I have a long jquery function and I want to separate it as an plugin.
Normally, most jquery plugin has a selector element as below.
;( function( $, window, document, undefined )
{
'use strict';
$.fn.myPlugin = function( options )
{
// codes goes here
}
})( jQuery, window, document );
and the usage is something like this.
$('.element').myPlugin();
But in my case, the javascript function doesn't really need a selector element, it only expect a value(parameter).
e.g
function coolMethods(Str){
return Str + doSomething;
}
So, how can I use this as a plugin?
I would expect the usage is like this
myPlugin.coolMethods(Str) // and this should return a value.
If you don't need any jquery functionality (the $(selector). part) and you want to call it like
myPlugin.CoolMethod("abc")
then you need a namespace rather than a plugin.
There's a number of ways to generate namespaces and scripts to help this, but essentially a namespace is an object that contains functions, the basic setup would be:
var myPlugin = {};
myPlugin.CoolMethod = function(param1) {
return param1 + param1;
};
// to use this:
console.log(myPlugin.CoolMethod("abc"))
Once you start using namespaces, you can then have private methods/variables within that namespace if needed and can easily add other methods / sub-namespaces.
Another common way to setup a namespace is something like:
var myPlugin = myPlugin || {};
(function(myplugin, $) {
// can also use $ within the namespace declaration
myplugin.CoolMethod = function(param1) {
return param1 + param1;
};
})(myPlugin, jQuery);
// to use this:
console.log(myPlugin.CoolMethod("abc"))
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
There is no problem! you can create your plugin in this case and use it on each element without any relation with it!
generally, is not necessary that your function uses JQuery elems.
example:
$.fn.NewFunc /*Your plugin function*/ = function(param1){
console.log("Oh! It's ok!!");
console.log(arguments);
};
Usage:
$.fn.NewFunc("Hello!");
or
$("").NewFunc("I Am An Argument!");
or even:
$("AnySelector").NewFunc("param1", "param2");
If you dont need selected elems by selector, you can use other way similar these (this is not a plugin):
$.NewFunc = function(p1, p2){/*do somethings*/};
and use it similar this:
$.NewFunc("param1", "param2");
Here is my version
(function ($, window, document, undefined) {
'use strict';
var PLUGIN_NAME = 'myPlugin';
function plugin(options) {
var opts = $.extend(true, {}, $[PLUGIN_NAME].defaults, options);
_print(opts.name);
}
var _print = function (name) {
console.log(name);
};
$[PLUGIN_NAME] = function (options) {
new plugin(options);
};
$[PLUGIN_NAME].defaults = {
name: 'John'
};
}(jQuery, window, document));
Usage:
$.myPlugin({
name: 'Suzy'
});
Or
$.myPlugin();
Working example
How do I create a namespace in JavaScript so that my objects and functions aren't overwritten by other same-named objects and functions? I've used the following:
if (Foo == null || typeof(Foo) != "object") { var Foo = new Object();}
Is there a more elegant or succinct way of doing this?
I use the approach found on the Enterprise jQuery site:
Here is their example showing how to declare private & public properties and functions. Everything is done as a self-executing anonymous function.
(function( skillet, $, undefined ) {
//Private Property
var isHot = true;
//Public Property
skillet.ingredient = "Bacon Strips";
//Public Method
skillet.fry = function() {
var oliveOil;
addItem( "\t\n Butter \n\t" );
addItem( oliveOil );
console.log( "Frying " + skillet.ingredient );
};
//Private Method
function addItem( item ) {
if ( item !== undefined ) {
console.log( "Adding " + $.trim(item) );
}
}
}( window.skillet = window.skillet || {}, jQuery ));
So if you want to access one of the public members you would just go skillet.fry() or skillet.ingredients.
What's really cool is that you can now extend the namespace using the exact same syntax.
//Adding new Functionality to the skillet
(function( skillet, $, undefined ) {
//Private Property
var amountOfGrease = "1 Cup";
//Public Method
skillet.toString = function() {
console.log( skillet.quantity + " " +
skillet.ingredient + " & " +
amountOfGrease + " of Grease" );
console.log( isHot ? "Hot" : "Cold" );
};
}( window.skillet = window.skillet || {}, jQuery ));
The third undefined argument
The third, undefined argument is the source of the variable of value undefined. I'm not sure if it's still relevant today, but while working with older browsers / JavaScript standards (ecmascript 5, javascript < 1.8.5 ~ firefox 4), the global-scope variable undefined is writable, so anyone could rewrite its value. The third argument (when not passed a value) creates a variable named undefined which is scoped to the namespace/function. Because no value was passed when you created the name space, it defaults to the value undefined.
I like this:
var yourNamespace = {
foo: function() {
},
bar: function() {
}
};
...
yourNamespace.foo();
Another way to do it, which I consider it to be a little bit less restrictive than the object literal form, is this:
var ns = new function() {
var internalFunction = function() {
};
this.publicFunction = function() {
};
};
The above is pretty much like the module pattern and whether you like it or not, it allows you to expose all your functions as public, while avoiding the rigid structure of an object literal.
Is there a more elegant or succinct way of doing this?
Yes. For example:
var your_namespace = your_namespace || {};
then you can have
var your_namespace = your_namespace || {};
your_namespace.Foo = {toAlert:'test'};
your_namespace.Bar = function(arg)
{
alert(arg);
};
with(your_namespace)
{
Bar(Foo.toAlert);
}
I normally build it in a closure:
var MYNS = MYNS || {};
MYNS.subns = (function() {
function privateMethod() {
// Do private stuff, or build internal.
return "Message";
}
return {
someProperty: 'prop value',
publicMethod: function() {
return privateMethod() + " stuff";
}
};
})();
My style over the years has had a subtle change since writing this, and I now find myself writing the closure like this:
var MYNS = MYNS || {};
MYNS.subns = (function() {
var internalState = "Message";
var privateMethod = function() {
// Do private stuff, or build internal.
return internalState;
};
var publicMethod = function() {
return privateMethod() + " stuff";
};
return {
someProperty: 'prop value',
publicMethod: publicMethod
};
})();
In this way I find the public API and implementation easier to understand. Think of the return statement as being a public interface to the implementation.
Because you may write different files of JavaScript and later combine or not combine them in an application, each needs to be able to recover or construct the namespace object without damaging the work of other files...
One file might intend to use the namespace namespace.namespace1:
namespace = window.namespace || {};
namespace.namespace1 = namespace.namespace1 || {};
namespace.namespace1.doSomeThing = function(){}
Another file might want to use the namespace namespace.namespace2:
namespace = window.namespace || {};
namespace.namespace2 = namespace.namespace2 || {};
namespace.namespace2.doSomeThing = function(){}
These two files can live together or apart without colliding.
Here's how Stoyan Stefanov does it in his JavaScript Patterns book which I found to be very good (it also shows how he does comments that allows for auto-generated API documentation, and how to add a method to a custom object's prototype):
/**
* My JavaScript application
*
* #module myapp
*/
/** #namespace Namespace for MYAPP classes and functions. */
var MYAPP = MYAPP || {};
/**
* A maths utility
* #namespace MYAPP
* #class math_stuff
*/
MYAPP.math_stuff = {
/**
* Sums two numbers
*
* #method sum
* #param {Number} a First number
* #param {Number} b Second number
* #return {Number} Sum of the inputs
*/
sum: function (a, b) {
return a + b;
},
/**
* Multiplies two numbers
*
* #method multi
* #param {Number} a First number
* #param {Number} b Second number
* #return {Number} The inputs multiplied
*/
multi: function (a, b) {
return a * b;
}
};
/**
* Constructs Person objects
* #class Person
* #constructor
* #namespace MYAPP
* #param {String} First name
* #param {String} Last name
*/
MYAPP.Person = function (first, last) {
/**
* First name of the Person
* #property first_name
* #type String
*/
this.first_name = first;
/**
* Last name of the Person
* #property last_name
* #type String
*/
this.last_name = last;
};
/**
* Return Person's full name
*
* #method getName
* #return {String} First name + last name
*/
MYAPP.Person.prototype.getName = function () {
return this.first_name + ' ' + this.last_name;
};
I use this approach:
var myNamespace = {}
myNamespace._construct = function()
{
var staticVariable = "This is available to all functions created here"
function MyClass()
{
// Depending on the class, we may build all the classes here
this.publicMethod = function()
{
//Do stuff
}
}
// Alternatively, we may use a prototype.
MyClass.prototype.altPublicMethod = function()
{
//Do stuff
}
function privateStuff()
{
}
function publicStuff()
{
// Code that may call other public and private functions
}
// List of things to place publically
this.publicStuff = publicStuff
this.MyClass = MyClass
}
myNamespace._construct()
// The following may or may not be in another file
myNamespace.subName = {}
myNamespace.subName._construct = function()
{
// Build namespace
}
myNamespace.subName._construct()
External code can then be:
var myClass = new myNamespace.MyClass();
var myOtherClass = new myNamepace.subName.SomeOtherClass();
myNamespace.subName.publicOtherStuff(someParameter);
This is a follow-up to user106826's link to Namespace.js. It seems the project moved to GitHub. It is now smith/namespacedotjs.
I have been using this simple JavaScript helper for my tiny project and so far it seems to be light yet versatile enough to handle namespacing and loading modules/classes. It would be great if it would allow me to import a package into a namespace of my choice, not just the global namespace... sigh, but that's besides the point.
It allows you to declare the namespace then define objects/modules in that namespace:
Namespace('my.awesome.package');
my.awesome.package.WildClass = {};
Another option is to declare the namespace and its contents at once:
Namespace('my.awesome.package', {
SuperDuperClass: {
saveTheDay: function() {
alert('You are welcome.');
}
}
});
For more usage examples, look at the example.js file in the source.
Sample:
var namespace = {};
namespace.module1 = (function(){
var self = {};
self.initialized = false;
self.init = function(){
setTimeout(self.onTimeout, 1000)
};
self.onTimeout = function(){
alert('onTimeout')
self.initialized = true;
};
self.init(); /* If it needs to auto-initialize, */
/* You can also call 'namespace.module1.init();' from outside the module. */
return self;
})()
You can optionally declare a local variable, same, like self and assign local.onTimeout if you want it to be private.
The Module pattern was originally defined as a way to provide both private and public encapsulation for classes in conventional software engineering.
When working with the Module pattern, we may find it useful to define a simple template that we use for getting started with it. Here's one that covers name-spacing, public and private variables.
In JavaScript, the Module pattern is used to further emulate the concept of classes in such a way that we're able to include both public/private methods and variables inside a single object, thus shielding particular parts from the global scope. What this results in is a reduction in the likelihood of our function names conflicting with other functions defined in additional scripts on the page.
var myNamespace = (function () {
var myPrivateVar, myPrivateMethod;
// A private counter variable
myPrivateVar = 0;
// A private function which logs any arguments
myPrivateMethod = function( foo ) {
console.log( foo );
};
return {
// A public variable
myPublicVar: "foo",
// A public function utilizing privates
myPublicFunction: function( bar ) {
// Increment our private counter
myPrivateVar++;
// Call our private method using bar
myPrivateMethod( bar );
}
};
})();
Advantages
why is the Module pattern a good choice? For starters, it's a lot cleaner for developers coming from an object-oriented background than the idea of true encapsulation, at least from a JavaScript perspective.
Secondly, it supports private data - so, in the Module pattern, public parts of our code are able to touch the private parts, however the outside world is unable to touch the class's private parts.
Disadvantages
The disadvantages of the Module pattern are that as we access both public and private members differently, when we wish to change visibility, we actually have to make changes to each place the member was used.
We also can't access private members in methods that are added to the object at a later point. That said, in many cases the Module pattern is still quite useful and when used correctly, certainly has the potential to improve the structure of our application.
The Revealing Module Pattern
Now that we're a little more familiar with the module pattern, let’s take a look at a slightly improved version - Christian Heilmann’s Revealing Module pattern.
The Revealing Module pattern came about as Heilmann was frustrated with the fact that he had to repeat the name of the main object when we wanted to call one public method from another or access public variables.He also disliked the Module pattern’s requirement for having to switch to object literal notation for the things he wished to make public.
The result of his efforts was an updated pattern where we would simply define all of our functions and variables in the private scope and return an anonymous object with pointers to the private functionality we wished to reveal as public.
An example of how to use the Revealing Module pattern can be found below
var myRevealingModule = (function () {
var privateVar = "Ben Cherry",
publicVar = "Hey there!";
function privateFunction() {
console.log( "Name:" + privateVar );
}
function publicSetName( strName ) {
privateVar = strName;
}
function publicGetName() {
privateFunction();
}
// Reveal public pointers to
// private functions and properties
return {
setName: publicSetName,
greeting: publicVar,
getName: publicGetName
};
})();
myRevealingModule.setName( "Paul Kinlan" );
Advantages
This pattern allows the syntax of our scripts to be more consistent. It also makes it more clear at the end of the module which of our functions and variables may be accessed publicly which eases readability.
Disadvantages
A disadvantage of this pattern is that if a private function refers to a public function, that public function can't be overridden if a patch is necessary. This is because the private function will continue to refer to the private implementation and the pattern doesn't apply to public members, only to functions.
Public object members which refer to private variables are also subject to the no-patch rule notes above.
If you need the private scope:
var yourNamespace = (function() {
//Private property
var publicScope = {};
//Private property
var privateProperty = "aaa";
//Public property
publicScope.publicProperty = "bbb";
//Public method
publicScope.publicMethod = function() {
this.privateMethod();
};
//Private method
function privateMethod() {
console.log(this.privateProperty);
}
//Return only the public parts
return publicScope;
}());
yourNamespace.publicMethod();
else if you won't ever use the private scope:
var yourNamespace = {};
yourNamespace.publicMethod = function() {
// Do something...
};
yourNamespace.publicMethod2 = function() {
// Do something...
};
yourNamespace.publicMethod();
You can declare a simple function to provide namespaces.
function namespace(namespace) {
var object = this, tokens = namespace.split("."), token;
while (tokens.length > 0) {
token = tokens.shift();
if (typeof object[token] === "undefined") {
object[token] = {};
}
object = object[token];
}
return object;
}
// Usage example
namespace("foo.bar").baz = "I'm a value!";
I'm 7 years late to the party, but did quite a bit of work around this 8 years ago:
http://blogger.ziesemer.com/2008/05/javascript-namespace-function.html
http://blogger.ziesemer.com/2007/10/respecting-javascript-global-namespace.html
It is important to be able to easily and efficiently create multiple nested namespaces to keep a complex web application organized and manageable, while respecting the JavaScript global namespace (preventing namespace pollution), and with not clobbering any existing objects in the namespace path while doing so.
From the above, this was my circa-2008 solution:
var namespace = function(name, separator, container){
var ns = name.split(separator || '.'),
o = container || window,
i,
len;
for(i = 0, len = ns.length; i < len; i++){
o = o[ns[i]] = o[ns[i]] || {};
}
return o;
};
This isn't creating a namespace, but provides a function for creating namespaces.
This can be condensed to a minified one-liner:
var namespace=function(c,f,b){var e=c.split(f||"."),g=b||window,d,a;for(d=0,a=e.length;d<a;d++){g=g[e[d]]=g[e[d]]||{}}return g};
Example of use:
namespace("com.example.namespace");
com.example.namespace.test = function(){
alert("In namespaced function.");
};
Or, as one statement:
namespace("com.example.namespace").test = function(){
alert("In namespaced function.");
};
Either is then executed as:
com.example.namespace.test();
If you don't need support for legacy browsers, an updated version:
const namespace = function(name, separator, container){
var o = container || window;
name.split(separator || '.').forEach(function(x){
o = o[x] = o[x] || {};
});
return o;
};
Now, I'd be leery of exposing namespace to the global namespace itself. (Too bad the base language doesn't provide this for us!) So I'd typically use this myself in a closure, such as:
(function(){
const namespace = function(name, separator, container){
var o = container || window;
name.split(separator || '.').forEach(function(x){
o = o[x] = o[x] || {};
});
return o;
};
const ns = namespace("com.ziesemer.myApp");
// Optional:
ns.namespace = ns;
// Further extend, work with ns from here...
}());
console.log("\"com\":", com);
In a larger application, this only needs to be defined once at the beginning of a page load (for client-based web apps). Additional files can then reuse the namespace function if kept (included as "optional" in the above). At worst, if this function is re-declared a few times - it's only a few lines of code, and less if minified.
I created namespace which is inspired by Erlang's modules. It is a very functional approach, but that is how I write my JavaScript code these days.
It gives a closure a global namespace and exposes a defined set functions within that closure.
(function(){
namespace("images", previous, next);
// ^^ This creates or finds a root object, images, and binds the two functions to it.
// It works even though those functions are not yet defined.
function previous(){ ... }
function next(){ ... }
function find(){ ... } // A private function
})();
After porting several of my libraries to different projects, and having to constantly be changing the top level (statically named) namespace, I've switched to using this small (open source) helper function for defining namespaces.
global_namespace.Define('startpad.base', function(ns) {
var Other = ns.Import('startpad.other');
....
});
Description of the benefits are at my blog post. You can grab the source code here.
One of the benefits I really like is isolation between modules with respect to load order. You can refer to an external module BEFORE it is loaded. And the object reference you get will be filled in when the code is available.
I use the following syntax for the namespace.
var MYNamespace = MYNamespace|| {};
MYNamespace.MyFirstClass = function (val) {
this.value = val;
this.getValue = function(){
return this.value;
};
}
var myFirstInstance = new MYNamespace.MyFirstClass(46);
alert(myFirstInstance.getValue());
jsfiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/rpaul/4dngxwb3/1/
I think you all use too much code for such a simple problem.
No need to make a repo for that.
Here's a single line function.
namespace => namespace.split(".").reduce((last, next) => (last[next] = (last[next] || {})), window);
Try it :
// --- definition ---
const namespace = name => name.split(".").reduce((last, next) => (last[next] = (last[next] || {})), window);
// --- Use ----
const c = namespace("a.b.c");
c.MyClass = class MyClass {};
// --- see ----
console.log("a : ", a);
ES6 Modules Namespace imports
// circle.js
export { name, draw, reportArea, reportPerimeter };
// main.js
import * as Circle from './modules/circle.js';
// draw a circle
let circle1 = Circle.draw(myCanvas.ctx, 75, 200, 100, 'green');
Circle.reportArea(circle1.radius, reportList);
Circle.reportPerimeter(circle1.radius, reportList);
This grabs all the exports available inside circle.js, and makes them available as members of an object Circle, effectively giving it its own namespace.
My favorite pattern has become lately this:
var namespace = (function() {
// expose to public
return {
a: internalA,
c: internalC
}
// all private
/**
* Full JSDoc
*/
function internalA() {
// ...
}
/**
* Full JSDoc
*/
function internalB() {
// ...
}
/**
* Full JSDoc
*/
function internalC() {
// ...
}
/**
* Full JSDoc
*/
function internalD() {
// ...
}
})();
Of course, return can be at the end, but if only function declarations follow it, it's much easier to see what's the namespace all about, and what API is exposed.
The pattern of using function expressions in such cases results in not being able to know what methods are exposed without going over the entire code.
I like Jaco Pretorius' solution, but I wanted to make the "this" keyword a bit more useful by pointing it to the module/namespace object.
My version of skillet:
(function ($, undefined) {
console.log(this);
}).call(window.myNamespace = window.myNamespace || {}, jQuery);
JavaScript does not yet have a native representation of namespaces, but TypeScript does.
For example, you could use the following TS code (playground)
namespace Stack {
export const hello = () => console.log('hi')
}
Stack.hello()
If you can't update your code to TS, you can at least use the pattern employed by TS when generating the JS output for namespaces, which looks like this:
var Stack;
(function (Stack) {
Stack.hello = () => console.log('hi');
})(Stack || (Stack = {}));
Stack.hello();
Further Reading:
TS - Namespaces
TS - Namespaces and Modules
If using a Makefile you can do this.
// prelude.hjs
billy = new (
function moduleWrapper () {
const exports = this;
// postlude.hjs
return exports;
})();
// someinternalfile.js
function bob () { console.log('hi'); }
exports.bob = bob;
// clientfile.js
billy.bob();
I prefer to use a Makefile anyway once I get to about 1000 lines because I can effectively comment out large swaths of code by removing a single line in the makefile. It makes it easy to fiddle with stuff. Also, with this technique the namespace only appears once in the prelude so it's easy to change and you don't have to keep repeating it inside the library code.
A shell script for live development in the browser when using a makefile:
while (true); do make; sleep 1; done
Add this as a make task 'go' and you can 'make go' to keep your build updated as you code.
Quite a follow-up of Ionuț G. Stan's answer, but showing the benefits of uncluttered code by using var ClassFirst = this.ClassFirst = function() {...}, which takes advantage of JavaScript's closure scoping for less namespace cluttering for classes in the same namespace.
var Namespace = new function() {
var ClassFirst = this.ClassFirst = function() {
this.abc = 123;
}
var ClassSecond = this.ClassSecond = function() {
console.log("Cluttered way to access another class in namespace: ", new Namespace.ClassFirst().abc);
console.log("Nicer way to access a class in same namespace: ", new ClassFirst().abc);
}
}
var Namespace2 = new function() {
var ClassFirst = this.ClassFirst = function() {
this.abc = 666;
}
var ClassSecond = this.ClassSecond = function() {
console.log("Cluttered way to access another class in namespace: ", new Namespace2.ClassFirst().abc);
console.log("Nicer way to access a class in same namespace: ", new ClassFirst().abc);
}
}
new Namespace.ClassSecond()
new Namespace2.ClassSecond()
Output:
Cluttered way to access another class in namespace: 123
Nicer way to access a class in same namespace: 123
Cluttered way to access another class in namespace: 666
Nicer way to access a class in same namespace: 666
I've written another namespacing library that works a bit more like packages / units do in other languages. It allows you to create a package of JavaScript code and the reference that package from other code:
File hello.js
Package("hello", [], function() {
function greeting() {
alert("Hello World!");
}
// Expose function greeting to other packages
Export("greeting", greeting);
});
File Example.js
Package("example", ["hello"], function(greeting) {
// Greeting is available here
greeting(); // Alerts: "Hello World!"
});
Only the second file needs to be included in the page. Its dependencies (file hello.js in this example) will automatically be loaded and the objects exported from those dependencies will be used to populate the arguments of the callback function.
You can find the related project in Packages JS.
We can use it independently in this way:
var A = A|| {};
A.B = {};
A.B = {
itemOne: null,
itemTwo: null,
};
A.B.itemOne = function () {
//..
}
A.B.itemTwo = function () {
//..
}
In JavaScript there are no predefined methods to use namespaces. In JavaScript we have to create our own methods to define NameSpaces. Here is a procedure we follow in Oodles technologies.
Register a NameSpace
Following is the function to register a name space
//Register NameSpaces Function
function registerNS(args){
var nameSpaceParts = args.split(".");
var root = window;
for(var i=0; i < nameSpaceParts.length; i++)
{
if(typeof root[nameSpaceParts[i]] == "undefined")
root[nameSpaceParts[i]] = new Object();
root = root[nameSpaceParts[i]];
}
}
To register a Namespace just call the above function with the argument as name space separated by '.' (dot).
For Example
Let your application name is oodles. You can make a namespace by following method
registerNS("oodles.HomeUtilities");
registerNS("oodles.GlobalUtilities");
var $OHU = oodles.HomeUtilities;
var $OGU = oodles.GlobalUtilities;
Basically it will create your NameSpaces structure like below in backend:
var oodles = {
"HomeUtilities": {},
"GlobalUtilities": {}
};
In the above function you have register a namespace called "oodles.HomeUtilities" and "oodles.GlobalUtilities". To call these namespaces we make an variable i.e. var $OHU and var $OGU.
These variables are nothing but an alias to Intializing the namespace.
Now, Whenever you declare a function that belong to HomeUtilities you will declare it like following:
$OHU.initialization = function(){
//Your Code Here
};
Above is the function name initialization and it is put into an namespace $OHU. and to call this function anywhere in the script files. Just use following code.
$OHU.initialization();
Similarly, with the another NameSpaces.
Hope it helps.
My habit is to use function myName() as property storage, and then var myName as "method" holder...
Whether this is legitimate enough or not, beat me! I am relying on my PHP logic all the time, and things simply work. :D
function myObj() {
this.prop1 = 1;
this.prop2 = 2;
this.prop3 = 'string';
}
var myObj = (
(myObj instanceof Function !== false)
? Object.create({
$props: new myObj(),
fName1: function() { /* code.. */ },
fName2: function() { /* code ...*/ }
})
: console.log('Object creation failed!')
);
if (this !== that) myObj.fName1(); else myObj.fName2();
You can also do it in a 'vice versa' way to check before object creation which is much better:
function myObj() {
this.prop1 = 1;
this.prop2 = 2;
this.prop3 = 'string';
}
var myObj = (
(typeof(myObj) !== "function" || myObj instanceof Function === false)
? new Boolean()
: Object.create({
$props: new myObj(),
init: function () { return; },
fName1: function() { /* code.. */ },
fName2: function() { /* code ...*/ }
})
);
if (myObj instanceof Boolean) {
Object.freeze(myObj);
console.log('myObj failed!');
debugger;
}
else
myObj.init();
Reference to this: JavaScript: Creating Object with Object.create()
JavaScript doesn’t support namespace by default. So if you create any element(function, method, object, variable) then it becomes global and pollute the global namespace. Let's take an example of defining two functions without any namespace,
function func1() {
console.log("This is a first definition");
}
function func1() {
console.log("This is a second definition");
}
func1(); // This is a second definition
It always calls the second function definition. In this case, namespace will solve the name collision problem.
I have an extend method included in my library, making it possible for methods to be added to the core library:
library.prototype.extend = function(name,plugin) {
library.prototype[name] = plugin.init;
for (var method in plugin) {
if(method !== 'init') {
library.prototype[name].prototype[method] = plugin[method];
}
}
};
In use it looks like so:
library.prototype.extend('aReallyInterestingPlugin', {
//the init method gets added to the base libraries prototype
init: function() {
this.shouldBePrivate;
},
//another other methods are created as a prototype of the newly added Plugin
anotherMethod : function() {
//this should have access to the shouldBePrivate var
}
});
Users are then able to call the plugin like so:
var test = new library();
test.aReallyInterestingPlugin();
This works but I'm not exactly happy with the approach and have been trying to find an alternative pattern to make this work.
The problem with it, is that the init and the anotherMethod are added directly to the libraries prototype chain so their scope is also the global libraries scope which is messy because if any instance variables are declared (like shouldBePrivate above) they are also added to the libraries prototype chain.
How can I enable the plugin to be added and have it's own private scope? One way I've thought of is that a plugin could always be called as a constructor (and will therefore have it's own scope and this context) but then I'm not sure how clean that is...for instance for that to work the user would have to do something like this when calling the plugin:
var test = new library();
test.aPlugin = new aReallyInterestingPlugin();
What you could do is to have the plugin method bound to a new object, so that they don't 'pollute' the Library.
But instead of having the plugin as a method of a Library instance, have it rather as a lazy getter, so the syntax is more fluid, and you can build a new instance only if required.
The plugin syntax could then be simplified : just use a javascript class => a function that has methods defined on its prototype.
I think also that it makes sense to have 'extend' as a property of Library, not a method set on its prototype, since no instance should make use of it.
With this you can add a plugin with
library.extend('aReallyInterestingPlugin',AReallyInterestingPluginClass);
to use you can write
var myLibrary = new Library();
myLibrary.somePlugin.someMethod(arg1, arg2, ...);
The code would look like :
library.extend = function(name,plugin) {
var pluginInstance = null; // lazy evaluation to avoid useless memory consumption
var pluginGetter = function() {
if (pluginInstance == null) pluginInstance = new plugin();
return pluginInstance; };
Object.defineProperty( Library.prototype, name,
{ get: pluginGetter, enumerable : true } );
} ;
A plugin is just standard javascript class:
function MyPlugin() {
this.pluginProperty1 = 'some value';
}
MyPlugin.prototype = {
method1 : function() { /* do things */} ,
method2 : function() { /* do other things */ }
};
Notice that with this scheme the plugin is a singleton, i.e. every instances of Library will return the same object when asked for the same plugin.
If you prefer once plugin instance per Library, just have the Library constructor hold the plugins instances. (maybe in a hidden property).
function Library() {
// the code allready here...
var pluginInstances = {};
Object.defineProperty(this, 'pluginInstances',
{ get : function() { return pluginInstances }, enumerable : false });
}
library.extend = function(name,plugin) {
var pluginGetter = function() {
if (! this.pluginInstances[name] ) this.pluginInstances[name] = new plugin();
return this.pluginInstances[name];
};
Object.defineProperty( Library.prototype, name,
{ get: pluginGetter, enumerable : true } );
} ;
syntax for the plugin and for the use remains the same.
Edit : for older Browser support, you can still use a function instead of a getter :
function Library() {
// the code allready here...
this.pluginInstances= {} ;
}
library.extend = function(name,plugin) {
Library.prototype[name] = function() {
if (! this.pluginInstances[name] ) this.pluginInstances[name] = new plugin();
return this.pluginInstances[name];
};
} ;
to use it you would do :
var myLibrary = new Library();
myLibrary.somePlugin().someMethod(arg1, arg2, ...);
Edit 2 : version with singleton plugins and with no getters is :
function Library() { /* same code */ }
library.extend = function(name,plugin) {
var pluginInstance = null; // lazy evaluation to avoid useless memory consumption
Library.prototype[name] = function() {
if (pluginInstance == null) pluginInstance = new plugin();
return pluginInstance; };
}
That's an interesting question. There was a blog post about prototype-liked development and the fact that a lot of people are avoiding it. I'll go with something like this:
var Library = function() {
var api;
var private = "some value";
var privateMethod = function() {
console.log(private);
}
var registerPlugin = function(name, plugin) {
api[name] = plugin.call(api);
}
var publicMethod = function() {
privateMethod();
}
return api = {
show: publicMethod,
plugin: registerPlugin
}
}
// usage of the library
var library = new Library();
library.show();
// registering a plugin
library.plugin("awesome", function() {
var api, library = this;
var pluginVar = "That's a plugin";
var pluginMethod = function() {
console.log(pluginVar);
library.show();
}
return api = {
gogo: pluginMethod
}
});
// calling a method of the plugin
library.awesome.gogo();
The library is just a function which has its own scope, its own private and public methods and exports an API. The plugin is actually another function with the same capabilities, but it is invoked with the library's API as a scope. So, all the public methods of the library are available and you are able to use them. And of course you keep the privacy of the plugin. I'll suggest to read about revealing module pattern. I personally use it alot. It really saves me a lot of problems.
P.S.
Here is a jsfiddle using the code above http://jsfiddle.net/XyTJF/