I am new to this so I'll try to be as detailed as possible.
I am creating a JS class using functions.
function Bandstar(p, id)
{
var numberOfSides, Xcenter, Ycenter;
var canvas;
var circlesInt;
var linesInt;
var lines;
var linesInt2;
var linesMidToEdge;
.....
When it comes to methods, I just declare them like this:
this.IAset = function(a)
{
for (var i =0; i<= this.numberOfSides-1;i++)
{
if (parseInt(a[i]) == a[i])
this.circles[i].value = a[i];
else
return false;
}
this.IArepaint();
return true
}
and that's pretty much it.
The problem now is that, when I am creating a specific method:
this.moveFunc = function(e)
{
var p = e.target;
this.IAmove(p);
};
with the method IAmove being declared as follows:
this.IAmove = function(p)
{
var m = (p.oTop - this.Ycenter ) / (p.oLeft - this.Xcenter);
var linea = m * ( p.left - p.oLeft) + p.oTop;
var ejeX = p.left;
...
}
The compiler just keeps throwing this error:
Uncaught TypeError: Object function (e) { var p = e.target; this.IAmove(p); } has no method 'IAmove'
So, the thing is that I am declaring moveFunc as a function but then when I try to get to use this property, it doesn't actually use the instance of the class above it, (Bandstar), but of itself (and obviously moveFunc doesn't have a method called IAmove, the class on which it is being created is)...
I thought this was just like it worked, but I must not be getting the concept of heritage and class morphology in JS right.
How can I access a method in a class from another method inside that same class? If I just write IAmove(p) it will just say the method IAmove() is undefined (because it isn't, it's part of the Bandstar namespace.
I know it must be something stupid that I'm not seeing. Any suggestions?
The context inside your function may change based on your call. So this could not be the original object.
You should add a private var like:
function Bandstar(p, id)
{
var numberOfSides, Xcenter, Ycenter;
var canvas;
var that = this; // add this line
and use it when you try to call function (or get properties) of original object
this.moveFunc = function(e)
{
var p = e.target;
that.IAmove(p); // change this line
};
for be sure to point to original object.
EDIT: According with comments you can read more infos in Stuart's answer
You probably wants to add these methods to your Bandstar prototype.
function Bandstar(p, id)
{
// ...
}
Bandstar.prototype.IAset = function(a)
{
// ...
}
Bandstar.prototype.moveFunc = function(e)
{
var p = e.target;
this.IAmove(p);
};
This way your methods keep the Bandstar context, and this will remain Bandstar instance reference.
Have a look at Object.prototype reference
Assuming all of those methods are defined in the constructor the syntax is correct. The following fiddle illustrates it working, the code is based on a simplified version of your code...
function Test() {
this.move = function(p) {
document.write("Moved to: " + p);
};
this.another = function(e) {
this.move(e.target);
};
}
var test = new Test();
test.another({target: "The moon"});
The cause of the issues is likely to be one of two three things:
How the method moveFunc is called
When the method moveFunc is called
How the method IAmove is called (it may not be the moveFunc function that is causing that error).
The this keyword will reference the scope of the function which is typically the owner of the method...
var bandstar = new Bandstar(p, id);
bandstar.moveFunc(e); // this should be bandstar
The only reasons that might not be the case is if you are explicitly binding the moveFunc function to another object or a more common situation is that the function is being called without being attached to the owner...
var bandstar = new Bandstar(p, id);
var moveFunc = bandstar.moveFunc(e);
moveFunc(e); // this will now be window
The this keyword will default to window if the owner is detached from it. You can bind the function using.
var bandstar = new Bandstar(p, id);
var moveFunc = bandstar.moveFunc(e);
moveFunc.bind(bandstar);
moveFunc(e); // this will now be bandstar again
In the second issue both methods must be defined in the constructor before the moveFunc function can be called
this.moveFunc = function(e) { ... }
this.moveFunc(e); // Will throw an error that IAmove does not exist in the object
this.IAmove = function(p) { ... }
You can log the this object using console.log(this); to find out what it is.
It looks as though from your error that you are trying to call IAmove on the moveFunc function. For this error to be caused you would need to have called moveFunc with itself as the owner or the bound object... Which is not a particularly likely.
I have a hunch that the error may not actually be related to the this.IAmove(p); call in the moveFunc as assumed. Post the stack trace and we can use that to find where the error occurred.
Related
I'd like to override a function which is being made by a javascript plugin. I know how to override regular window functions, but this is different. I'm not sure how to name it, but the structure of that function is like:
window.something.function
I have no idea how to override that. I have tried the following:
var originalFunction = window.something.function;
window.something.function = function(parameter) {
alert('called');
return originalFunction(parameter);
}
But it's not working.
Does someone know a solution?
Edit:
As I have been told my question is unclear, I have edited it again using the actual names of the plug-in.
The plugin is meant to be used as:
var myColor = new jscolor(target, options)
When this is being used, there is a function "inside" the object "jscolor" which is being called when setting the value of target element. I want to override that function to add an extra functionality without changing the original js file.
Code:
if (!window.jscolor) { window.jscolor = (function () {
var jsc = {
.....
jscolor : function (targetElement, options) {
....
//Function I want to change:
this.exportColor = function (flags) {
if (!(flags & jsc.leaveValue) && this.valueElement) {
var value = this.toString();
if (this.uppercase) { value = value.toUpperCase(); }
if (this.hash) { value = '#' + value; }
if (jsc.isElementType(this.valueElement, 'input')) {
this.valueElement.value = value;
} else {
this.valueElement.innerHTML = value;
}
}
}
}
};
My attempts so far:
var origJsColor = jscolor.exportColor;
jscolor.exportColor = function(flags) {
console.log('called');
return origJsColor(flags);
}
and the window attempt above.
The jscolor code you've shown creates an object with its own copy of exportColor (one is created for each object). So to replace it, you have to replace it on each instance as the instance is created.
You can do that as a one-off in much the way you showed, just working with the instance rather than the plugin function, and using Function#call to call it with the right this:
// Get the instance
var c = new jscolor(target, options)
// Update it
var origExportColor = c.exportColor;
c.exportColor = function(flags) {
console.log('called');
return origExportColor.call(c, flags); // Note the changes on this line
};
Or instead of
return origExportColor.call(c, flags);
you might use
return origExportColor.apply(c, arguments);
...if there's any chance of the function being called with anything other than exactly one argument. (arguments is a magic pseudo-array containing the arguments used to call the function.)
If you want to do that for all instance you might create, you can put a facade in front of jscolor to do that to each instance:
var realJscolor = jscolor;
jscolor = function() {
// Call the real function, passing along all the arguments we
// get automatically (`arguments` is a magic pseudo-array)
var retVal = realJscolor.apply(this, arguments);
// If it returned a non-`null` object, we want to use that instead
// of `this`; if not, we keep using `this`
if (!retVal || typeof retVal !== "object") {
retVal = this;
}
// Slip in our version of exportColor
var origExportColor = retVal.exportColor;
retVal.exportColor = function(flags) {
console.log('called');
// (Maybe use `apply` here instead)
return origExportColor.call(retVal, flags);
};
// Return the result, in case the real function overrode `this`
return retVal;
};
jscolor.prototype = realJscolor.prototype;
Then just use jscolor normally:
var c = new jscolor(target, options);
The reason for the retVal thing is that although normally a new expression's result is a refernece to the new object created by new, a constructor function can return a non-null object reference and, if it does, the new expression's result is that object reference instead. That's why we check the return value of realJscolor.
Of course, that means that all uses of jscolor on the page that use the global will now use your updated function instead. If you don't want that, just use your own name and don't override jscolor:
var myColor = function() {
var retVal = jscolor.apply(this, arguments);
// ...and so on...
return retVal;
};
myColor.prototype = jscolor.prototype;
Usage:
var c = new myColor(target, options);
Function
function a() {alert(this)} // will print `window` obejct
is defined in the window scope. That is, it is a method of the window. Your more difficult situation comes from the fact that this is different from window if you define function as a method in another object.
var a = {method: function() {alert(this)}}
you call a.method() but see that the same window again. You need to bind your function to the parent object to make it compete method.
I have an object in Javascript:
function MyObject(aField) {
this.field = aField;
}
MyObject.prototype.aFunction = function() {
return this.field;
}
Then
var anInstance = new MyObject("blah");
var s = anInstance.aFunction();
this works fine, but if I pass the function to another function:
callLater(anInstance.aFunction);
I don't control callLater and it's minified, but it seems that it's calling aFunction using call() or apply(). Therefore, this points to another object and field is undefined.
What's the best practice to avoid this situation I'm facing?
That's because you lost the value of this Try this instead:
callLater(function() { anInstance.aFunction() });
Explaination, Think of it this way
function MyObject(aField) {
this.field = aField;
}
function MyObject2(aField) {
this.field = aField;
}
MyObject.prototype.aFunction = someFunct;
MyObject2.prototype.aFunction = someFunct;
Now what does someFunct belong to?
Well try doing MyObject.prototype.aFunction === MyObject2.prototype.aFunction it'll be true!
You see the problem Therefore it needs to be called from the class and not just referenced by value.
I like that in javascript, I can create a function, and then add further methods and attributes to that function
myInstance = function() {return 5}
myInstance.attr = 10
I would like to create a class to generate these objects. I assume I have to inherit from the Function base class.
In other words, I would like to:
var myInstance = new myFunctionClass()
var x = myInstance()
// x == 5
But I don't know how to create the myFunctionClass. I have tried the following, but it does not work:
var myFunctionClass = function() {Function.call(this, "return 5")}
myFunctionClass.prototype = new Function()
myInstance = new myFunctionClass()
myInstance()
// I would hope this would return 5, but instead I get
// TypeError: Property 'myInstance' of object #<Object> is not a function
I also tried the more complicated (and more proper?) inheritance method found here: How to "properly" create a custom object in JavaScript?, with no more luck. I have also tried using the util.inherits(myFunctionClass, Function) found in node.js. Still no luck
I have exhausted Google, and therefore feel that I must be missing something fundamental or obvious. Help would be greatly appreciated.
Your trying to inherit from Function. This is a right pain to do. I suggest you do the following instead
Live Example
var Proto = Object.create(Function.prototype);
Object.extend(Proto, {
constructor: function (d) {
console.log("construct, argument : ", d);
this.d = d;
// this is your constructor logic
},
call: function () {
console.log("call", this.d);
// this get's called when you invoke the "function" that is the instance
return "from call";
},
method: function () {
console.log("method");
// some method
return "return from method";
},
// some attr
attr: 42
});
You want to create a prototype object that forms the basis of your "class". It has your generic methods/attributes. It also has a constructor that gets invoked on object construction and a call method that gets invoked when you call the function
var functionFactory = function (proto) {
return function () {
var f = function () {
return f.call.apply(f, arguments);
};
Object.keys(proto).forEach(function (key) {
f[key] = proto[key];
});
f.constructor.apply(f, arguments);
return f;
}
}
A function factory takes a prototype object and returns a factory for it. The returned function when called will give you a new function object that "inherits" from your prototype object.
var protoFactory = functionFactory(proto);
var instance = protoFactory();
Here you create your factory and then create your instance.
However this isn't proper prototypical OO. we are just shallow copying properties of a prototype into a new object. So changes to the prototype will not reflect back to the original object.
If you want real prototypical OO then you need to use a hack.
var f = function () {
// your logic here
};
f.__proto__ = Proto;
Notice how we use the non-standard deprecated .__proto__ and we are mutating the value of [[Prototype]] at run-time which is considered evil.
JS does not allow a constructor to return a function, even though functions are objects. So you cant have an instantiation of a prototype that is itself executable. (Am I right in this? please correct if I'm not, it's an interesting question).
Though you could do a factory function:
var makeCoolFunc = function() {
var f = function() { return 5 };
f.a = 123;
f.b = 'hell yes!'
return f;
};
var func = makeCoolFunc();
var x = func();
You can extend Function and pass the wanted function body as String to the super constructor. The context of the function can be accessed with arguments.callee.
Example for an observable Attribute class:
export default class Attribute extends Function {
constructor(defaultValue){
super("value", "return arguments.callee.apply(arguments);");
this.value = defaultValue;
this.defaultValue = defaultValue;
this.changeListeners = [];
}
apply([value]){
if(value!==undefined){
if(value!==this.value){
var oldValue = this.value;
this.value=value;
this.changeListeners.every((changeListener)=>changeListener(oldValue, value));
}
}
return this.value;
}
clear(){
this.value=undefined;
}
reset(){
this.value=this.defaultValue;
}
addChangeListener(listener){
this.changeListeners.push(listener);
}
removeChangeListener(listener){
this.changeListeners.remove(listener);
}
clearChangeListeners(){
this.changeListeners = [];
}
}
Example usage:
import Attribute from './attribute.js';
var name= new Attribute();
name('foo'); //set value of name to 'foo'
name.addChangeListener((oldValue, newValue)=>{
alert('value changed from ' +oldValue+ ' to ' +newValue);
});
alert(name()); //show value of name: 'foo'
name('baa'); //set value of name to new value 'baa' and trigger change listener
The code below is adapted from this answer
function MessageClass() {
var self = this;
this.clickHander = function(e) { self.someoneClickedMe = true; };
var _private = 0;
this.getPrivate = function() { return _private; };
this.setPrivate = function(val) { _private = val; };
}
ErrorMessageClass.prototype = new MessageClass();
function ErrorMessageClass() {
MessageClass.apply(this, arguments);
}
var errorA = new ErrorMessageClass();
var errorB = new ErrorMessageClass();
errorA.setPrivate('A');
errorB.setPrivate('B');
console.log(errorA.getPrivate());
console.log(errorB.getPrivate());
The original post did not have the MessageClass.apply(this, arguments); since the purpose was to show how inheritance can go wrong in Javascript.
My question is, is saying: ErrorMessageClass.prototype = new MessageClass(); before the ErrorMessageClass constructor has even been declared bad practice? My understanding is that calling undeclared identifiers like that causes a silent declaration to occur, with the result being placed on the global window object, which I understand is bad.
Is this form:
function ErrorMessageClass() {
MessageClass.apply(this, arguments);
}
ErrorMessageClass.prototype = new MessageClass();
considered to be better practice? This link shows the code written as it was originally above, which is why I even tried it. Does this blogger know something I don't (quite likely)?
EDIT
Lots of great info in the answers below, but I did want to highlight this link which really explains things perfectly
Usually, to avoid this confusion, you would just attach the prototype after, but as Adam Rackis pointed out, function declarations are hoisted, like var statements.
However, you should not instantiate the base object as the prototype. If your base object takes arguments, what are you supposed to use? Use an empty "surrogate" constructor
// Used to setup inheritance
function surrogate () {};
function MessageClass() {
var self = this;
this.clickHander = function(e) { self.someoneClickedMe = true; };
var _private = 0;
this.getPrivate = function() { return _private; };
this.setPrivate = function(val) { _private = val; };
}
// The key steps to creating clean inheritance
surrogate.prototype = MessageClass;
// Sets up inheritance without instantiating a base class object
ErrorMessageClass.prototype = new surrogate();
// Fix the constructor property
ErrorMessageClass.prototype.constructor = ErrorMessageClass
function ErrorMessageClass() {
MessageClass.apply(this, arguments);
}
There's much more to be said. http://js-bits.blogspot.com/2010/08/javascript-inheritance-done-right.html
It works because function declarations are evaluated first. If you tried to move these classes under an object literal "namespace" the first version would fail.
I personally find the second method to be much easier to read - also, don't forget to set the sub-class' prototype.constructor property back to itself. Personally, I use an inherits() method on the Function prototype which wraps up essentially the type of code you're using here.
Just for the kicks i am trying to create a simple data object in javascript. Here is the code.
var roverObject = function(){
var newRover = {};
var name;
var xCord;
var ycord;
var direction;
newRover.setName = function(newName) {
name = newName;
};
newRover.getName = function() {
return name;
};
newRover.setDirection = function(newDirection) {
direction = newDirection;
};
newRover.getDirection = function() {
return direction;
};
newRover.setXCord = function(newXCord) {
xCord = newXCord;
};
newRover.getXCord = function() {
return xCord;
};
newRover.setYCord = function(newYCord) {
yCord = newYCord;
};
newRover.getYCord = function() {
return yCord;
};
newRover.where = function(){
return "Rover :: "+ name +" is at Location("+xCord+","+yCord+") pointing to "+direction;
};
return newRover;
};
rover1 = new roverObject();
rover2 = new roverObject();
rover1.setName("Mars Rover");
rover1.setDirection("NORTH");
rover1.setXCord(2);
rover1.setYCord(2);
console.log(rover1.where());
console.log(rover1);
rover2.setName("Moon Rover");
rover2.setDirection("SOUTH");
rover2.setXCord(1);
rover2.setYCord(1);
console.log(rover2.where());
console.log(rover2);
There are few questions that I have around this creation.
I want to create an object where the properties/attributes of object are private and not visible to world. Am I successful in doing that? Can I really not access the object attributes?
Is there a better way to create this kind of object?
If I want to inherit this object, I should do a newObject.prototype = roverObjectwill that work? And will that make sense most of all.
Finally I have a wierd problem. Notice the last method of objet "where" which returns a concatenated string. Here I tried following code instead.
newRover.where = function(){
return "Rover :: "+ name +" is at Location("+xCord+","+yCord+") pointing to "+direction;
}();
and then did a following console.log
console.log(rover1.where);
console.log(rover2.where);
It threw following error for me:
cannot access optimized closure
Why would it say that? What am I doing wrong?
Thanks for all the help. Any review comments would be appreciated too!
Cheers
Am I successful in doing that? Can I really not access the object attributes?
Indeed. You don't have object attributes, you have local variables in the roverObject function. Local variables can't be accessed from outside, only from the functions inside the roverObject function that have a closure over them.
That you are calling roverObject as a constructor, with new roverObject, is irrelevant, as you are returning a different object from the function. Saying var rover1= roverObject() without the new would do exactly the same thing. Notably the object returned by [new] roverObject is a plain Object as you created it from {}; rover1 instanceof roverObject is false.
If you wanted instanceof to work, you would have to call with new, and use this instead of newRover in the constructor function.
If I want to inherit this object, I should do a newObject.prototype = roverObject will that work? And will that make sense most of all.
No. You currently have no allowance for prototyping. You are using a separate copy of each method for each instance of the roverObject. You can do certainly objects this way but it's a different approach than prototyping. If you wanted to make something like a subclass of roverObject in the arrangement you have now, you'd say something like:
function AdvancedRover() {
var rover= new roverObject();
rover.doResearch= function() {
return rover.where()+' and is doing advanced research';
};
return rover;
}
Note since the ‘private’ local variables in the base class constructor really are private, even the subclass cannot get at them. There's no ‘protected’.
newRover.where = function(){ ... }();
What's that trying to do? I can't get the error you do; all the above does is assigns the string with the location to where (before the setter methods have been called, so it's full of undefineds).
Is there a better way to create this kind of object?
Maybe. see this question for a discussion of class/instance strategies in JavaScript.
Q1: you can create 'private' members in javascript 'classes'. In javascript, privacy is not determined by any access specifier. Instead, access needs to be specifically instrumented. Example:
function MyClass() {
this.val = 100; // public;
var privateVal = 200;
function getVal() { return this.val; } // private method;
this.getPrivateVal = function() { // public method, accessor to private variable
return privateVal;
}
}
Object scope in javascript is governed by a queer concept called closures. AFAIK, there is no parallel concept in any other popular launguage like C+/Java etc.
While I understand what closures are, I cannot put it in words. Perhaps a demonstration will help you:
function closureDemo() {
var done=false;
function setDone() { done=true; }
doLater(setDone);
}
function doLater(func) { setTimeout(func,1000); }
closureDemo();
now, while setDone is called from within doLater, it can still access done in closureDemo, even though done is not in scope (in the conventional procedural sense).
I think you will understand more when you read this.
Q2: I can only say what I do; I don't know if it is better or not. If I wrote your code, it would look like this:
function RoverObject() {
var newRover = {}; // privates
var name;
var xCord;
var ycord;
var direction;
this.setName = function(newName) {
name = newName;
};
this.getName = function() {
return name;
};
this.setDirection = function(newDirection) {
direction = newDirection;
};
// and so on...
this.where = function(){
return "Rover :: "+ name +" is at Location("+xCord+","+yCord+") pointing to "+direction;
};
}
var rover1 = new RoverObject();
Points to note:
capitalization of "class name"'s first letter
use of this instead of roverObject
this function is a pure constructor. it returns nothing.
Q3: if you want to do inheritance, then my method (use of this) will not work. Instead, the public methods should be a part of the prototype of RoverObject. Read this. Excellent material.
Hope that helps.
EDIT: There is a problem with the way your code is doing work. Problems:
your function does not do what its name suggests. Its name had better be createRoverObject, because that's exactly what it is doing. It is not working like a class constructor
the methods supported by your class are part of the object, but the data members are not. While this may work (and it is not, as your console.log() problem suggests), it is not a good way to implement a class in javascript. The problem here is of closures. Again, i'm unable to articulate what the problem specifically is, but I can smell it.
With regards to 4. - you are trying to log the function, not the result of calling the function. Should be console.log(rover1.where()); My guess firebug(I assume it's firebug's console.log) does not like to log function definitions.
EDIT Oh I get it, you are actually executing the where funcion when you assign rover.where. Are you trying to get what looks like a property to actually be a function? If that's the case it won't work. It will have to be a function if you want it to be evaluated when it's called.
What happens in you case where gets executed in the constructor function. At that point you are still creating the roverObject closure and hence it's too early to access it's private variables.
This is just addressing point 1 of your post.
Here's a good article on javascript private members and more:
Private Members in JavaScript
Defining your object like this gives you private members.
function RolloverObject() {
var name;
var xCord;
var ycord;
var direction;
this.setName = function(newName) { name = newName; };
this.getName = function() { return name; };
this.setDirection = function(newDirection) { direction = newDirection; };
this.getDirection = function() { return direction; };
this.setXCord = function(newXCord) { xCord = newXCord; };
this.getXCord = function() { return xCord; };
this.setYCord = function(newYCord) { yCord = newYCord; };
this.getYCord = function() { return yCord; };
this.where = function() {
return "Rover :: " + name + " is at Location(" + xCord + "," + yCord + ") pointing to " + direction;
};
}
var rolloverObject = new RolloverObject();