I am working with Javascript and Appdescriptors in JSON format.
What I want to do is creating a instance of a Class, where the classname is saved as string in oModelConf[sModelName].type. If that is not the case I want to take "sap.ui.model.odata.ODataModel"
Related Question offers this solution:
function instantiate(className, args) {
var o, f, c;
c = window[className]; // get reference to class constructor function
f = function(){}; // dummy function
f.prototype = c.prototype; // reference same prototype
o = new f(); // instantiate dummy function to copy prototype properties
c.apply(o, args); // call class constructor, supplying new object as context
o.constructor = c; // assign correct constructor (not f)
return o;
}
This is not a very good solution I think.
EDIT It does not work for me because my class is not defined on window, so window[className] is undefined. I do not know where my function is defined in SAPUI5
A second Solution:
eval(`a = new ${oModelConf[sModelName].type || "sap.ui.model.odata.ODataModel"}(sServiceUrl, true);`);
This is not a better solution because we should not use eval().
Are there any better solutions?
EDIT2
Because of the url in pimskies answer I found an other solution:
Since window.sap.ui.model.odata.ODataModel is the same as sap.ui.model.odata.ODataModel and window.sap is the same as window[sap]
I could take my string, and replace all . with ][, put the right brackets to front and end.
I will not code that because it is not a going solution.(I should not have coded the evalthing too...)
You could use jQuery.sap.getObject to access the class:
var ModelClass = jQuery.sap.getObject(oModelConf[sModelName].type || "sap.ui.model.odata.ODataModel");
var model = new ModelClass();
Edit: An other way (which i would recommend if you use AMD)
If you are using the modern AMD modules and you don't know if the module containing your class has already been loaded, you should use sap.ui.require() to load the module asynchronously. It requires the module to be specified via its unified resource name (the conversion is probably the most ugly part):
var className = oModelConf[sModelName].type || "sap.ui.model.odata.ODataModel";
var urn = className.replace(".", "/"); //Convert to unified resource name
sap.ui.require([urn],function(ModelClass){
//This function is called when the module is available
var model = new ModelClass();
...
});
Maybe map the string to a class?
function Foo() {
console.log('new foo');
}
function Bar() {
console.log('new bar');
}
var objects = {
'foo': Foo,
'bar': Bar
};
var cls = objects.foo || Bar;
new cls();
https://jsfiddle.net/ckd56d9v/1/
Or take a look at this answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/9804142/5930258
What not combine the two? Since window[className] is failing, replace it with
oModelConf[className].type || sap.ui.model.odata.ODataModel...
function instantiate(className, args) {
var o, f, c;
c = oModelConf[className] || sap.ui.model.odata.ODataModel;
f = function(){}; // dummy function
f.prototype = c.prototype; // reference same prototype
o = new f(); // instantiate dummy function to copy prototype properties
c.apply(o, args); // call class constructor, supplying new object as context
o.constructor = c; // assign correct constructor (not f)
return o;
}
Is it possible to get notification from within JavaScript when calling an object's methods?
Example:
o.foo(arg1);
function o_ongenericcall(name, arguements)
{
switch (name)
{
case "foo":
// Do something
break;
}
}
In the above example, o is the object and I would like o_ongenericcall to be raised when any method is trying to be invoked.
You could create a kind of proxy on the object's function calls.
// create a copy of the original function
o.foo_ = o.foo;
// replace the original function with a wrapper that calls the notification
o.foo = function() {
console.log("notify: foo(" + arguments[0] ")");
o_ongenericcall("foo", arguments);
this.foo_.apply(this, arguments);
}
o.foo("testing");
notify: foo(testing)
Note that you could set this up by looping through the object's properties:
for (var member in o) {
if (typeof o[member]=="function") {
console.log(member);
applyNotificationProxy(o, member);
}
}
DEMO
I don't think it can be done natively.
You probably want to implement the Observer Pattern.
This will probably not help you much, but what you need is a Proxy. This is a fairly new and unstable API in Javascript, not yet part of any standard, and is not really supported by any browser. V8 supports proxies, but does not expose that functionality to Chrome; you can however enable them in Node.js by executing it with a --harmony-proxies parameter.
No, this is only possible if you called o_ongenericcall from the foo method.
However, you can easily decorate all methods on an object with that invocation:
function decorated(obj) {
var res = {}; // you might also use obj itself if you don't want to create a new one
for (var p in obj)
if (typeof obj[p] == "function")
(function(orig, p) {
res[p] = function() {
o_ongenericcall(p);
return orig.apply(this, arguments);
};
})(obj[p], p);
else
res[p] = obj[p];
}
obj = decorated({foo:function(){console.log("foo");}});
obj.foo(); // calls o_ongenericcall, then logs "foo"
Check AOP (Aspect Oriented Programming: Wikipedia) then, check this: AOP from Stackoverflow
Javascript 1.9.3 / ECMAScript 5 introduces Object.create, which Douglas Crockford amongst others has been advocating for a long time. How do I replace new in the code below with Object.create?
var UserA = function(nameParam) {
this.id = MY_GLOBAL.nextId();
this.name = nameParam;
}
UserA.prototype.sayHello = function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
var bob = new UserA('bob');
bob.sayHello();
(Assume MY_GLOBAL.nextId exists).
The best I can come up with is:
var userB = {
init: function(nameParam) {
this.id = MY_GLOBAL.nextId();
this.name = nameParam;
},
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
var bob = Object.create(userB);
bob.init('Bob');
bob.sayHello();
There doesn't seem to be any advantage, so I think I'm not getting it. I'm probably being too neo-classical. How should I use Object.create to create user 'bob'?
With only one level of inheritance, your example may not let you see the real benefits of Object.create.
This methods allows you to easily implement differential inheritance, where objects can directly inherit from other objects.
On your userB example, I don't think that your init method should be public or even exist, if you call again this method on an existing object instance, the id and name properties will change.
Object.create lets you initialize object properties using its second argument, e.g.:
var userB = {
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
var bob = Object.create(userB, {
'id' : {
value: MY_GLOBAL.nextId(),
enumerable:true // writable:false, configurable(deletable):false by default
},
'name': {
value: 'Bob',
enumerable: true
}
});
As you can see, the properties can be initialized on the second argument of Object.create, with an object literal using a syntax similar to the used by the Object.defineProperties and Object.defineProperty methods.
It lets you set the property attributes (enumerable, writable, or configurable), which can be really useful.
There is really no advantage in using Object.create(...) over new object.
Those advocating this method generally state rather ambiguous advantages: "scalability", or "more natural to JavaScript" etc.
However, I have yet to see a concrete example that shows that Object.create has any advantages over using new. On the contrary there are known problems with it. Sam Elsamman describes what happens when there are nested objects and Object.create(...) is used:
var Animal = {
traits: {},
}
var lion = Object.create(Animal);
lion.traits.legs = 4;
var bird = Object.create(Animal);
bird.traits.legs = 2;
alert(lion.traits.legs) // shows 2!!!
This occurs because Object.create(...) advocates a practice where data is used to create new objects; here the Animal datum becomes part of the prototype of lion and bird, and causes problems as it is shared. When using new the prototypal inheritance is explicit:
function Animal() {
this.traits = {};
}
function Lion() { }
Lion.prototype = new Animal();
function Bird() { }
Bird.prototype = new Animal();
var lion = new Lion();
lion.traits.legs = 4;
var bird = new Bird();
bird.traits.legs = 2;
alert(lion.traits.legs) // now shows 4
Regarding, the optional property attributes that are passed into Object.create(...), these can be added using Object.defineProperties(...).
Object.create is not yet standard on several browsers, for example IE8, Opera v11.5, Konq 4.3 do not have it. You can use Douglas Crockford's version of Object.create for those browsers but this doesn't include the second 'initialisation object' parameter used in CMS's answer.
For cross browser code one way to get object initialisation in the meantime is to customise Crockford's Object.create. Here is one method:-
Object.build = function(o) {
var initArgs = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,1)
function F() {
if((typeof o.init === 'function') && initArgs.length) {
o.init.apply(this,initArgs)
}
}
F.prototype = o
return new F()
}
This maintains Crockford prototypal inheritance, and also checks for any init method in the object, then runs it with your parameter(s), like say new man('John','Smith'). Your code then becomes:-
MY_GLOBAL = {i: 1, nextId: function(){return this.i++}} // For example
var userB = {
init: function(nameParam) {
this.id = MY_GLOBAL.nextId();
this.name = nameParam;
},
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
var bob = Object.build(userB, 'Bob'); // Different from your code
bob.sayHello();
So bob inherits the sayHello method and now has own properties id=1 and name='Bob'. These properties are both writable and enumerable of course. This is also a much simpler way to initialise than for ECMA Object.create especially if you aren't concerned about the writable, enumerable and configurable attributes.
For initialisation without an init method the following Crockford mod could be used:-
Object.gen = function(o) {
var makeArgs = arguments
function F() {
var prop, i=1, arg, val
for(prop in o) {
if(!o.hasOwnProperty(prop)) continue
val = o[prop]
arg = makeArgs[i++]
if(typeof arg === 'undefined') break
this[prop] = arg
}
}
F.prototype = o
return new F()
}
This fills the userB own properties, in the order they are defined, using the Object.gen parameters from left to right after the userB parameter. It uses the for(prop in o) loop so, by ECMA standards, the order of property enumeration cannot be guaranteed the same as the order of property definition. However, several code examples tested on (4) major browsers show they are the same, provided the hasOwnProperty filter is used, and sometimes even if not.
MY_GLOBAL = {i: 1, nextId: function(){return this.i++}}; // For example
var userB = {
name: null,
id: null,
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
}
var bob = Object.gen(userB, 'Bob', MY_GLOBAL.nextId());
Somewhat simpler I would say than Object.build since userB does not need an init method. Also userB is not specifically a constructor but looks like a normal singleton object. So with this method you can construct and initialise from normal plain objects.
TL;DR:
new Computer() will invoke the constructor function Computer(){} for one time, while Object.create(Computer.prototype) won't.
All the advantages are based on this point.
Sidenote about performance: Constructor invoking like new Computer() is heavily optimized by the engine, so it may be even faster than Object.create.
You could make the init method return this, and then chain the calls together, like this:
var userB = {
init: function(nameParam) {
this.id = MY_GLOBAL.nextId();
this.name = nameParam;
return this;
},
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
var bob = Object.create(userB).init('Bob');
Another possible usage of Object.create is to clone immutable objects in a cheap and effective way.
var anObj = {
a: "test",
b: "jest"
};
var bObj = Object.create(anObj);
bObj.b = "gone"; // replace an existing (by masking prototype)
bObj.c = "brand"; // add a new to demonstrate it is actually a new obj
// now bObj is {a: test, b: gone, c: brand}
Notes: The above snippet creates a clone of an source object (aka not a reference, as in cObj = aObj). It benefits over the copy-properties method (see 1), in that it does not copy object member properties. Rather it creates another -destination- object with it's prototype set on the source object. Moreover when properties are modified on the dest object, they are created "on the fly", masking the prototype's (src's) properties.This constitutes a fast an effective way of cloning immutable objects.
The caveat here is that this applies to source objects that should not be modified after creation (immutable). If the source object is modified after creation, all the clone's unmasked properties will be modified, too.
Fiddle here(http://jsfiddle.net/y5b5q/1/) (needs Object.create capable browser).
I think the main point in question - is to understand difference between new and Object.create approaches. Accordingly to this answer and to this video new keyword does next things:
Creates new object.
Links new object to constructor function (prototype).
Makes this variable point to the new object.
Executes constructor function using the new object and implicit perform return this;
Assigns constructor function name to new object's property constructor.
Object.create performs only 1st and 2nd steps!!!
In code example provided in question it isn't big deal, but in next example it is:
var onlineUsers = [];
function SiteMember(name) {
this.name = name;
onlineUsers.push(name);
}
SiteMember.prototype.getName = function() {
return this.name;
}
function Guest(name) {
SiteMember.call(this, name);
}
Guest.prototype = new SiteMember();
var g = new Guest('James');
console.log(onlineUsers);
As side effect result will be:
[ undefined, 'James' ]
because of Guest.prototype = new SiteMember();
But we don't need to execute parent constructor method, we need only make method getName to be available in Guest.
Hence we have to use Object.create.
If replace Guest.prototype = new SiteMember();
to Guest.prototype = Object.create(SiteMember.prototype); result be:
[ 'James' ]
Sometimes you cannot create an object with NEW but are still able to invoke the CREATE method.
For example: if you want to define a Custom Element it must derive from HTMLElement.
proto = new HTMLElement //fail :(
proto = Object.create( HTMLElement.prototype ) //OK :)
document.registerElement( "custom-element", { prototype: proto } )
The advantage is that Object.create is typically slower than new on most browsers
In this jsperf example, in a Chromium, browser new is 30 times as fast as Object.create(obj) although both are pretty fast. This is all pretty strange because new does more things (like invoking a constructor) where Object.create should be just creating a new Object with the passed in object as a prototype (secret link in Crockford-speak)
Perhaps the browsers have not caught up in making Object.create more efficient (perhaps they are basing it on new under the covers ... even in native code)
Summary:
Object.create() is a Javascript function which takes 2 arguments and returns a new object.
The first argument is an object which will be the prototype of the newly created object
The second argument is an object which will be the properties of the newly created object
Example:
const proto = {
talk : () => console.log('hi')
}
const props = {
age: {
writable: true,
configurable: true,
value: 26
}
}
let Person = Object.create(proto, props)
console.log(Person.age);
Person.talk();
Practical applications:
The main advantage of creating an object in this manner is that the prototype can be explicitly defined. When using an object literal, or the new keyword you have no control over this (however, you can overwrite them of course).
If we want to have a prototype The new keyword invokes a constructor function. With Object.create() there is no need for invoking or even declaring a constructor function.
It can Basically be a helpful tool when you want create objects in a very dynamic manner. We can make an object factory function which creates objects with different prototypes depending on the arguments received.
You have to make a custom Object.create() function. One that addresses Crockfords concerns and also calls your init function.
This will work:
var userBPrototype = {
init: function(nameParam) {
this.name = nameParam;
},
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
function UserB(name) {
function F() {};
F.prototype = userBPrototype;
var f = new F;
f.init(name);
return f;
}
var bob = UserB('bob');
bob.sayHello();
Here UserB is like Object.create, but adjusted for our needs.
If you want, you can also call:
var bob = new UserB('bob');
While Douglas Crockford used to be a zealous advocate of Object.create() and he is basically the reason why this construct actually is in javascript, he no longer has this opinion.
He stopped using Object.create, because he stopped using this keyword altogether as it causes too much trouble. For example, if you are not careful it can easily point to the global object, which can have really bad consequences. And he claims that without using this Object.create does not make sense anymore.
You can check this video from 2014 where he talks at Nordic.js:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSGEjv3Tqo0
new and Object.create serve different purposes. new is intended to create a new instance of an object type. Object.create is intended to simply create a new object and set its prototype. Why is this useful? To implement inheritance without accessing the __proto__ property. An object instance's prototype referred to as [[Prototype]] is an internal property of the virtual machine and is not intended to be directly accessed. The only reason it is actually possible to directly access [[Prototype]] as the __proto__ property is because it has always been a de-facto standard of every major virtual machine's implementation of ECMAScript, and at this point removing it would break a lot of existing code.
In response to the answer above by 7ochem, objects should absolutely never have their prototype set to the result of a new statement, not only because there's no point calling the same prototype constructor multiple times but also because two instances of the same class can end up with different behavior if one's prototype is modified after being created. Both examples are simply bad code as a result of misunderstanding and breaking the intended behavior of the prototype inheritance chain.
Instead of accessing __proto__, an instance's prototype should be written to when an it is created with Object.create or afterward with Object.setPrototypeOf, and read with Object.getPrototypeOf or Object.isPrototypeOf.
Also, as the Mozilla documentation of Object.setPrototypeOf points out, it is a bad idea to modify the prototype of an object after it is created for performance reasons, in addition to the fact that modifying an object's prototype after it is created can cause undefined behavior if a given piece of code that accesses it can be executed before OR after the prototype is modified, unless that code is very careful to check the current prototype or not access any property that differs between the two.
Given
const X = function (v) { this.v = v };
X.prototype.whatAmI = 'X';
X.prototype.getWhatIAm = () => this.whatAmI;
X.prototype.getV = () => this.v;
the following VM pseudo-code is equivalent to the statement const x0 = new X(1);:
const x0 = {};
x0.[[Prototype]] = X.prototype;
X.prototype.constructor.call(x0, 1);
Note although the constructor can return any value, the new statement always ignores its return value and returns a reference to the newly created object.
And the following pseudo-code is equivalent to the statement const x1 = Object.create(X.prototype);:
const x0 = {};
x0.[[Prototype]] = X.prototype;
As you can see, the only difference between the two is that Object.create does not execute the constructor, which can actually return any value but simply returns the new object reference this if not otherwise specified.
Now, if we wanted to create a subclass Y with the following definition:
const Y = function(u) { this.u = u; }
Y.prototype.whatAmI = 'Y';
Y.prototype.getU = () => this.u;
Then we can make it inherit from X like this by writing to __proto__:
Y.prototype.__proto__ = X.prototype;
While the same thing could be accomplished without ever writing to __proto__ with:
Y.prototype = Object.create(X.prototype);
Y.prototype.constructor = Y;
In the latter case, it is necessary to set the constructor property of the prototype so that the correct constructor is called by the new Y statement, otherwise new Y will call the function X. If the programmer does want new Y to call X, it would be more properly done in Y's constructor with X.call(this, u)
new Operator
This is used to create object from a constructor function
The new keywords also executes the constructor function
function Car() {
console.log(this) // this points to myCar
this.name = "Honda";
}
var myCar = new Car()
console.log(myCar) // Car {name: "Honda", constructor: Object}
console.log(myCar.name) // Honda
console.log(myCar instanceof Car) // true
console.log(myCar.constructor) // function Car() {}
console.log(myCar.constructor === Car) // true
console.log(typeof myCar) // object
Object.create
You can also use Object.create to create a new object
But, it does not execute the constructor function
Object.create is used to create an object from another object
const Car = {
name: "Honda"
}
var myCar = Object.create(Car)
console.log(myCar) // Object {}
console.log(myCar.name) // Honda
console.log(myCar instanceof Car) // ERROR
console.log(myCar.constructor) // Anonymous function object
console.log(myCar.constructor === Car) // false
console.log(typeof myCar) // object
I prefer a closure approach.
I still use new.
I don't use Object.create.
I don't use this.
I still use new as I like the declarative nature of it.
Consider this for simple inheritance.
window.Quad = (function() {
function Quad() {
const wheels = 4;
const drivingWheels = 2;
let motorSize = 0;
function setMotorSize(_) {
motorSize = _;
}
function getMotorSize() {
return motorSize;
}
function getWheelCount() {
return wheels;
}
function getDrivingWheelCount() {
return drivingWheels;
}
return Object.freeze({
getWheelCount,
getDrivingWheelCount,
getMotorSize,
setMotorSize
});
}
return Object.freeze(Quad);
})();
window.Car4wd = (function() {
function Car4wd() {
const quad = new Quad();
const spareWheels = 1;
const extraDrivingWheels = 2;
function getSpareWheelCount() {
return spareWheels;
}
function getDrivingWheelCount() {
return quad.getDrivingWheelCount() + extraDrivingWheels;
}
return Object.freeze(Object.assign({}, quad, {
getSpareWheelCount,
getDrivingWheelCount
}));
}
return Object.freeze(Car4wd);
})();
let myQuad = new Quad();
let myCar = new Car4wd();
console.log(myQuad.getWheelCount()); // 4
console.log(myQuad.getDrivingWheelCount()); // 2
console.log(myCar.getWheelCount()); // 4
console.log(myCar.getDrivingWheelCount()); // 4 - The overridden method is called
console.log(myCar.getSpareWheelCount()); // 1
Feedback encouraged.
I've used Douglass Crockford's Object.beget, but augmented it slightly to:
Object.spawn = function (o, spec) {
var F = function () {}, that = {}, node = {};
F.prototype = o;
that = new F();
for (node in spec) {
if (spec.hasOwnProperty(node)) {
that[node] = spec[node];
}
}
return that;
};
This way you can "beget" and augment in one fell swoop.
var fop = Object.spawn(bar, {
a: 'fast',
b: 'prototyping'
});
In English that means, "Make me a new object called 'fop' with 'bar' as its prototype, but change or add the members 'a' and 'b'.
You can even nest it the spec to prototype deeper elements, should you choose.
var fop = Object.spawn(bar, {
a: 'fast',
b: Object.spawn(quux,{
farple: 'deep'
}),
c: 'prototyping'
});
This can help avoid hopping into an object's prototype unintentionally in a long object name like:
foo.bar.quux.peanut = 'farple';
If quux is part of the prototype and not foo's own object, your change to 'peanut' will actually change the protoype, affecting all objects prototyped by foo's prototype object.
But I digress... My question is this. Because your spec can itself be another object and that object could itself have properties from it's prototype in your new object - and you may want those properties...(at least you should be aware of them before you decided to use it as a spec)...
I want to be able to grab all of the elements from all of the spec's prototype chain, except for the prototype object itself... This would flatten them into the new object.
Currently I'm using...
Object.spawn = function (o, spec) {
var F = function () {}, that = {}, node = {};
F.prototype = o;
that = new F();
for (node in spec) {
that[node] = spec[node];
}
return that;
};
I use it for every object I prototype, but because i use it so much, I'm looking to hone it down to the best possible.... I would love thoughts and suggestions...
If I've understood your question properly, you're asking how to use an approach like the one you have provided, but still be able to access prototype properties when they are overridden by the spec?
One way to get around the problem of inaccessible (overridden) prototype properties is to add them to the object along with the spec, but namespace them.
This example show how you could add the overridden to the object by prefixing it with an underscore. Put your namespacing of choice in it's place! (for example, you could use a 'super' property on the object)
Object.spawn = function (o, spec) {
var F = function () {}, that = {}, node = {};
F.prototype = o;
that = new F();
for (node in spec) {
if("undefined" !== typeof o[node]) {
that['_' + node] = o[node];
}
that[node] = spec[node];
}
return that;
};
I've:
function Obj1(param)
{
this.test1 = param || 1;
}
function Obj2(param, par)
{
this.test2 = param;
}
now when I do:
Obj2.prototype = new Obj1(44);
var obj = new Obj2(55);
alert(obj.constructor)
I have:
function Obj1(param) {
this.test1 = param || 1;
}
but the constructor function has been Obj2... why that?
Obj1 has become the Obj2 prototype...
Can someone explain me, in detail, the prototype chain and the constructor property
Thanks
constructor is a regular property of the prototype object (with the DontEnum flag set so it doesn't show up in for..in loops). If you replace the prototype object, the constructor property will be replaced as well - see this explanation for further details.
You can work around the issue by manually setting Obj2.prototype.constructor = Obj2, but this way, the DontEnum flag won't be set.
Because of these issues, it isn't a good idea to rely on constructor for type checking: use instanceof or isPrototypeOf() instead.
Andrey Fedorov raised the question why new doesn't assign the constructor property to the instance object instead. I guess the reason for this is along the following lines:
All objects created from the same constructor function share the constructor property, and shared properties reside in the prototype.
The real problem is that JavaScript has no built-in support for inheritance hierarchies. There are several ways around the issue (yours is one of these), another one more 'in the spirit' of JavaScript would be the following:
function addOwnProperties(obj /*, ...*/) {
for(var i = 1; i < arguments.length; ++i) {
var current = arguments[i];
for(var prop in current) {
if(current.hasOwnProperty(prop))
obj[prop] = current[prop];
}
}
}
function Obj1(arg1) {
this.prop1 = arg1 || 1;
}
Obj1.prototype.method1 = function() {};
function Obj2(arg1, arg2) {
Obj1.call(this, arg1);
this.test2 = arg2 || 2;
}
addOwnProperties(Obj2.prototype, Obj1.prototype);
Obj2.prototype.method2 = function() {};
This makes multiple-inheritance trivial as well.
Check out Tom Trenka's OOP woth ECMAscript, the "Inheritance" page. Everything from the prototype is inherited, including the constructor property. Thus, we have to unbreak it ourselves:
Obj2.prototype = new Obj1(42);
Obj2.prototype.constructor = Obj2;
Short version: ‘constructor’ doesn't do what you think, and isn't cross-browser compatible. Never use it.
Long version: Convention for prototype inheritance in JavaScript
Generally: you're getting confused due to (a) the impedence mismatch between class-based and prototype-based OO, and (b) the strangeness of JavaScript's particular rather poor interpretation of prototype-based OO.
You'll probably be happier if you find one classes-in-prototypes implementation you like and stick with that. Many libraries have one. Here's an arbitrary one I use:
Function.prototype.subclass= function() {
var c= new Function(
'if (!(this instanceof arguments.callee)) throw(\'Constructor called without "new"\'); '+
'if (arguments[0]!==Function.prototype.subclass.FLAG && this._init) this._init.apply(this, arguments); '
);
if (this!==Object)
c.prototype= new this(Function.prototype.subclass.FLAG);
return c;
}
Function.prototype.subclass.FLAG= new Object();
And here's an example of how one might use it:
// make a new class
var Employee= Object.subclass();
// add members to it
Employee.prototype._LEGS= 2;
Employee.prototype.getLegs= function() {
return this._LEGS;
};
// optional initialiser, takes arguments from constructor
Employee.prototype._init= function(name) {
this.name= name;
};
// make a subclass
Manager= Employee.subclass();
// extend subclass method
Manager.prototype._init= function(name, importance) {
// call base class's method
Employee.prototype._init.call(this, name);
this.importance= importance;
}
// all managers are well-known to have three legs
Manager.prototype._LEGS= 3;
// create one
var jake= new Manager('Jake the Peg', 100);
Well, the constructor property is a property like any other, on the prototype (property) of Obj1. If you understand how prototypes work, this might help:
>>> obj.hasOwnProperty("constructor")
false
// obj's [[Prototype]] is Obj2.prototype
>>> Obj2.prototype.hasOwnProperty("constructor")
false
// Obj2.prototype's [[Prototype]] is Obj1.prototype
>>> Obj1.prototype.hasOwnProperty("constructor")
true
// Oh?
>>> Obj1.prototype.constructor
Obj1()
Aha! So obj has no constructor, JS goes to get it up the [[Prototype]] chain, all the way from Obj1.prototype.constructor
I'm not sure why the constructor property isn't just set on an object when you use `new'. There might be a reason, or it might just be an oversight. Either way, I tend to avoid it.