I have an object like this for example:
obj = {
subobj1: {
},
subobj2: {
func1: function(){
},
func2: function(){
}
},
subobj3: {
func3: function(){
},
func4: function(){
}
},
}
How do I call func1 from within func4 without having to call obj.subobj2.func1() ?
You can't exactly. You have no mean to know in what objects your function exists.
Note that it could be in more than one : you could have written this after your existing code :
var obj2 = {some:obj.subobj3};
So there can't be a unique link (and there is no accessible link) from a property value to the object holding it.
Now, supposing you'd be satisfied with a link made at object creation, you could use a factory to build your object :
obj = (function(){
var parent = {
subobj1: {
},
subobj2: {
func1: function(){
},
func2: function(){
}
},
subobj3: {
func3: function(){
},
func4: function(){
parent.subobj2.func1();
}
}
};
return parent;
})();
Then you can call
obj.subobj3.func4();
Demonstration
EDIT
I see you gave the tag OOP to your question. You should know that the pattern I gave is more frequently used to define modules. OOP in javascript is more often done using new and prototype, in order to enable instances sharing methods and inheritance. As you probably want modules rather than OOP, you seem to be fine, though.
See this introduction.
Here's how you can add .parent to any sub-object with a recursive init:
var obj = {
init: function() {
for (var i in this) {
if (typeof this[i] == 'object') {
this[i].init = this.init;
this[i].init();
this[i].parent = this;
}
}
return this;
},
subobj1: {
},
subobj2: {
func1: function(){
console.log('hey');
},
func2: function(){
}
},
subobj3: {
func3: function(){
},
func4: function(){
this.parent.subobj2.func1();
}
}
}.init();
obj.subobj3.func4();
With this solution you can also use .parent as many times as your nesting requires, like for instance if you had two levels of nesting:
this.parent.parent.subobjX.funcY();
http://jsbin.com/yuwiducadoma/1/watch?js,console
You can't do that directly, since there is no way to "go up" the object hierarchy like you can with ".." in a filesystem.
What you can do is have variables pointing to the subobjects or subfunctions directly, so that you don't need to go through the hierarchy to call them. The following is a common pattern for creating Javascript modules:
obj = (function(){
var obj1 = {...}
var obj2 = {...}
var func3 = function(){...};
var func4 = function(){...};
return {
subobj1: obj1,
subobj2: obj2,
subobj3: {
func3: func3,
func4: func4
}
}
}());
In this example, the inner functions can access obj1, obj2, func3 and func4 directly from their variables. The self-calling function makes so these inner variables are private and hidden from the outside and the return statement allows you to export only the functions that you want to make public.
As others have said, with a plain object it is not possible to lookup a parent from a nested child.
However, it is possible if you employ recursive ES6 Proxies as helpers.
I've written a library called ObservableSlim that, among other things, allows you to traverse up from a child object to the parent.
Here's a simple example (jsFiddle demo):
var test = {"hello":{"foo":{"bar":"world"}}};
var proxy = ObservableSlim.create(test, true, function(changes) {
console.log(JSON.stringify(changes));
});
function traverseUp(childObj) {
console.log(JSON.stringify(childObj.__getParent())); // returns test.hello: {"foo":{"bar":"world"}}
console.log(childObj.__getParent(2)); // attempts to traverse up two levels, returns undefined because test.hello does not have a parent object
};
traverseUp(proxy.hello.foo);
That isn't possible. Object properties are obtain by the object through which they are set. JavaScript doesn't implicitly set the root object as global, and therefore you can't alias obj.subobj2.func1 as func1 or in any way shorter. If you find yourself calling that function excessively, try setting a variable instead.
Here is an asnwer more ActionScript like and easily to understand:
function MainObject() {
this.x = 100;
this.y = 50;
this.second = new SecondObject(this);
}
function SecondObject(p) {
this.parent = p;
}
var firstobject = new MainObject();
// Saving a reference to SecondObject.
var secondObject = firstobject.second;
// Because of parent variable, you can access second object parent without needing to have the parent object in a variable.
console.log(secondObject.parent.x);
console.log(secondObject.parent.y);
Just remember that an object can't have multiple parents.
It's impossible with your implementation of the object. Depends on your needs - the following implementation could be useful:
obj = function(){
var obj = {
subobj1: {
},
subobj2: {
func1: function(){
console.log('func1');
},
func2: function(){
}
},
subobj3: {
func3: function(){
},
func4: function(){
this.parentObject.subobj2.func1();
}
}
}
obj.subobj3.parentObject = obj;
/*
//You can also init parentObject reference of the rest of the nested objects if you need
obj.subobj1.parentObject = obj;
obj.subobj2.parentObject = obj;
*/
return obj;
}();
obj.subobj3.func4();
The idea is that nested objects can't know who is their parent, but the parent can tell its children who is he (but then init. code is needed as you can see in my implementation).
You can test it here: http://jsbin.com/eVOpITom/1/edit
Related
I am looking to achieve something along the following.
HTMLSpanElement.prototype.testNS = {
_this: this,
testFunc: function() {
console.log(this.innerHTML) //undefined as expected as this is the testFunc object
},
testFunc2: function() {
console.log(this._this) //Window object
}
}
My goal is to add some helper functions directly to a span element in this case.
So, if I had the following:
<span>test</span>
I could find the span and call this code to return "test"
spanElement.testNS.testFunc()
I know that a function retains scope of it's parent when I do it like so...
HTMLSpanElement.prototype.testFunc = function() {
console.log(this.innerHTML)
}
But I am attempting to organize the code a bit and make it more obvious where the functions are coming from when I add them, and I can't seem to find a way to retain scope, when I do a normal JSON object grab the this scope into _this: this it just returns the global scope of "window".
Disclaimer: You shouldn't be trying to modify the prototypes on built-in types, especially host objects. It's a bad idea.
The reason your approach isn't working for you is that the functions are being called with the testNS object as the this.
You can get this to work if you define testNS as a property with a getter function, using Object.defineProperty. The reason this works is that the get function runs in the context of the object on which the property is being accessed (which would be the span):
Object.defineProperty(HTMLSpanElement.prototype, 'testNS', {
get: function() {
var _this = this;
return {
testFunc: function() {
console.log(_this.innerHTML)
},
testFunc2: function() {
console.log(_this)
}
}
}
});
var span = document.getElementById('mySpan');
span.testNS.testFunc();
span.testNS.testFunc2();
<span id="mySpan">Wah-hoo!</span>
A more "vanilla" approach is to just have testNS be a plain function and call it like one. This works because testNS is called in the context of the object on which it is being called (again, the span):
HTMLSpanElement.prototype.testNS = function() {
var _this = this;
return {
testFunc: function() {
console.log(_this.innerHTML)
},
testFunc2: function() {
console.log(_this)
}
}
}
var span = document.getElementById('mySpan');
span.testNS().testFunc();
span.testNS().testFunc2();
<span id="mySpan">Wah-hoo!</span>
When you call a function as foo.bar() then this inside bar refers to foo. Hence if you call the function as spanElement.testNS.testFunc(), this refers to spanElement.testNS.
_this: this, cannot work because this cannot refer to a <span> element.
To get access to spanElement from testFunc you could implement testNS as a getter:
Object.defineProperty(HTMLSpanElement.prototype, 'testNS', {
get: function() {
var element = this;
return {
testFunc: function() {
console.log(element.innerHTML);
},
};
},
});
document.querySelector('span').testNS.testFunc();
<span>foo</span>
Because it's a strange requirement I wrote a an equivalent strange solution :-)
Basically the createElement has been overriden in order to add a namespace object literal and then define a new function testFunc on top of the namespace using the instance of the element binded to the function
!function(){
var defaultNamespace = "testNS";
var createElement = document.createElement;
document.createElement = function(tag, namespace) {
var element = createElement.apply(document, arguments);
element[namespace || defaultNamespace] = {
testFunc : function() {
console.log(this.innerHTML);
}.bind(element)
};
return element;
}
}();
var span = document.createElement("span");
I would like to known if there is a native way of doing this :
Object.prototype.chain = function(f) { return f.call(this) }
function fun1() {
doSomethingWithObject(this)
return this
}
function fun2() {
doSomethingElse(this)
return this
}
someObject
.method1('something')
.method2()
.chain(checkSomething() ? fun1 : fun2)
.method3()
But I do not feel like changing the prototype of Object. Is there a way to do this without modifying the prototype of Objects or the other constructors that I use (and am not the developer of)
Edits :
I feel I do not explain very well, so let' add some details :
What I would like to do is to use some APIs I do not define. someObject is defined like the following, with chainable methods :
var someObject = {
method1: function(val) {
// do something
return this
},
method2: function() {
// do something
return this
},
method3: function() {
// do something
return this
}
}
Now imagine I cannot change this code, because this object is from a library, and so I don't want to. Then, imagine that I would like to chain methods and some custom functions (see my first snippet) for many more different objects. The simplest thing to do is to attach a chain method to Object.prototype.
But I think that it could result in conflicts in the future. I am looking for a way to do the same thing without touching the prototype.
I'm surprised there are no answers to this to be honest.
There are many ways to natively introduce chaining. I like to use the revealing module pattern.
So I create a basic model (Go ahead and chuck this in your chrome of firefox console)
var Dog = function(name) {
var self = this;
this.name = name;
var core = {
getName:function(){
return self.name;
}
};
this.movement = function(){ //this function will be exposed including its returned functions for chaining
console.log(self.name + " is getting restless... ");
var jump = function(){
console.log(self.name + " jumps around ");
return this //returns the movement scope
};
var run = function(){
console.log(self.name + " has decided to run");
return this //returns the movement scope
};
return {
jump:jump,
run:run
};
}
console.log("A Pup has been born, we shall call him... " + name);
return{
movement:self.movement //only .movement is exposed to the outside world
};
}
Now create a new dog using var p = new Dog("doggyName");
now, you can chain functions. Try:
p.movement().jump().run().jump().run();
You should get the console logged text that corresponds with each function.
By returning the scope of this after executing your movement function you expose the additional functions that are returned in that scope (see the comments in the code). These can then be chained onto the end of your current function provided they are in the same scope. This allows you to scope specific parts of your code. For example with this dog, all movement is scoped to self.movement, you could have all eating scoped to self.eat and so on
Read up on the revealing module pattern. Though this is not the only way to do it.
The wrapper is something that will wrap any object to make it compatible with "chaining" and will add another chain method that will allow you to plug external functions and still get the chaining.
Check this example:
function myObj() {
this.state = {
a: 1
};
this.method1 = function () {
console.log("1");
}
this.method2 = function () {
console.log("2");
}
this.method3 = function () {
console.log("3");
}
this.method4 = function () {
console.log(this.state);
}
}
function objectChainWrapper(obj) {
this.chain = function (fn) {
fn.call(obj);
return this;
}
for (var prop in obj) {
if (obj.hasOwnProperty(prop) && typeof obj[prop] == 'function') {
this[prop] = (function (methodName) {
return function () {
obj[methodName].call(obj);
return this;
}
}(prop))
}
}
}
var obj = new myObj();
var wrapper = new objectChainWrapper(obj);
var chainMethod = function(){ console.log('chain') };
var chainMethodState = function(){ console.log(this.state) };
wrapper.method1().method2().chain(chainMethodState).method3().chain(chainMethod).method4();
JSFIDDLE.
To "plug" an unbound function into the object's method chain you can assign it to a property and call that:
function fn() {
document.write('hi ');
return this;
}
someObj = {
meth1: function() {
document.write('meth1 ');
return this;
},
meth2: function() {
document.write('meth2 ');
return this;
}
}
someObj
.meth1()
[someObj._=fn, '_']()
.meth2()
This doesn't look very pretty if you ask me. A more readable option is to add the chain method on the fly, like:
function chainable(obj) {
obj.chain = function(fn) {
return fn.call(this);
}
return obj;
}
chainable(someObj).meth1().chain(fn).meth2()
I've been building a small JS framework for use at my job, and I'd like to employ Douglas Crockford's prototypical inheritance patterns. I think I get the general idea of how the prototype object works, but what isn't clear is the way in which I would use this pattern beyond the simplest example.
I'll flesh it out to the point that I understand it.
(function () {
'use strict';
var Vehicles = {};
Vehicles.Vehicle = function () {
this.go = function () {
//go forwards
};
this.stop = function () {
//stop
};
};
Vehicles.Airplane = Object.create(Vehicles.Vehicle());
}());
So now my Vehicles.Airplane object can go() and stop(), but I want more. I want to add takeOff() and land() methods to this object. I could just use ugly dot notation afterwards:
Vehicles.Airplane.takeOff = function () {
//take off stuff
}
But that seems wrong, especially if I were to add many methods or properties. The question asked at here seems to be very similar to mine, but the answer doesn't quite ring true for me. The answer suggests that I should build an object literal before using Object.create, and that I should pass that object literal into the create method. In the example code given, however, it looks like their new object inherits nothing at all now.
What I'm hoping for is some syntax similar to:
Vehicles.Airplane = Object.create(Vehicles.Vehicle({
this.takeOff = function () {
//takeOff stuff
};
this.land = function () {
//land stuff
};
}));
I know this syntax will break terribly with Object.create right now, because of course I'm passing Vehicle.Vehicle a function rather than an object literal. That's beside the point. I'm wondering in what way I should build new properties into an object that inherits from another without having to list them out one at a time with dot notation after the fact.
EDIT:
Bergi, after some anguished thought on the topic, I think I really want to go with what you described as the "Classical Pattern". Here is my first stab at it (now with actual code snippets rather than mocked up hypotheticals - You even get to see my crappy method stubs):
CS.Button = function (o) {
o = o || {};
function init(self) {
self.domNode = dce('a');
self.text = o.text || '';
self.displayType = 'inline-block';
self.disabled = o.disabled || false;
self.domNode.appendChild(ctn(self.text));
if (o.handler) {
self.addListener('click', function () {
o.handler(self);
});
}
}
this.setText = function (newText) {
if (this.domNode.firstChild) {
this.domNode.removeChild(this.domNode.firstChild);
}
this.domNode.appendChild(ctn(newText));
};
init(this);
};
CS.Button.prototype = Object.create(CS.Displayable.prototype, {
constructor: {value: CS.Button, configurable: true}
});
CS.Displayable = function (o) { // o = CS Object
o = o || {};
var f = Object.create(new CS.Element(o));
function init(self) {
if (!self.domAnchor) {
self.domAnchor = self.domNode;
}
if (self.renderTo) {
self.renderTo.appendChild(self.domAnchor);
}
}
//Public Methods
this.addClass = function (newClass) {
if (typeof newClass === 'string') {
this.domNode.className += ' ' + newClass;
}
};
this.addListener = function (event, func, capture) {
if (this.domNode.addEventListener) {
this.domNode.addEventListener(event, func, capture);
} else if (this.domNode.attachEvent) {
this.domNode.attachEvent('on' + event, func);
}
};
this.blur = function () {
this.domNode.blur();
};
this.disable = function () {
this.disabled = true;
};
this.enable = function () {
this.disabled = false;
};
this.focus = function () {
this.domNode.focus();
};
this.getHeight = function () {
return this.domNode.offsetHeight;
};
this.getWidth = function () {
return this.domNode.offsetWidth;
};
this.hide = function () {
this.domNode.style.display = 'none';
};
this.isDisabled = function () {
return this.disabled;
};
this.removeClass = function (classToRemove) {
var classArray = this.domNode.className.split(' ');
classArray.splice(classArray.indexOf(classToRemove), 1);
this.domNode.className = classArray.join(' ');
};
this.removeListener = function () {
//Remove DOM element listener
};
this.show = function () {
this.domNode.style.display = this.displayType;
};
init(this);
};
CS.Displayable.prototype = Object.create(CS.Element.prototype, {
constructor: {value: CS.Displayable, configurable: true}
});
I should be quite clear and say that it's not quite working yet, but mostly I'd like your opinion on whether I'm even on the right track. You mentioned "instance-specific properties and methods" in a comment in your example. Does that mean that my this.setText method and others are wrongly placed, and won't be available to descendant items on the prototype chain?
Also, when used, it seems that the order of declaration now matters (I can't access CS.Displayable.prototype, because (I think) CS.Button is listed first, and CS.Displayable is undefined at the time that I'm trying to reference it). Is that something I'll just have to man up and deal with (put things in order of ancestry in the code rather than my OCD alphabetical order) or is there something I'm overlooking there as well?
Vehicles.Airplane = Object.create(Vehicles.Vehicle());
That line is wrong. You seem to want to use new Vehicles.Vehicle - never call a constructor without new!
Still, I'm not sure which pattern you want to use. Two are coming to my mind:
Classical Pattern
You are using constructor functions just as in standard JS. Inheritance is done by inheriting the prototype objects from each other, and applying the parent constructor on child instances. Your code should then look like this:
Vehicles.Vehicle = function () {
// instance-specific properties and methods,
// initialising
}
Vehicles.Vehicle.prototype.go = function () {
//go forwards
};
Vehicles.Vehicle.prototype.stop = function () {
//stop
};
Vehicles.Airplane = function() {
// Vehicles.Vehicle.apply(this, arguments);
// not needed here as "Vehicle" is empty
// maybe airplane-spefic instance initialisation
}
Vehicles.Airplane.prototype = Object.create(Vehicles.Vehicle.prototype, {
constructor: {value:Vehicles.Airplane, configurable:true}
}); // inheriting from Vehicle prototype, and overwriting constructor property
Vehicles.Airplane.prototype.takeOff = function () {
//take off stuff
};
// usage:
var airplane = new Vehicles.Airplace(params);
Pure Prototypical Pattern
You are using plain objects instead of constructor functions - no initialisation. To create instances, and to set up inheritance, only Object.create is used. It is like having only the prototype objects, and empty constructors. instancof does not work here. The code would look like this:
Vehicles.Vehicle = {
go: function () {
//go forwards
},
stop: function () {
//stop
}
}; // just an object literal
Vehicles.Airplane = Object.create(Vehicles.Vehicle); // a new object inheriting the go & stop methods
Vehicles.Airplane.takeOff = function () {
//take off stuff
};
// usage:
var airplane = Object.create(Vehicles.Airplane);
airplane.prop = params; // maybe also an "init" function, but that seems weird to me
You got Object.create wrong. The first argument should be an object (maybe that's why people suggested you pass a literal).
In your first example, you're actually passing undefined:
Vehicles.Airplane = Object.create(Vehicles.Vehicle()); // the function call will
// return undefined
The following would work, but it's not very Crockford-ish:
Vehicles.Airplane = Object.create(new Vehicles.Vehicle());
The way I believe Crockford would do it (or, at least, wouldn't complain of):
var Vehicles = {};
Vehicles.Vehicle = {
go : function() {
// go stuff
},
stop : function() {
// go stuff
}
};
Vehicles.Airplane = Object.create(Vehicles.Vehicle, {
takeOff : {
value : function() {
// take-off stuff
}
},
land : {
value: function() {
// land stuff
}
}
});
Note that Vehicles.Vehicle is just a literal, which will be used as the prototype for other objects. When we call Object.create, we pass Vehicles.Vehicle as the prototype, and takeOff and land will be own properties of Vehicles.Airplane. You may then call Object.create again, passing Vehicles.Airplane as the prototype, if you want to create e.g. a Boeing.
The own properties passed as the second parameter are packed in an object that contains a representation of their property descriptors. The outer keys are the names of your properties/methods, and each one points to another object containing the actual implementation as the value. You may also include other keys like enumerable; if you don't they'll take the default values. You can read more about descriptors on the MDN page about Object.defineProperty.
What is the best design pattern for achieving the following (which doesn't work)?
var obj = (function() {
// code defining private variables and methods
var _obj = {
property: value,
method1: function() {
// do stuff
},
method2: function() {
// use property
var prop = _obj.property; // obviously doesn't work
// call method1
obj.method1(); // "obj" not finished being defined yet!
}
};
// obviously now I could do...
var prop = _obj.property;
return _obj;
})();
// and I could now do...
obj.method1();
A variation which I think should work is
var obj = (function() {
var property = value,
method1 = function() {
// do stuff
},
method2 = function() {
// use property
var prop = property;
// call method1
method1();
},
_obj = {
property: property,
method1: method1,
method2: method2
};
return _obj;
})();
Similarly, how does it work for objects meant to be created with the new operator? Within the constructor function itself you can write this.method(). But what if you want to keep the constructor small, only defining those things which will likely be customized upon creation, and then defining the rest in the prototype? (This seems to be the common pattern.) Can the properties / methods within the prototype interact in any way?
var MyObj = function(name) {
this.name = name;
};
var obj = new MyObj('Bob');
MyObj.prototype = {
called_often: function() {
// lots more code than just the following
return document.getElementById('someID').value;
},
global_default: 'value', // can be changed, so need to pull value when run
does_stuff: function(value) {
var str = global_default + value, // can't access global_default on its own
input = MyObj.called_often(), // doesn't work; MyObj.prototype.called_often() DOES
name = this.name; // 'this' used in the prototype doesn't work
// even within a created object
return name + input + str;
}
};
I'm sure there's better ways to achieve my result whenever I run into this problem. This code isn't situation specific and just illustrates the general problem. So you won't be able to give me an alternative for those specific situations I run into. But maybe you can help my overall thinking.
Well, from your first example:
var _obj = {
property: value,
method1: function() {
// do stuff
},
method2: function() {
// use property
var prop = this.property;
// call method1
this.method1();
}
};
That's what the this value is for.
Now, what you cannot do is refer to a property of an "under construction" object from elsewhere in the object literal syntax. (It's hard to give an example because it's just not syntactically possible.) In cases where you want to do that, you do need one or more separate assignment statements.
Guess what? You are making simple stuff complex. Pointy's answer is good, but the prototype way is better for several reasons. That's why I am describing (rather, making corrections in) the last method. Check this fiddle.
var MyObj = function(name) {
this.name = name;
};
MyObj.prototype = {
called_often: function() {
// lots more code than just the following
return 'VALUE'; //document.getElementById('someID').value;
},
global_default: 'value', // can be changed, so need to pull value when run
does_stuff: function(value) {
var str = this.global_default + value, // can't access global_default on its own
input = this.called_often(), // doesn't work; MyObj.prototype.called_often() DOES
name = this.name; // 'this' used in the prototype doesn't work
// even within a created object
return name + input + str;
}
};
var obj = new MyObj('Bob');
I came up with a simple design pattern that was inspired by several other design patterns. Its main purpose is to have private methods (instead of all global), methods visually nested and grouped within an object, and having "self" as an available variable to access the scope, which is really useful when using calling functions with a callback parameter.
It seems to work fine, but is it safe (performance - and scope-wise) to do Obj.apply(Obj);?
The code:
function Obj() {
var self = this;
var privateFunc = function() {
console.log('private');
self.otherPublic();
};
self.publicFunc = function() {
console.log('pub1ic');
privateFunc();
};
self.otherPublic = function() {
console.log('pub2');
};
} Obj.apply(Obj);
I call it like this:
Obj.publicFunc();
Totally pointless brother. What you're doing by Obj.apply(Obj); is taking the function Obj, and adding to it those methods, in an unintuitive manner.
This:
var Obj = (function(){
var priv = function(){ console.log('2'); },
privVar = 6;
return {
pub1: function(){ console.log('1'); },
pub2: function(){ priv(); }
};
})();
Does the same thing, although better. I say better because (1) it's intuitive, and (2) Obj is now a simple javascript object (typeof Obj === 'object') whereas your Obj is a function with properties augmented (typeof Obj === 'function').
If you want a reference to self it's not hard (although it seems unnecessary), just create the object which will be returned at the top of the function, and augment the public methods, either at the end, or as you make them...
It's safe, but pointless.
Also, note that these methods won't scale well, because for each instance of Obj we create each function is recreated, which is memory-wise wasteful. This pattern above is fine because we created it with an anonymous function, so by definition there can only be one instance, although for types you need to instantiate multiple times the prototype should be used.
Don't be scared of it, it's there to be helpful.
UPDATE:
var Obj = (function(){
var priv = function(){ pub2(); },
privVar = 6,
pub1 = function(){ priv(); },
pub2 = function(){ console.log('1'); };
return {
pub1: pub1,
pub2: pub2
};
})();
Obj.pub1();
Notice that I call a public function, which calls a private function, which calls a public function - no special binding, no object reference.
UPDATE 2:
var Obj = (function(){
var public = {},
priv = function(){ public.pub2(); },
privVar = 6;
public.pub1 = function(){ priv(); },
public.pub2 = function(){ console.log('1'); };
return public;
})();
Obj.pub1();