I'm implementing Stoyan Stefanov's javascript namespace function as I have been reading his very informative JavaScript Patterns book; in my web application but not sure if I'm using it the proper way
here is the funciton implementation i'm using on my web app on this page http://dalydd.com/projects/module_example/
var COOP = COOP || {};
COOP.namespace = function (ns_string) {
var parts = ns_string.split('.'),
parent = COOP,
i;
// strip redundant leading global
if (parts[0] === "COOP") {
parts = parts.slice(1);
}
for (i = 0; i < parts.length; i += 1) {
// create a property if it doesn't exist
if (typeof parent[parts[i]] === "undefined") {
parent[parts[i]] = {};
}
parent = parent[parts[i]];
}
return parent;
};
COOP.namespace('sliderContainer')
COOP.sliderContainer = function () {
return slider = ($('#slider').length > 0) ? $('#slider') : $('#element_temp');
} // we need this at the beginning as others are dependent on it and call it initially
my goal is to check every new property of COOP to see if it exists before it's implemented --- so if I create a property of COOP called COOP.sliderContainer - I want to make sure COOP.sliderContainer does not exist already. when I use the namespace function it returns an object but COOP.sliderContainer is a function. I feel like I have to do an extra layer of abstraction in order to name this namespace function work properly like
var sliderContainer = COOP.namespace('sliderContainer');
sliderContainer.sliderContainer = function () {
return slider = ($('#slider').length > 0) ? $('#slider') : $('#element_temp');
}
this seems silly and redundant to me - is there a better way to do this?
any info is appreciated as always - the page has a direct link to the js file on it
namespace function is useful when create sub namespaces inside COOP, it will help to avoid multiple checkings. For example you want to create COOP.module.module1, you have to make 2 checks to see if module and module 1 are not defined or not.
However, in this case, sliderContainer is just a property of COOP. There's no need to use namespace. You just simply check it yourself:
if(COOP.sliderContainer === undefined){
// define it
}
EDIT
You can have a function handle that for you:
COOP.createProperty = function(name, prop){
if(COOP[name] === undefined){
COOP[name] = prop;
}
}
then
COOP.createProperty("sliderContainer", function(){
// do whatever you want
});
Related
I add this snippet to each javascript file used in my asp.net web api application to avoid multiple load :
Fullcalendar.js
blog = {};
blog.comments = blog.comments || {};
blog.comments.debugMode = false;
blog.isFirstLoad = function (namesp, jsFile) {
var isFirst = namesp.jsFile.firstLoad === undefined;
namesp.jsFile.firstLoad = false;
return isFirst;
};
$(document).ready(function () {
if (!blog.isFirstLoad(blog.comments, "fullcalendar.js")) {
return;
}
});
Sometimes I get a weird exception
Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'firstLoad' of undefined
I need to know :
Why this happens?
How can I fix it?
A couple of problems there.
First, you shouldn't be loading the file more than once in the first place, so it shouldn't be necessary to go through this business of trying to figure out whether you've loaded it.
But if you want to do that:
The first practical issue is that you're always doing this:
blog = {};
...which means if there's already a blog global, you're wiping out its value and replacing it with an empty object. If you want to use an existing global's value or create a new one, do this:
var blog = blog || {};
That seems odd, but since repeated var declarations are fine (and don't change the variable), that will use an existing one's value, or if there isn't one (or its value is falsey) it will create a new one and initialize it with {}.
Then, the line
namesp.jsFile.firstLoad = false;
...looks for a property called jsFile on namesp and assumes it's not null or undefined. It doesn't look for a property using the jsFile argument's value.
To do that, use brackets notation:
namesp[jsFile].firstLoad = false;
Even then, though, you're assuming it's not null or undefined, but it may well be. You probably just wanted:
namesp[jsFile] = false;
Or possibly:
namesp[jsFile] = namesp[jsFile] ||{};
namesp[jsFile].firstLoad = false;
That said, it seems really odd to use blog.comments to track whether JavaScript files have been loaded. If the file may have already been loaded, just this will do it:
var fullCalendarLoaded;
if (fullCalendarLoaded) {
// It's already loaded
} else {
// It isn't, but it is now
fullCalendarLoaded = true;
// ...do your init...
}
Or if you have several of these and want to use a single global for it:
var loadedScripts = loadedScripts || {};
if (loadedScripts.fullCalendar) {
// Already loaded
} else {
// Not loaded yet
loadedScripts.fullCalendar = true;
// ...do init...
}
Or if using the filename is important:
var loadedScripts = loadedScripts || {};
function firstLoad(filename) {
if (loadedScripts[filename[) {
return false;
}
// Not loaded yet, remember we've loaded it now
loadedScripts[filename] = true;
return true;
}
Then:
if (firstLoad("fullcalendar.js")) {
// First load, do init...
}
It's fairly straightforward:
On your initial run, you define
blog = {};
blog.comments = blog.comments || {};
blog.comments.debugMode = false;
In theory, this means that on some loads, blog is:
var blog = {
comments: {
debugMode: false
}
}
You then pass blog.comments into your function isFirstLoad as the namesp parameter. In that function, you do the evaluation:
namesp.jsFile.firstLoad === undefined;
Well, you never defined the jsFile property of blog.comments. This means it is undefined. Trying to access the property firstLoad of an undefined variable will give you your error
Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'firstLoad' of undefined
This seems like a very basic question. But how do I create a class structure within Google Apps Script?
Lets say I want to call: myLibrary.Statistics.StandardDeviation(). I have to instead call: myLibrary.StandardDeviation().
I cannot seem to break it down any further, or organize it into classes.
How can I do this?
I suspect there's something more that you're not telling us about your situation. It is possible to set up a function as a property of an object that is itself a property of an object, and thus support the calling structure you've described.
function test() {
Logger.log( myLibrary.Statistics.StandardDeviation([5.3,5.2,5,2.0,3.4,6,8.0]) ); // 1.76021798279042
};
myLibrary.gs
var myLibrary = {};
myLibrary.Statistics = {}
myLibrary.Statistics.StandardDeviation = function( array ) {
// adapted from http://stackoverflow.com/a/32201390/1677912
var i,j,total = 0, mean = 0, diffSqredArr = [];
for(i=0;i<array.length;i+=1){
total+=array[i];
}
mean = total/array.length;
for(j=0;j<array.length;j+=1){
diffSqredArr.push(Math.pow((array[j]-mean),2));
}
return (Math.sqrt(diffSqredArr.reduce(function(firstEl, nextEl){
return firstEl + nextEl;
})/array.length));
}
I've wrote a small example for readability.. I'm trying to get my head around proper js app structure.
I'm new to writing larger js apps. Right now, I've got a constructor, and a whole bunch of prototype functions. I always thought you're NOT supposed to call (or return) from one function to another. But now, at the bottom of my app, I'm instantiating my constructor, then having to call a bunch of functions, as well as build in conditional statements to handle the execution, which seems totally wrong.
This is the idea I've been doing:
function TodaysFood(b, l)
{
this.breakfast = b;
this.lunch = l;
}
TodaysFood.prototype.firstMeal = function()
{
return console.log(this.breakfast);
}
TodaysFood.prototype.secondMeal = function()
{
return console.log(this.lunch);
}
var app = new TodaysFood("eggs", "sandwich");
app.firstMeal();
app.secondMeal();
I'm wondering if this function "linking" is proper?
function TodaysFood(b, l)
{
this.breakfast = b;
this.lunch = l;
}
TodaysFood.prototype.firstMeal = function()
{
return this.secondMeal(this.breakfast);
}
TodaysFood.prototype.secondMeal = function(firstMeal)
{
var twoMeals = [firstMeal, this.lunch];
return this.whatIAte(twoMeals);
}
TodaysFood.prototype.whatIAte = function(twoMeals)
{
return console.log(twoMeals);
}
var app = new TodaysFood("eggs", "sandwich");
app.firstMeal();
Stupid example, but I'm trying to understand how an app should flow. Should I be able to write my whole app in separate, but linked functions, then just kick the whole thing off by instantiating the constructor, and maybe calling one function. Or is the first example more correct -- writing independent functions, then handling the interaction between them after you've instantiate the constructor?
Thanks for any help.
You may want to make it modular, Ala Node.js or within the browser using RequireJS
Here is a slight variation of the second example you could consider, view fiddle
var TodaysFood = function (b, l) {
var self = this;
this.breakfast = b;
this.lunch = l;
this.firstMeal = function () {
console.log(this.breakfast);
return self;
};
this.secondMeal = function () {
console.log(this.lunch);
return self;
}
this.allMeals = function () {
return this.firstMeal().secondMeal();
};
}
var food = new TodaysFood('eggs', 'sandwich');
food.firstMeal().secondMeal().allMeals();
If you plan to use node.js or RequireJS then the above could be modularized by replacing the last two test lines of code with,
module.exports = TodaysFood;
If this is made modular then you would remove the constructor var TodaysFood = function(b, l) { ... and instead accept arguments for b & l within your individual methods like firstMeal & secondMeal. This would make it static and prevent collisions with the constructor values.
I'm using the emscripten port of Box2D from here: https://github.com/kripken/box2d.js
It's working great, but I'm have some trouble interacting with emscripten.
Specifically I'm perform model-display sync in a loop like this:
function step() {
world.Step(1/60);
var body = this.world.GetBodyList();
while(body != null) {
readGeometry(body, body.data);
body = body.GetNext();
}
}
...but that doesn't seem to work. Although the C++ code returns NULL at the end of the linked list of body objects, body.GetNext() (return type in cpp is b2Body *) is never the native javascript null.
I've also tried:
body != Box2D.NULL
However, that is also never true. I'm guessing that emscripten is returning a wrapped pointer, and I have to do some specific operation on it to test for 'nullness'.
Inspecting the returned object I can see that the 'pointer' value in it for the null values is zero, and I can make it work with:
function step() {
world.Step(1/60);
var body = this.world.GetBodyList();
while(body.a != 0) { // <--------------- This hack
readGeometry(body, body.data);
body = body.GetNext();
}
}
So, it's clearly possible to test for NULL-ness, but I can't find any documentation on how to do it.
Try this
function step() {
world.Step(1/60);
var body = this.world.GetBodyList();
while(Box2D.getPointer(body)) { // <-- will equal 0 for a Box2D.NULL object
readGeometry(body, body.data);
body = body.GetNext();
}
}
I know this question is really old but I recently came across this problem and found the solution on github.
The accepted answer didn't work, but this did :
var next = World.m_bodyList;
var current;
while (next != null) {
current = next; next = next.m_next;
if(current.m_userData){
var current_body = {};
current_body.x = current.m_xf.position.x;
current_body.y = current.m_xf.position.y
}
}
I created this Object with 3 properties:
Node = {
name : "",
isOkay : true,
rotation : 0.0
};
How would i go creating an array of these objects, in size of 100.
So later i could do something like this:
nodeList[74].name = "Peter";
nodeList[74].isOkay = false;
nodeList[74].rotation = 1.3;
or similar...
I'm really new to this, i found couple of topics about this, but it never compiles properly.
I would be really grateful if anyone could show the proper syntax, Thanks!
I would use this way:
var Node = function() {
this.name = "";
this.isOkay = true;
this.rotation = 0.0
}
var nodeList = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
nodeList.push(new Node());
}
nodeList[0].name = "test";
So you could create a new object(really new) in order to manage it later. Look here.
EDIT:
What I have done is created an object with a constructor method, you can check it on MDN here.
Creating an object like you have done:
var Node = { /* ... */ }
Is like having one object initiated. To have another, you'll have to write another one and so on. With that contructor you may create any instances you want based on that model.
You might want to do this lazily
Depending on the situation might be helpful to do this lazily
var Node = function(name, isOkay,rotation){
if(!(this instanceof Node)) return new Node(name,isOkay,rotation);
else {
this.name = name;
this.isOkay = isOkay;
this.rotation = rotation;
}
}
var NodeCollective = function(numberOfNodes){
if(!(this instanceof NodeCollective)) return new NodeCollective(numberOfNodes);
else{
var _collective={};
var _defaultName = "", _defaultIsOkay = true, _defaultRotation=0.0;
this.length = numberOfNodes;
this.getNode=function(nodeNumber){
if(!_collective.hasOwnProperty(nodeNumber) && nodeNumber < numberOfNodes){
_collective[nodeNumber]=
Node(_defaultName,_defaultIsOkay,_defaultRotation);
}
//I am just assuming I am not going to get garbage
//you can put in checks to make sure everything is kosher
//if you really want to
return _collective[nodeNumber];
};
}
}
but it also depends on what you are trying to do... if you might not be getting all of the nodes in your program then implementing them in some way that avoids greedily creating them could save you a lot of time if the code is executed often, but if the piece of code isn't executed often this might be over kill.
var nodeList = []; // create empty array
nodeList.push(Node); // add the object to the end of the array
nodeList[0].rotation = 1.3; // set rotation property of the object
console.log(nodeList[0]); // prints the object to console