Related
For anyone viewing this, this question is similar to the following:
How do I get the name of an object's type in JavaScript?
Get an object's class name at runtime in TypeScript
However it is different in a few regards.
I'm looking to get the name of method that belongs to a class and store it in a variable in TypeScript / JavaScript.
Take a look at the following setup:
class Foo {
bar(){
// logic
}
}
The above is valid TypeScript and I would like to create a method in a different class that will return me the name of the bar() method, i.e "bar"
eg:
class ClassHelper {
getMethodName(method: any){
return method.name; // per say
}
}
I would then like to be able to use the ClassHelper in the following way:
var foo = new Foo();
var barName = ClassHelper.getMethodName(foo.bar); // "bar"
I've looked at a lot of posts, some suggest using the following:
var funcNameRegex = /function (.{1,})\(/;
var results = (funcNameRegex).exec(obj.toString());
var result = results && results.length > 1 && results[1];
but this fails as my methods do not begin with function
another suggestion was:
public getClassName() {
var funcNameRegex = /function (.{1,})\(/;
var results = (funcNameRegex).exec(this["constructor"].toString());
return (results && results.length > 1) ? results[1] : "";
}
This only returns the class name however and from reading posts, it seems using constructor can be unreliable.
Also, when I've debugged the code using some of these methods, passing in the method like so: ClassHelper.getMethodName(foo.bar); will result in the parameter being passed if the method takes one, eg:
class Foo {
bar(param: any){
// logic
}
}
var foo = new Foo();
var barName = ClassHelper.getMethodName(foo.bar); // results in param getting passed through
I've been struggling with this for a while, if anyone has any information on how I can solve this it would be greatly appreciated.
My .toString() on the method passed in returns this:
.toString() = "function (param) { // code }"
rather than:
.toString() = "function bar(param) { // code }"
and according to MDN it isn't supposed to either:
That is, toString decompiles the function, and the string returned includes the function keyword, the argument list, curly braces, and the source of the function body.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/toString#Description
I have taken John White's idea and improved it so it works for every case I could think of. This method has the advantage of not needing to parse js code at runtime. There is an edge case though, where it simply can't deduce the right property name because there are multiple right property names.
class Foo {
bar() {}
foo() {}
}
class ClassHelper {
static getMethodName(obj, method) {
var methodName = null;
Object.getOwnPropertyNames(obj).forEach(prop => {
if (obj[prop] === method) {
methodName = prop;
}
});
if (methodName !== null) {
return methodName;
}
var proto = Object.getPrototypeOf(obj);
if (proto) {
return ClassHelper.getMethodName(proto, method);
}
return null;
}
}
var foo = new Foo();
console.log(ClassHelper.getMethodName(foo, foo.bar));
console.log(ClassHelper.getMethodName(Foo.prototype, foo.bar));
console.log(ClassHelper.getMethodName(Foo.prototype, Foo.prototype.bar));
var edgeCase = { bar(){}, foo(){} };
edgeCase.foo = edgeCase.bar;
console.log(ClassHelper.getMethodName(edgeCase, edgeCase.bar));
I found a solution. I'm not sure how efficient and reusable it is, but it worked in multiple test cases, included nested methods, eg Class -> Class -> Method
My solution:
class ClassHelpers {
getName(obj: any): string {
if (obj.name) {
return obj.name;
}
var funcNameRegex = /function (.{1,})\(/;
var results = (funcNameRegex).exec(obj.toString());
var result = results && results.length > 1 && results[1];
if(!result){
funcNameRegex = /return .([^;]+)/;
results = (funcNameRegex).exec(obj.toString());
result = results && results.length > 1 && results[1].split(".").pop();
}
return result || "";
}
}
class Foo {
bar(param: any){
// logic
}
}
var foo = new Foo();
var barName = ClassHelper.getMethodName(() => foo.bar);
The lambda notation ClassHelper.getMethodName(() => foo.bar); was key to getting this to work as it allowed the .toString() to contain return foo.bar;
The next thing I had to do was to extract the method call from the .toString() then I used array and string functions to return the last substring which inevitably is the method name.
Like I said, it's probably not the most elegant solution but it has worked and even worked for nested methods
NOTE: You can replace the lambda function with a regular anonymous function
var foo = new Foo();
var barName = ClassHelper.getMethodName(function() { return foo.bar; });
Unfortunately, the name of Typescript class methods is lost when compiling to JS (as you correctly inferred). Typescript methods are compiled to Javascript by adding the method to the prototype of a Javascript class. (Check the compiled Javascript for more info).
In Javascript, this works:
Foo.prototype["bar"] // returns foo.bar <<the function>>
So, the thing you could think of is reversing the prototype of the class, so the class itself becomes the key of the object:
Foo.prototype[foo.bar] // return "bar"
Of course, this is a very hacky solution, since
Complexity is O(N) (loop through array)
I'm not sure this works in every case.
(Working) Example for your problem:
class Foo{
bar(){}
}
class ClassHelper{
static reversePrototype(cls:any){
let r = {};
for (var key in cls.prototype){
r[cls.prototype[key]] = key;
}
return r;
}
static getMethodNameOf(cls: any, method:any):string{
let reverseObject = ClassHelper.reversePrototype(cls);
return reverseObject[method];
}
}
var foo = new Foo();
console.log(ClassHelper.getMethodNameOf(Foo, foo.bar)) // "bar"
The better solution would be a typescript compiler option that changes the way typescript transpiles classes to javascript. However, I'm currently not aware of any option that does this sort of thing.
You could pass in both the object and the method, get the array of property keys on the object, then using property keys see if each given property is the same object reference as the supplied method -- and if so, there is a match.
class ClassHelper {
getMethodName(obj: any, method: any) {
var methodName: string;
if (method) {
Object.keys(obj).forEach(key => {
if (obj[key] === method) {
methodName = key;
}
});
}
return methodName;
}
}
This has the downside that the host object must also be known. If the method cannot be found, undefined will be returned.
Object.keys may help you.
Try this way
class Greeter {
test : Function;
constructor(message: string) {
this.test = function(){
return message;
}
}
}
var a = new Greeter("world");
var properties = Object.keys(a);
alert(properties.join(', ')); //test
Hi I have been making some testing and I founded a simpler solution.
class Parent{
constructor(){
// here you initialize your stuff
}
parentMethod1 (){ return "I am method 1" }
parentMethod2 (){ return "I am method 2" }
}
class Child extends Parent{
constructor(){
// make this if you want to pass extra args to parent class
super()
}
childMethod1(){ /*child actions*/ }
childMethod2(){ /* other child actions */ }
}
const parent = new Parent();
const child = new Child();
console.log( Object.getOwnPropertyNames(parent.__proto__)) // --> ["constructor", "parentMethod1", "parentMethod2"]
console.log(Object.getOwnPropertyNames(child.__proto__)) //--> ["constructor", "childMethod1","childMethod2"]
console.log(parent.constructor.name) // --> Parent
console.log(child.constructor.name) // --> Child
Background
I decided I would practice by making a simple calculator app in JS. The first step was to implement a stack class. I ran into some problems however in achieving data encapsulation with the revealing prototype pattern (?). Here's how it looks right now:
Stack "class":
var Stack = (function () {
var Stack = function() {
this.arr = []; // accessible to prototype methods but also to public
};
Stack.prototype = Object.prototype; // inherits from Object
Stack.prototype.push = function(x) {
this.arr.push(x);
};
Stack.prototype.pop = function() {
return this.arr.length ? (this.arr.splice(this.arr.length - 1, 1))[0] : null;
};
Stack.prototype.size = function() {
return this.arr.length;
};
Stack.prototype.empty = function() {
return this.arr.length === 0;
};
return Stack;
})();
Test code:
var s1 = new Stack();
var s2 = new Stack();
for(var j = 1, k = 2; j < 10, k < 11; j++, k++) {
s1.push(3*j);
s2.push(4*k);
}
console.log("s1:");
while(!s1.empty()) console.log(s1.pop());
console.log("s2:");
while(!s2.empty()) console.log(s2.pop());
The Problem
The only problem is that the arr is accessible. I would like to hide the arr variable somehow.
Attempts at a Solution
My first idea was to make it a private variable like Stack:
var Stack = (function () {
var arr = []; // private, but shared by all instances
var Stack = function() { };
Stack.prototype = Object.prototype;
Stack.prototype.push = function(x) {
arr.push(x);
};
// etc.
})();
But of course this approach doesn't work, because then the arr variable is shared by every instance. So it's a good way of making a private class variable, but not a private instance variable.
The second way I thought of (which is really crazy and definitely not good for readability) is to use a random number to restrict access to the array variable, almost like a password:
var Stack = (function() {
var pass = String(Math.floor(Math.pow(10, 15 * Math.random()));
var arrKey = "arr" + pass;
var Stack = function() {
this[arrKey] = []; // private instance and accessible to prototypes, but too dirty
};
Stack.prototype = Object.prototype;
Stack.prototype.push = function(x) {
this[arrKey].push(x);
};
// etc.
})();
This solution is... amusing. But obviously not what I want to do.
The last idea, which is what Crockford does, allows me to create a private instance member, but there's no way I can tell to make this visible to the public prototype methods I'm defining.
var Stack = (function() {
var Stack = function() {
var arr = []; // private instance member but not accessible to public methods
this.push = function(x) { arr.push(x); }; // see note [1]
}
})();
[1] This is almost there, but I don't want to have the function definitions within the var Stack = function() {...} because then they get recreated every time that an instance is created. A smart JS compiler will realize that they don't depend on any conditionals and cache the function code rather than recreating this.push over and over, but I'd rather not depend on speculative caching if I can avoid it.
The Question
Is there a way to create a private instance member which is accessible to the prototype methods? By somehow utilizing the 'bubble of influence' created by the enclosing anonymous function?
You could use a factory function that creates an instance for you:
function createStack() {
var arr = [];
function Stack() {
};
Stack.prototype = Object.prototype; // inherits from Object
Stack.prototype.push = function(x) {
arr.push(x);
};
Stack.prototype.pop = function() {
return arr.length ? (this.arr.splice(this.arr.length - 1, 1))[0] : null;
};
Stack.prototype.size = function() {
return arr.length;
};
Stack.prototype.empty = function() {
return arr.length === 0;
};
return new Stack();
}
You would be defining the class on every execution of the factory function, but you could get around this by changing this to define most of Stack outside the constructor function, like the parts that dont use arr could be further up the prototype chain. Personally I use Object.create instead of prototype now and I almost always use factory functions to make instances of these types of objects.
Another thing you could do is maintain a counter that keeps track of the instance and holds on to an array of arrays.
var Stack = (function() {
var data = [];
var Stack = function() {
this.id = data.length;
data[this.id] = [];
};
Stack.prototype = Object.prototype;
Stack.prototype.push = function(x) {
data[this.id].push(x);
};
// etc.
}());
Now you have the hidden data multi dimensional array, and every instance just maintains its index in that array. You have to be careful to manage the memory now though, so that when your instance isn't being used anymore you remove what's in that array. I don't recommend doing it this way unless you are disposing your data carefully.
The short answer here, is that you can't have all things, without sacrificing a little.
A Stack feels like a struct of some kind, or at very least, a data-type which should have either a form of peek or read-access, into the array.
Whether the array is extended or not, is of course up to you and your interpretation...
...but my point is that for low-level, simple things like this, your solution is one of two things:
function Stack () {
this.arr = [];
this.push = function (item) { this.arr.push(item); }
// etc
}
or
function Stack () {
var arr = [];
var stack = this;
extend(stack, {
_add : function (item) { arr.push(item); },
_read : function (i) { return arr[i || arr.length - 1]; },
_remove : function () { return arr.pop(); },
_clear : function () { arr = []; }
});
}
extend(Stack.prototype, {
push : function (item) { this._add(item); },
pop : function () { return this._remove(); }
// ...
});
extend here is just a simple function that you can write, to copy the key->val of objects, onto the first object (basically, so I don't have to keep typing this. or Class.prototype..
There are, of course, dozens of ways of writing these, which will all achieve basically the same thing, with modified styles.
And here's the rub; unless you do use a global registry, where each instance is given its own unique Symbol (or unique-id) at construction time, which it then uses to register an array... ...which of course, means that the key then needs to be publicly accessible (or have a public accessor -- same thing), you're either writing instance-based methods, instance-based accessors with prototyped methods, or you're putting everything you need in the public scope.
In the future, you will be able to do things like this:
var Stack = (function () {
var registry = new WeakMap();
function Stack () {
var stack = this,
arr = [];
registry[stack] = arr;
}
extend(Stack.prototype, {
push (item) { registry[this].push(item); }
pop () { return registry[this].pop(); }
});
return Stack;
}());
Nearly all bleeding-edge browsers support this, currently (minus the shorthand for methods).
But there are ES6 -> ES5 compilers out there (Traceur, for instance).
I don't think WeakMaps are supported in Traceur, as an ES5 implementation would require a lot of hoops, or a working Proxy, but a Map would work (assuming that you handled GC yourself).
This lends me to say that from a pragmatic standpoint, for a class as small as Stack you might as well just give each instance its own methods, if you really want to keep the array internal.
For other harmless, tiny, low-level classes, hiding data might be pointless, so all of it could be public.
For larger classes, or high-level classes, having accessors on instances with prototyped methods stays relatively clean; especially if you're using DI to feed in lower-level functionality, and the instance accessors are just bridging from the interface of the dependency, into the shape you need them to be, for your own interface.
A real solution
EDIT: It turns out this solution is basically the same as the one described here, first posted by HMR in a comment to my question above. So definitely not new, but it works well.
var Stack = (function Stack() {
var key = {};
var Stack = function() {
var privateInstanceVars = {arr: []};
this.getPrivateInstanceVars = function(k) {
return k === key ? privateInstanceVars : undefined;
};
};
Stack.prototype.push = function(el) {
var privates = this.getPrivateInstanceVars(key);
privates.arr.push(el);
};
Stack.prototype.pop = function() {
var privates = this.getPrivateInstanceVars(key);
return privates.arr.length ? privates.arr.splice(privates.arr.length - 1, 1)[0] : null;
};
Stack.prototype.empty = function() {
var privates = this.getPrivateInstanceVars(key);
return privates.arr.length === 0;
};
Stack.prototype.size = function() {
var privates = this.getPrivateInstanceVars(key);
return privates.arr.length;
};
Stack.prototype.toString = function() {
var privates = this.getPrivateInstanceVars(key);
return privates.arr.toString();
};
Stack.prototype.print = function() {
var privates = this.getPrivateInstanceVars(key);
console.log(privates.arr);
}
return Stack;
}());
// TEST
// works - they ARE separate now
var s1 = new Stack();
var s2 = new Stack();
s1.push("s1a");
s1.push("s1b");
s2.push("s2a");
s2.push("s2b");
s1.print(); // ["s1a", "s1b"]
s2.print(); // ["s2a", "s2b"]
// works!
Stack.prototype.push.call(s1, "s1c");
s1.print(); // ["s1a", "s1b", "s1c"]
// extending the Stack
var LimitedStack = function(maxSize) {
Stack.apply(this, arguments);
this.maxSize = maxSize;
}
LimitedStack.prototype = new Stack();
LimitedStack.prototype.constructor = LimitedStack;
LimitedStack.prototype.push = function() {
if(this.size() < this.maxSize) {
Stack.prototype.push.apply(this, arguments);
} else {
console.log("Maximum size of " + this.maxSize + " reached; cannot push.");
}
// note that the private variable arr is not directly accessible
// to extending prototypes
// this.getArr(key) // !! this will fail (key not defined)
};
var limstack = new LimitedStack(3);
limstack.push(1);
limstack.push(2);
limstack.push(3);
limstack.push(4); // Maximum size of 3 reached; cannot push
limstack.print(); // [1, 2, 3]
Cons: basically none, other than remembering a little extra code
Original solution
(The first method originally posted was substantially different from what is below, but through some careless editing I seem to have lost it. It didn't work as well anyway, so no real harm done.)
Here a new object/prototype is created with every instantiation, but it borrows much of the code from the static privilegedInstanceMethods. What still fails is the ability to do Stack.prototype.push.call(s1, val), but now that the prototype is being set on the object, I think we're getting closer.
var Stack = (function() {
var privilegedInstanceMethods = {
push: function(x) {
this.arr.push(x);
},
pop: function() {
return this.arr.length ? this.arr.splice(this.arr.length - 1, 1)[0] : null;
},
size: function() {
return this.arr.length;
},
empty: function() {
return this.arr.length === 0;
},
print: function() {
console.log(this.arr);
},
};
var Stack_1 = function() {
var Stack_2 = function() {
var privateInstanceMembers = {arr: []};
for (var k in privilegedInstanceMethods) {
if (privilegedInstanceMethods.hasOwnProperty(k)) {
// this essentially recreates the class each time an object is created,
// but without recreating the majority of the function code
Stack_2.prototype[k] = privilegedInstanceMethods[k].bind(privateInstanceMembers);
}
}
};
return new Stack_2(); // this is key
};
// give Stack.prototype access to the methods as well.
for(var k in privilegedInstanceMethods) {
if(privilegedInstanceMethods.hasOwnProperty(k)) {
Stack_1.prototype[k] = (function(k2) {
return function() {
this[k2].apply(this, arguments);
};
}(k)); // necessary to prevent k from being same in all
}
}
return Stack_1;
}());
Test:
// works - they ARE separate now
var s1 = new Stack();
var s2 = new Stack();
s1.push("s1a");
s1.push("s1b");
s2.push("s2a");
s2.push("s2b");
s1.print(); // ["s1a", "s1b"]
s2.print(); // ["s2a", "s2b"]
// works!
Stack.prototype.push.call(s1, "s1c");
s1.print(); // ["s1a", "s1b", "s1c"]
Pros:
this.arr is not directly accessible
method code is only defined once, not per instance
s1.push(x) works and so does Stack.prototype.push.call(s1, x)
Cons:
The bind call creates four new wrapper functions on every instantiation (but the code is much smaller than creating the internal push/pop/empty/size functions every time).
The code is a little complicated
I am trying to add several methods to an object at once by using a for loop.
What I have is an array which has names of several events like click, load, etc. in an array and as such it will be really easy for me to insert these events to my library's object. However, I am not able to add the methods through the loop to my object.
Here's my code:
function(something) myLibrary {
if(this === window) {return new myLibrary }
this.e = document.getElementById(something);
}
var eventsArr = ['click','load','drag','drop'];
var addEventToProto = function (method) {
if(!myLibrary.hasOwnProperty(method)) {
myLibrary.prototype[method] = function (fn) { addEventListener(this.e, method, fn); };
}
};
for (i = 0; i < eventsArr.length; i += 1) {
addEventToProto(eventsArr[i]);
};
If you need more information then please leave a comment.
You should use a constructor function and manipulate the prototype property of that function instead. Object don't have an exposed prototype property, only functions have. When you create and instance, using a constructor function, then the internal [[prototype]] property of the resulting object will be set to point to the exposed prototype property of the constructor function. You can manipulate the prototype property even after instanciating an object:
function myLibraryConstructor() {
this.e = document.getElementById('someElement!');
}
var myLibrary = new myLibraryConstructor();
var eventsArr = ['click','load','drag','drop'];
var addEventToProto = function (method) {
if(!myLibrary.hasOwnProperty(method)) {
myLibraryConstructor.prototype[method] = function (fn) { addEventListener(this.e, method, fn); };
}
};
for (i = 0; i < eventsArr.length; i += 1) {
addEventToProto(eventsArr[i]);
};
If i have a Javascript object defined as:
function MyObj(){};
MyObj.prototype.showAlert = function(){
alert("This is an alert");
return;
};
Now a user can call it as:
var a = new MyObj();
a.showAlert();
So far so good, and one can also in the same code run another instance of this:
var b = new MyObj();
b.showAlert();
Now I want to know, how can I hold the number of instances MyObj?
is there some built-in function?
One way i have in my mind is to increment a global variable when MyObj is initialized and that will be the only way to keep track of this counter, but is there anything better than this idea?
EDIT:
Have a look at this as suggestion here:
I mean how can I make it get back to 2 instead of 3
There is nothing built-in; however, you could have your constructor function keep a count of how many times it has been called. Unfortunately, the JavaScript language provides no way to tell when an object has gone out of scope or has been garbage collected, so your counter will only go up, never down.
For example:
function MyObj() {
MyObj.numInstances = (MyObj.numInstances || 0) + 1;
}
new MyObj();
new MyObj();
MyObj.numInstances; // => 2
Of course, if you want to prevent tampering of the count then you should hide the counter via a closure and provide an accessor function to read it.
[Edit]
Per your updated question - there is no way to keep track of when instances are no longer used or "deleted" (for example by assigning null to a variable) because JavaScript provides no finalizer methods for objects.
The best you could do is create a "dispose" method which objects will call when they are no longer active (e.g. by a reference counting scheme) but this requires cooperation of the programmer - the language provides no assistance:
function MyObj() {
MyObj.numInstances = (MyObj.numInstances || 0) + 1;
}
MyObj.prototype.dispose = function() {
return MyObj.numInstances -= 1;
};
MyObj.numInstances; // => 0
var a = new MyObj();
MyObj.numInstances; // => 1
var b = new MyObj();
MyObj.numInstances; // => 2
a.dispose(); // 1 OK: lower the count.
a = null;
MyObj.numInstances; // => 1
b = null; // ERR: didn't call "dispose"!
MyObj.numInstances; // => 1
Create a static property on the MyObj constructor called say count and increment it within the constructor itself.
function MyObj() {
MyObj.count++;
}
MyObj.count = 0;
var a = new MyObj;
var b = new MyObj;
alert(MyObj.count);
This is the way you would normally do it in say Java (using a static property).
var User = (function() {
var id = 0;
return function User(name) {
this.name = name;
this.id = ++id;
}
})();
User.prototype.getName = function() {
return this.name;
}
var a = new User('Ignacio');
var b = new User('foo bar');
a
User {name: "Ignacio", id: 1}
b
User {name: "foo bar", id: 2}
Using ES6 Classes MDN syntax - we can define a static method:
The static keyword defines a static method for a class. Static methods are called without instantiating their class and cannot be called through a class instance. Static methods are often used to create utility functions for an application.
class Item {
static currentId = 0;
_id = ++Item.currentId; // Set Instance's this._id to incremented class's ID
// PS: The above line is same as:
// constructor () { this._id = ++Item.currentId; }
get id() {
return this._id; // Getter for the instance's this._id
}
}
const A = new Item(); // Create instance (Item.currentId is now 1)
const B = new Item(); // Create instance (Item.currentId is now 2)
const C = new Item(); // Create instance (Item.currentId is now 3)
console.log(A.id, B.id, C.id); // 1 2 3
console.log(`Currently at: ${ Item.currentId }`); // Currently at: 3
PS: if you don't want to log-expose the internal currentId property, make it private:
static #currentId = 0;
_id = ++Item.#currentId;
Here's an example with constructor and without the getter:
class Item {
static id = 0;
constructor () {
this.id = ++Item.id;
}
getID() {
console.log(this.id);
}
}
const A = new Item(); // Create instance (Item.id is now 1)
const B = new Item(); // Create instance (Item.id is now 2)
const C = new Item(); // Create instance (Item.id is now 3)
A.getID(); B.getID(); C.getID(); // 1; 2; 3
console.log(`Currently at: ${ Item.id }`); // Currently at: 3
what about such method?
var Greeter = (function ()
{
var numInstances;
function Greeter(message)
{
numInstances = (numInstances || 0) + 1;
this.greeting = message;
}
Greeter.prototype.greet = function ()
{
return "Hello, " + this.greeting;
};
Greeter.prototype.getCounter = function ()
{
return numInstances;
};
return Greeter;
})();
var greeter = new Greeter("world");
greeter.greet();
greeter.getCounter();
var newgreeter = new Greeter("new world");
newgreeter.greet();
newgreeter.getCounter();
greeter.getCounter();
Keeping a global count variable and incrementing every time is an option. Another option is to call counter method after each instance creation by hand (the worst thing I could imagine). But there is another better solution.
Every time we create an instance, the constructor function is being called. The problem is the constructor function is being created for each instance, but we can have a count property inside __proto__ which can be the same for each instance.
function MyObj(){
MyObj.prototype.addCount();
};
MyObj.prototype.count = 0;
MyObj.prototype.addCount = function() {
this.count++;
};
var a = new MyObj();
var b = new MyObj();
This is our a and b variables after all:
Eventually, JS is going to have built-in proxy capability, which will have low-level access to all kinds of things which happen in the background, which will never be exposed to front-end developers (except through the proxy -- think magic-methods in languages like PHP).
At that time, writing a destructor method on your object, which decrements the counter might be entirely trivial, as long as support for destruction/garbage-collection as a trigger is 100% guaranteed across platforms.
The only way to currently, reliably do it might be something like creating an enclosed registry of all created instances, and then manually destructing them (otherwise, they will NEVER be garbage-collected).
var Obj = (function () {
var stack = [],
removeFromStack = function (obj) {
stack.forEach(function (o, i, arr) {
if (obj === o) { arr.splice(i, 1); }
makeObj.count -= 1;
});
};
function makeObj (name) {
this.sayName = function () { console.log("My name is " + this.name); }
this.name = name;
this.explode = function () { removeFromStack(this); };
stack.push(this);
makeObj.count += 1;
}
makeObj.checkInstances = function () { return stack.length; };
makeObj.count = 0;
return makeObj;
}());
// usage:
var a = new Obj("Dave"),
b = new Obj("Bob"),
c = new Obj("Doug");
Obj.count; // 3
// "Dave? Dave's not here, man..."
a.explode();
Obj.count; // 2
a = null; // not 100% necessary, if you're never going to call 'a', ever again
// but you MUST call explode if you ever want it to leave the page's memory
// the horrors of memory-management, all over again
Will this pattern do what you want it to do?
As long as:
you don't turn a into something else
you don't overwrite its explode method
you don't mess with Obj in any way
you don't expect any prototype method to have access to any of the internal variables
...then yes, this method will work just fine for having the counter work properly.
You could even write a general method called recycle, which calls the explode method of any object you pass it (as long as its constructor, or factory, supported such a thing).
function recycle (obj) {
var key;
obj.explode();
for (key in obj) { if (obj.hasOwnProperty(key)) { delete obj[key]; } }
if (obj.__proto__) { obj.__proto__ = null; }
}
Note - this won't actually get rid of the object.
You'll just have removed it from the closure, and removed all methods/properties it once had.
So now it's an empty husk, which you could reuse, expressly set to null after recycling its parts, or let it be collected and forget about it, knowing that you removed necessary references.
Was this useful?
Probably not.
The only time I really see this as being of use would be in a game where your character might only be allowed to fire 3 bullets at a time, and he can't shoot a 4th until the 1st one on screen hits someone or goes off the edge (this is how, say, Contra worked, in the day).
You could also just shift a "disappeared" bullet off the stack, and reuse that bullet for any player/enemy by resetting its trajectory, resetting appropriate flags, and pushing it back onto the stack.
But again, until proxies allow us to define "magic" constructor/destructor methods, which are honoured at a low-level, this is only useful if you're going to micromanage the creation and destruction of all of your own objects (really not a good idea).
My solution is creating an object store instance count and a function to increase them in prototype.
function Person() {
this.countInst();
}
Person.prototype = {
constructor: Person,
static: {
count: 0
},
countInst: function() {
this.static.count += 1;
}
};
var i;
for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
var p = new Person();
document.write('Instance count: ');
document.write(p.static.count);
document.write('<br />');
}
Here is my plunker: https://plnkr.co/edit/hPtIR2MQnV08L9o1oyY9?p=preview
class Patient{
constructor(name,age,id){
Object.assign(this,{name, age, id});
}
static patientList = []; // declare a static variable
static addPatient(obj){
this.patientList.push(...obj); // push to array
return this.patientList.length; // find the array length to get the number of objects
}
}
let p1 = new Patient('shreyas',20, 1);
let p2 = new Patient('jack',25, 2);
let p3 = new Patient('smith',22, 3);
let patientCount = Patient.addPatient([p1,p2,p3]); // call static method to update the count value with the newly created object
console.log(Patient.patientList);
console.log(patientCount);
I am posting this in hopes that someone might have dealt with a similar problem.
I am using a javascript object that encapsulates paramaters to intialize greater objects in my code, like so :
function MyObject(setup)
{
this.mysetup = setup;
if(typeof this.mysetup == "undefined") { this.mysetup = {} }
if(typeof this.mysetup.stringParameter == "undefined")
{
this.mysetup.stringParameter="string default value"
}
if(typeof this.mysetup.objParameter == "undefined")
{
this.mysetup.objParameter == {}
}
else
{
if(typeof this.mysetup.objParameter.member1 == "undefined")
{
this.mysetup.objParameter.member1 = "member1 default value"
}
}
// ...and so on
}
This way I can make sure not every parameter needs to be in setup, and still MyObject can resort to default values for what is missing.
However, this is a tedious thing to write and quite error prone. So I thought I'd try for a solution that checks the setup against a setupPrototype:
function MyObject(setup)
{
this.setupPrototype = {
stringParameter : "string default value",
objectParameter : { member1 : "member default value"}
}
}
and try to compare the setup against this.setupPrototype.
The function I'm putting together for this purpose looks like
parseSetup = function (obj, objPrototype)
{
var returnedObj = {};
var hasMembers = false;
if(typeof obj=="undefined")
{
returnedObj = objPrototype;
return returnedObj;
}
for(member in objPrototype)
{
hasMembers = true;
//if prototype member is not part of initialization object
if (typeof obj[member]=="undefined")
{
returnedObj[member] = objPrototype[member];
}
else
{
if(objPrototype[member] instanceof Object)
{
if(objPrototype[member] instanceof Array)
{
returnedObj[member]=[];
for(var i=0; i<objPrototype[member].length; i++)
{
returnedObj[member].push(parseSetup(obj[member][i], objPrototype[member][i]))
}
}
else{
returnedObj[member] = parseSetup(obj[member], objPrototype[member])
}
}
else
returnedObj[member] = obj[member];
}
}
if(!hasMembers)
{
if (typeof obj == "undefined")
{
returnedObj = objPrototype;
}
else
returnedObj = obj;
}
return returnedObj;
}
This however is still not up to par.
An additional issue, which I'm debating is whether the original 'setup' should retain any of its own initial properties, or just have whatever is in the prototype. Also, it would be pointless to require that the prototype itself be aware of every possible value the setup might contain, especially for deep nested objects.
So my question is, are you aware of any proper way to solve this problem and end up with a setup object that, where its parameters are missing, can get default values from the prototype, but also not lose its own where they somehow need to be kept?
Many thanks
I would recommend using jQuery and then taking advantage of the $.extend() function, as described on the jQuery plugins page. Basically, you define your default parameters as an object within the constructor method, and then use $.extend() to overwrite only the properties that are supplied in the parameter to your function.
So you might end up with something like:
var MyObject = function (options) {
this.defaultOptions = {
stringParameter: "string default value",
objParameter: {}
};
this.options = $.extend(true, this.defaultOptions, options);
};
To instantiate with the default parameters:
var obj1 = new MyObject({});
To instantiate with an overridden stringParameter:
var obj2 = new MyObject({stringParameter: 'overridden value'});
You can see a demo of this in action here.