS and CurlJS, I would say CurlJS is awesome-er than RequireJS in one category - reliability of script execution ordering. So you are on the right track.
On of the major things that are different about CurlJS is that it uses "find at least one anonymous define per loaded module, else it's error" logic. RequireJS uses a timeout, where it effectively ignores cases where nothing was defined in a given file, but blows up on caught loading / parsing errors.
That difference is what is getting you here. CurlJS expects at least one anonymous (as in NOT-named) define per loaded module. It still handles named defines fine, as expected. The second you move the contents of "js/modTest.js" into inline code, you will have to "name" the define. But, that's another story.

Redefining a RequireJS module -- is it possible?

Basically, there is a page that I visit that uses RequireJS. I want to make adjustments to this page, so I went the route of a userscript. While looking at the client-side code I see that there is a module defined as so:
define("settings", [], function() {
return {
SETTINGA: "100",
SETTINGB: "200",
etc.
}
})
I want to add my own item to the settings array, as well as change some settings without having to redefine the module in my userscript (with the changes) and then removing/readding it. Is it possible to just make adjustments to this module?
P.S. I'm using the Script Injection technique to get my userscript to interact with other javascript in the original page.
Also, doing require("settings") in the Javascript console returns an object (not an array), so I can't do things like require("settings")[0] or require("settings").push(...), however I can access the settings by doing require("settings").SETTINGA. So, I'm not sure how to add/redefine settings to this since it is not an array?

Use this:
require('settings').new_property = 'new value';

The reason you can't retrieve or add settings to "the settings array" is that you aren't creating an array to begin with. {foo:bar} is an object literal, not an array literal ([foo,bar]).

How can I combine my JavaScript files and still have my callbacks wait for a ready state?

I have lots of functions and event handlers that are split across multiple javascript files which are included on different pages throughout my site.
For performance reasons I want to combine all of those files into 1 file that is global across the site.
The problem is I will have event handlers called on elements that won't necessarily exist and same function names.
This is an example of a typical javascript file...
$(document).ready(function(){
$('#blah').keypress(function(e){
if (e.which == 13) {
checkMap();
return false;
}
});
});
function checkMap() {
// code
}
function loadMap() {
// code
}
I would need to seperate this code into an object that is called on that specific page.
My thoughts are I could re-write it like this:
(function($) {
$.homepage = {
checkMap: function(){
// code
},
loadMap: function(){
//code
}
};
})(jQuery);
And then on the page that requires it I could call $.homepage.checkMap() etc.
But then how would I declare event handlers like document.ready without containing it in it's own function?

First of all: Depending on how much code you have, you should consider, if serving all your code in one file is really a good idea. It's okay to save http-requests, but if you load a huge chunk of code, from which you use 5% on a single page, you might be better of by keeping those js files separated (especially in mobile environments!).
Remember, you can let the browser cache those files. Depending on how frequent your code changes, and how much of the source changes, you might want to separate your code into stable core-functionality and additional .js packages for special purposes. This way you might be better off traffic- and maintainance-wise.
Encapsulating your functions into different objects is a good idea to prevent unnecessary function-hoisting and global namespace pollution.
Finally you can prevent calling needless event handlers by either:
Introducing some kind of pagetype which helps you decide calling only the necessary functions.
or
checking for the existence of certain elements like this if( $("specialelement").length > 0 ){ callhandlers}
to speed up your JS, you could use the Google Closure Compiler. It minifies and optimizes your code.

I think that all you need is a namespace for you application. A namespace is a simple JSON object that could look like this:
var myApp = {
homepage : {
showHeader : function(){},
hideHeader : function(){},
animationDelay : 3400,
start : function(){} // the function that start the entire homepage logic
},
about : {
....
}
}
You can split it in more files:
MyApp will contain the myApp = { } object, maybe with some useful utilities like object.create or what have you.
Homepage.js will contain myApp.homepage = { ... } with all the methods of your homepage page.
The list goes on and on with the rest of the pages.
Think of it as packages. You don't need to use $ as the main object.
<script src="myapp.js"></script>
<script src="homepage.js"></script>
<-....->
<script>
myApp.homepage.start();
</script>
Would be the way I would use the homepage object.
When compressing with YUI, you should have:
<script src="scripts.min.js"></script>
<script>
myApp.homepage.start();
</script>

Just to make sure I've understood you correctly, you have one js file with all your code, but you want to still be in control of what is executed on a certain page?
If that is the case, then the Terrific JS framework could interest you. It allows you to apply javascript functionality to a module. A module is a component on your webpage, like the navigation, header, a currency converter. Terrific JS scans the dom and executes the js for the modules it finds so you don't have to worry about execution. Terrific JS requires OOCSS naming conventions to identify modules. It's no quick solution to your problem but it will help if you're willing to take the time. Here are some more links you may find useful:
Hello World Example:
http://jsfiddle.net/brunschgi/uzjSM/
Blogpost on using:
http://thomas.junghans.co.za/blog/2011/10/14/using-terrificjs-in-your-website/

I would use something like YUI compressor to merge all files into one min.js file that is minified. If you are looking for performance both merging and minifiying is the way to go. http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/compressor/
Example:
Javascript input files: jquery.js, ads.js support.js
run yui with jquery.js, ads.js, support.js output it into min.js
Javascript output files: min.js
then use min.js in your html code.

How to isolate different javascript libraries on the same page?

Suppose we need to embed a widget in third party page. This widget might use jquery for instance so widget carries a jquery library with itself.
Suppose third party page also uses jquery but a different version.
How to prevent clash between them when embedding widgets? jquery.noConflict is not an option because it's required to call this method for the first jquery library which is loaded in the page and this means that third party website should call it. The idea is that third party site should not amend or do anything aside putting tag with a src to the widget in order to use it.
Also this is not the problem with jquery in particular - google closure library (even compiled) might be taken as an example.
What solutions are exist to isolate different javascript libraries aside from obvious iframe?
Maybe loading javascript as string and then eval (by using Function('code to eval'), not the eval('code to eval')) it in anonymous function might do the trick?

Actually, I think jQuery.noConflict is precisely what you want to use. If I understand its implementation correctly, your code should look like this:
(function () {
var my$;
// your copy of the minified jQuery source
my$ = jQuery.noConflict(true);
// your widget code, which should use my$ instead of $
}());
The call to noConflict will restore the global jQuery and $ objects to their former values.

Function(...) makes an eval inside your function, it isn't any better.
Why not use the iframe they provide a default sandboxing for third party content.
And for friendly ones you can share text data, between them and your page, using parent.postMessage for modern browser or the window.name hack for the olders.

I built a library to solve this very problem. I am not sure if it will help you of course, because the code still has to be aware of the problem and use the library in the first place, so it will help only if you are able to change your code to use the library.
The library in question is called Packages JS and can be downloaded and used for free as it is Open Source under a Creative Commons license.
It basically works by packaging code inside functions. From those functions you export those objects you want to expose to other packages. In the consumer packages you import these objects into your local namespace. It doesn't matter if someone else or indeed even you yourself use the same name multiple times because you can resolve the ambiguity.
Here is an example:
(file example/greeting.js)
Package("example.greeting", function() {
// Create a function hello...
function hello() {
return "Hello world!";
};
// ...then export it for use by other packages
Export(hello);
// You need to supply a name for anonymous functions...
Export("goodbye", function() {
return "Goodbye cruel world!";
});
});
(file example/ambiguity.js)
Package("example.ambiguity", function() {
// functions hello and goodbye are also in example.greeting, making it ambiguous which
// one is intended when using the unqualified name.
function hello() {
return "Hello ambiguity!";
};
function goodbye() {
return "Goodbye ambiguity!";
};
// export for use by other packages
Export(hello);
Export(goodbye);
});
(file example/ambiguitytest.js)
Package("example.ambiguitytest", ["example.ambiguity", "example.greeting"], function(hello, log) {
// Which hello did we get? The one from example.ambiguity or from example.greeting?
log().info(hello());
// We will get the first one found, so the one from example.ambiguity in this case.
// Use fully qualified names to resolve any ambiguities.
var goodbye1 = Import("example.greeting.goodbye");
var goodbye2 = Import("example.ambiguity.goodbye");
log().info(goodbye1());
log().info(goodbye2());
});
example/ambiguitytest.js uses two libraries that both export a function goodbye, but it can explicitly import the correct ones and assign them to local aliases to disambiguate between them.
To use jQuery in this way would mean 'packaging' jQuery by wrapping it's code in a call to Package and Exporting the objects that it now exposes to the global scope. It means changing the library a bit which may not be what you want but alas there is no way around that that I can see without resorting to iframes.
I am planning on including 'packaged' versions of popular libraries along in the download and jQuery is definitely on the list, but at the moment I only have a packaged version of Sizzle, jQuery's selector engine.

Instead of looking for methods like no conflict, you can very well call full URL of the Google API on jQuery so that it can work in the application.

<script src="myjquery.min.js"></script>
<script>window.myjQuery = window.jQuery.noConflict();</script>
...
<script src='...'></script> //another widget using an old versioned jquery
<script>
(function($){
//...
//now you can access your own jquery here, without conflict
})(window.myjQuery);
delete window.myjQuery;
</script>
Most important points:
call jQuery.noConflict() method IMMEDIATELY AFTER your own jquery and related plugins tags
store the result jquery to a global variable, with a name that has little chance to conflict or confuse
load your widget using the old versioned jquery;
followed up is your logic codes. using a closure to obtain a private $ for convience. The private $ will not conflict with other jquerys.
You'd better not forget to delete the global temp var.