Im wondering if someone might be able to help me with something that i think it fairly straight forward:
Essentially i want to extend the prototypes of all datatypes (including intrinsic types), to allow some kind of custom functions, consider:
var x = "some string";
var y = 101;
x = "some other value";
y++;
x.onChange();
y.onChange();
This is the basic idea im after, but really what i want is to actually have the onChange (in this example) to be different so a new function for the actual variable (rather than a stardard prototype extension), ie:
x.onChange = function() {
alert("x.onChange");
}
y.onChange = function() {
alert("y.onChange");
}
This doesnt seem to work but i must be missing something quite simple no? I mean surely i can extend all object and types and add on new functions... no?
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
I might be tempted to approach this not by trying to add methods to existing types, but to create an object that can wrap a primative type. I would call this "observing" a value, and might implement it something like this:
function observable(v){
this.value = v;
this.valueChangedCallback = null;
this.setValue = function(v){
if(this.value != v){
this.value = v;
this.raiseChangedEvent(v);
}
};
this.getValue = function(){
return this.value;
};
this.onChange = function(callback){
this.valueChangedCallback = callback;
};
this.raiseChangedEvent = function(v){
if(this.valueChangedCallback){
this.valueChangedCallback(v);
}
};
}
This can then be used to observe changes in any value (so long as that value is then changed only by methods on the observable class - a small detraction IMO).
Something like this would work with the above code:
var obs = new observable(123);
obs.onChange(function(v){
alert("value changed to: " + v);
});
// the onChange callback would be called after something like obs.setValue(456);
Live example here --> http://jsfiddle.net/MeAhz/
Extend the object prototype:
Object.prototype.foo = function() { alert('hello world'); };
var a = 1;
a.foo();
The standard DEPRECATED way : Object.observe()
The Object.observe() method was used for asynchronously observing the
changes to an object. It provided a stream of changes in the order in
which they occur. However, this API has been deprecated and removed
from browsers.
let myObservdObject = Object.observe( { a : 'foo' }, e=>console.log('change!', e) );
myObservdObject.a = 'bee';
// callback gets executed
// and prints 'changed! in console, with the change event data
But proxies arrived to the Standard (ES6) an Object.Observe became deprecated and, in consecuence, unsupported by the browsers.
Proxies are the new way to observe... but implement a generic observer requires a more complex implementation, in comparsion with the way Object.observe used to provide us.
Observe value changes with third party libraries
You can find arround many implementations based in proxies.
Some of them implement the Observer pattern, wich forces you to set or get the values using specific methods :
Observe :
https://www.npmjs.com/package/observe
// define your object
var object = {a:'bee'};
// generate an observer
var observer = observe(object);
// declare the onchange event handler
observer.on( 'change', change=> console.log(change) );
// ready!
// set the value of 'a' and see how the callback is executed...
observer.set('a', 'foo')
// get the new value
observer.get('a') // returns 'foo'
Other libraries instead, let you interact with your variables using a more natural way:
WatchJS :
https://github.com/melanke/Watch.JS/
// define your object
var object = {a:'bee'};
// generate an observer and declare de hadler
watch(object , "a" , e=>console.log(e) );
// ready!
// set the value of 'a' and see how the callback is executed...
object.a = 'foo';
// get the new value
object.a // returns 'foo'
My own apprach : deep-observer
All the implementaions have their own caveats, and none of them was working for my purposes, so i had to implement my own approach.
The result is a highly customizable Observer method with a really small footprint ( <100 bytes gziped)
Deep-observer : https://www.npmjs.com/package/deep-observer
// create an observable object
const myObserved = new Observer( { a : 'bee' } , e=>console.log(e) ),
// perform a modification
myObserved.a = 'foo';
// console : { action:'update', oldValue:'bee', object:{a:'foo'}, name:'a' }
myObserved.a; // returns 'foo'
Related
I'd like to 'proxy' (not sure if that's the term at all) a function inside a function object for easy calling.
Given the following code
function Soldier() {
this.el = $("<div></div>").addClass('soldier');
this.pos = this.el.position; // $(".soldier").position(), or so I thought
}
In the console:
s = new Soldier();
$("#gamemap").append(s.el); // Add the soldier to the game field
s.pos === s.el.position // this returns true
s.el.position() // Returns Object {top: 0, left: 0}
s.pos() // Returns 'undefined'
What am I doing wrong in this scenario and is there an easy way to achieve my goal (s.pos() to return the result of s.el.position()) ?
I thought about s.pos = function() { return s.el.position(); } but looks a bit ugly and not apropriate. Also I'd like to add more similar functions and the library will become quite big to even load.
When you're calling s.pos(), its this context is lost.
You can simulate this behavior using call():
s.pos.call(s); // same as s.pos()
s.pos.call(s.el); // same as s.el.position()
This code is actually ok:
s.pos = function() { return s.el.position(); }
An alternative is using bind():
s.pos = s.el.position.bind(el);
You can use the prototype, that way the functions will not be created separately for every object:
Soldier.prototype.pos = function(){ return this.el.position(); }
I'd recommend to use the prototype:
Soldier.prototype.pos = function() { return this.el.position(); };
Not ugly at all, and quite performant actually.
If you want to directly assign it in the constructor, you'll need to notice that the this context of a s.pos() invocation would be wrong. You therefore would need to bind it:
…
this.pos = this.el.position.bind(this.el);
It's because the context of execution for position method has changed. If you bind the method to work inside the element context it will work.
JS Fiddle
function Soldier() {
this.el = $("<div></div>").addClass('soldier');
this.pos = this.el.position.bind(this.el);
}
var s = new Soldier();
$("#gamemap").append(s.el);
console.log(s.pos());
Here is a simplified snippet from some code I wrote for managing tablet gestures on canvas elements
first a function that accepts an element and a dictionary of callbacks and register the events plus adding other features like 'hold' gestures:
function registerStageGestures(stage, callbacks, recieverArg) {
stage.inhold = false;
stage.timer = null;
var touchduration = 1000;
var reciever = recieverArg || window;
stage.onLongTouch = function(e) {
if (stage.timer) clearTimeout(stage.timer);
stage.inhold = true;
if (callbacks.touchholdstart) callbacks.touchholdstart.call(reciever, e);
};
stage.getContent().addEventListener('touchstart', function(e) {
e.preventDefault();
calcTouchEventData(e);
stage.timer = setTimeout(function() {
stage.onLongTouch(e);
}, touchduration);
if (callbacks.touchstart) callbacks.touchholdstart.call(reciever, e);
});
stage.getContent().addEventListener('touchmove', function(e) {
e.preventDefault();
if (stage.timer) clearTimeout(stage.timer);
if (stage.inhold) {
if (callbacks.touchholdmove) callbacks.touchholdmove.call(reciever, e);
} else {
if (callbacks.touchmove) callbacks.touchmove.call(reciever, e);
}
});
stage.getContent().addEventListener('touchend', function(e) {
e.preventDefault();
if (stage.timer) clearTimeout(stage.timer);
if (stage.inhold) {
if (callbacks.touchholdend) callbacks.touchholdend.call(reciever, e);
} else {
if (callbacks.touchend) callbacks.touchend.call(reciever, e);
}
stage.inhold = false;
});
}
later I call registerStageGestures on a few elements (represented by 'View' objects) in the same page. Something like:
function View() {
var self=this;
..
function InitView() {
...
registerStageGestures(kineticStage, {
touchstart: function(e) {
// do something
},
touchmove: function(e) {
// do something
},
touchendunction(e) {
// do something
},
touchholdstart: function(e) {
// do something
},
touchholdmove: function(e) {
// do something
},
touchholdend: function(e) {
// do something
},
}, self);
Everything works fine, however I'm left wondering about two things in the implementation of registerStageGestures:
First, is it necessary to make inhold, timer and onLongTouch members of the stage ? or will closures make everything works well if they are local vars in registerStageGestures ?
Second, is it necessary to call the callbacks with '.call(receiver,' syntax ? I'm doing this to make sure the callback code will run in the context of the View but I'm not sure if it's needed ?
any input is much appreciated
Thanks!
First, is it necessary to make inhold, timer and onLongTouch members
of the stage ? or will closures make everything works well if they are
local vars in registerStageGestures ?
As far as registerStageGestures() is concerned, var inhold, var timer and function onLongTouch(e) {...}. would suffice. The mechanism by which an inner function has automatic access to its outer function's members is known as "closure". You would only need to set stage.inhold, stage.timer and stage.onLongTouch if some other piece of code needs access to these settings as properties of stage.
Second, is it necessary to call the callbacks with '.call(receiver,'
syntax ? I'm doing this to make sure the callback code will run in the
context of the View but I'm not sure if it's needed ?
Possibly, depending on how those callbacks are written. .call() and .apply() are sometimes used when calling functions that use this internally. In both cases, the first parameter passed defines the object to be interpreted as this. Thus, javascript gives you the means of defining general purpose methods with no a priori assumption about the object to which those methods will apply when called. Similarly, you can call a method of an object in such a way that it acts on another object.
EDIT:
For completeness, please note that even in the absence of this in a function, .apply() can be very useful as it allows multiple parameters to be specified as elements of a single array, eg the ubiquitous jQuery.when.apply(null, arrayOfPromises)...
There are some simple answers, here.
First, closure:
Closure basically says that whatever is defined inside of a function, has access to the rest of that function's contents.
And all of those contents are guaranteed to stay alive (out of the trash), until there are no more objects left, which ere created inside.
A simple test:
var testClosure = function () {
var name = "Bob",
recallName = function () { return name; };
return { getName : recallName };
};
var test = testClosure();
console.log(test.getName()); // Bob
So anything that was created inside can be accessed by any function which was also created inside (or created inside of a function created in a function[, ...], inside).
var closure_2x = function () {
var name = "Bob",
innerScope = function () {
console.log(name);
return function () {
console.log("Still " + name);
}
};
return innerScope;
};
var inner_func = closure_2x();
var even_deeper = inner_func(); // "Bob"
even_deeper(); // "Still Bob"
This applies not only to variables/objects/functions created inside, but also to function arguments passed inside.
The arguments have no access to the inner-workings(unless passed to methods/callbacks), but the inner-workings will remember the arguments.
So as long as your functions are being created in the same scope as your values (or a child-scope), there's access.
.call is trickier.
You know what it does (replaces this inside of the function with the object you pass it)...
...but why and when, in this case are harder.
var Person = function (name, age) {
this.age = age;
this.getAge = function () {
return this.age;
};
};
var bob = new Person("Bob", 32);
This looks pretty normal.
Honestly, this could look a lot like Java or C# with a couple of tweaks.
bob.getAge(); // 32
Works like Java or C#, too.
doSomething.then(bob.getAge);
? Buh ?
We've now passed Bob's method into a function, as a function, all by itself.
var doug = { age : 28 };
doug.getAge = bob.getAge;
Now we've given doug a reference to directly use bobs methid -- not a copy, but a pointer to the actual method.
doug.getAge(); // 28
Well, that's odd.
What about what came out of passing it in as a callback?
var test = bob.getAge;
test(); // undefined
The reason for this, is, as you said, about context...
But the specific reason is because this inside of a function in JS isn't pre-compiled, or stored...
this is worked out on the fly, every time the function is called.
If you call
obj.method();
this === obj;
If you call
a.b.c.d();
this === a.b.c;
If you call
var test = bob.getAge;
test();
...?
this is equal to window.
In "strict mode" this doesn't happen (you get errors really quickly).
test.call(bob); //32
Balance restored!
Mostly...
There are still a few catches.
var outerScope = function () {
console.log(this.age);
var inner = function () {
console.log("Still " + this.age);
};
inner();
};
outerScope.call(bob);
// "32"
// "Still undefined"
This makes sense, when you think about it...
We know that if a function figures out this at the moment it's called -- scope has nothing to do with it...
...and we didn't add inner to an object...
this.inner = inner;
this.inner();
would have worked just fine (but now you just messed with an external object)...
So inner saw this as window.
The solution would either be to use .call, or .apply, or to use function-scoping and/or closure
var person = this,
inner = function () { console.log(person.age); };
The rabbit hole goes deeper, but my phone is dying...
I'd like to be able to store the addresses of a bunch of different variables in an array. This allows me to access the variables by name or iterate through them if I need to. Is this possible in JS?
(function(ns){
ns.obj = new function(){
var foo = "foo";
var bar = "bar";
//i really want this:
//var ary = [&foo, &bar];
var ary = [foo, bar];
this.print = function() {
console.log( foo );
console.log( bar );
}
this.setFoo = function( newFoo ) {
//i really want this:
//*(ary[0]) = newFoo;
ary[0] = newFoo;
}
this.printAry = function() {
for( var i=0; i < ary.length; ++i ) {
console.log( ary[i] );
}
}
};
}(window.ns = window.ns || {}) );
ns.obj.print();
ns.obj.setFoo("newfoo!");
ns.obj.printAry();
ns.obj.print();
I looked at this:
JavaScript array of pointers like in C++
But I'd like to be able to use an element of ary on the LHS of an assignment and I don't think that example works in this situation.
WHY ON EARTH DO I WANT TO DO THIS?
A lot of comments so far have (rightfully) asked why I'd want to do this. I'm dealing with a proprietary API that involves an asynchronous object initialization mechanism. Basically I create an instance of an object and then pass it to this initializer to be able to actually use it. The initializer includes a field for an onSuccess handler to notify of successful initialization. My fully initialized object is passed as an argument into this success handler so that I can grab a reference to it.
I'm then free to initialize my next object. It looks kinda like this:
var a = new api.ApiObject();
var b = new api.ApiObject();
var c = new api.ApiObject();
var d = new api.ApiObject();
//omg this is ugly
api.initializeObject( {
objToInit: a,
onSuccess: function(args) {
a = args.obj;
api.initializeObject( {
objToInit: b,
onSuccess: function(args) {
b = args.obj;
api.initializeObject( {
objToInit: c,
onSuccess: function(args) {
c = args.obj;
api.initializeObject( {
objToInit: d,
onSuccess: function(args) {
d = args.obj;
}
} );
}
} );
}
} );
}
} );
a.doCoolStuff();
//and so on
This deeply nested mess just gets worse as I add more api.ApiObjects(). So what do I do to fix this? I can't change the API, but maybe a recursive function could help:
//maybe a recursive function could make this more concise?
function doInitialize( ary ) {
api.initializeObject( {
objToInit: ary[0];
onSuccess: function(args) {
//i'd like to assign this passed in reference to my local
//reference outside this function (var a, b, etc).
//An array of pointers would be useful here.
//how else can I get this assigned out, cuz this doesn't work...
ary[0] = args.obj;
if( ary.length > 1 ) {
ary.splice( 0, 1 );
doInitialize( ary );
}
}
}
}
doInitialize( [a,b,c,d] );
//this won't work because I don't have a reference to the fully initialized object
a.doCoolStuff();
So maybe the better question is: is there an established pattern to deal with asynchronous success chaining like this? I think I've seen other public JS frameworks (like dojo) use this sort of onSuccess chaining... how do I make this not ugly?
I might suggest that if your primary purpose for this is convenience as regards nesting of asynchronous callbacks, that you should consider a deferred/promise system.
I've written a couple of different promise libraries by hand.
jQuery comes with one built in (as do most "ajax libraries").
Here's what this might look like, in a better world:
doThingOne()
.then(doThingTwo)
.then(doThingThree)
.then(launch);
Assuming that doThingOne returns a promise.
A more familiar looking interface for people who use jQuery (or most other promise-using large libraries), might look like this:
var imageLoader = $.Deferred(),
loading = imageLoader.promise();
loading
.done(gallery.render.bind(gallery))
.done(gallery.show.bind(gallery));
var img = new Image(),
url = "...";
img.onload = function () { imageLoader.resolve(img); };
img.onerror = function () { imageLoader.reject("error message"); };
img.src = url;
Very basically, the Deferred above will hold two private arrays (one for "success", one for "failure"), and will extend an interface which allows the async part of the application to "succeed" or "fail", and will pass in whatever is chosen to be data/a callback/etc.
It also extends a promise method, which returns a promise object, containing subscription functions for the two private arrays. So you pass the promise object around to interested parties, and they subscribe callbacks to be iterated through, on success/failure of the async operation (and passed anything which is passed to the .resolve/.reject method of the operation).
This might seem like an inversion or extension of just adding a custom-event/listener/etc...
And it is.
The benefit of the abstraction is that the interface is cleaner.
Hiding this stuff inside of object interfaces, and just passing async promise-objects around can make your code look 100% synchronous:
var images = ImageLoader(),
gallery = ImageGallery(),
photo;
photo = images.load("//url.com/image.png"); // assuming `.load` returns a promise object
gallery.show(photo); // just a promise object, but internally,
//`.show` would subscribe a private method to the promise object
And doing things like having three separate async operations, which can arrive in any order, but must all be successful before advancing, then you can have something like this (again jQuery, but doing it by hand is possible, too).
$.when(promise_obj_1, promise_obj_2, promise_obj_3)
.done(nextPhase);
nextPhase, of course, being a callback which you anticipate to be fired if all three promises are successfully completed.
I'd be happy to provide implementation details for a barebones promise system, if you're like me, and don't like using different libraries without first understanding how each piece works on its own, and being able to replicate its functionality, without copying code.
The answer to the first part of your question is to use an object. You're thinking in C which doesn't have iteratable structs so C programmers reach for arrays. In JS objects are iteratable. So you should write it as:
ary = {
foo : 'foo',
bar : 'bar'
}
Or if we look at your second example:
var apis = {
a : new api.ApiObject(),
b : new api.ApiObject(),
c : new api.ApiObject(),
d : new api.ApiObject()
}
Now, as for the second part of your question. Your pseudo recursive code (pseudo because it's not really recursive in the stack sense since it's async) will now work with the apis object above. But you pass the keys instead of the object:
doInitialize( ['a','b','c','d'] );
Obviously, the bit above can be done dynamically by iterating through the apis object. Anyway, in the onSuccess part of the code you assign the result like this:
apis[ary[0]] = args.obj;
Oh, and obviously the objToInit should now be apis[ary[0]].
Now doing this should work as you expect:
apis.a.doCoolStuff();
I am a newbie in JavaScript and so don't really understand its object model, but as I understood I have to do something like.
function set_test(text) { this['test'] = text; };
a = {};
text = 'ok';
a.prototype.ok = set_test(text);
alert(a['test']); #Should be 'ok'
text = 'fail';
a.ok;
alert(a['test']); #Should be 'ok'
Can somebody say what's wrong here?
Objects don't have a prototype by default, and a.prototype.ok = set_test(text); would make ok equal to the return value of set_test() which is undefined.
Try doing it this way instead:
function set_test(text) { this['test'] = text; };
var a = {
ok: set_test
},
text = 'ok';
a.ok(text);
alert(a['test']); //Should be 'ok'
text = 'fail';
a.ok(text);
alert(a['test']); //Should be 'fail'
I think the whole code is wrong.
You see, in JavaScript, functions are objects and you can pass them around as you wish. The execution context (this) depends on the way you invoke a function.
If you store a function in a property of an object and then invoke it by calling obj.fn(), the execution context is set to obj.
Also notice that you aren't supposed to invoke the function when assigning it as the object's property.
function set_test(text) { this['test'] = text; }
var a = {};
a.ok = set_test; // see, no invocation
a.ok('abc');
alert(a['test']); // alerts 'abc'
a.ok('def');
alert(a['test']); // alerts 'def'
I think in function set_test this['test'] will not work. beacause "this" is not "a". You should define method set_test under object a - then it will work.
I recomend you check Mootools docs - there is much better object model syntax. You can also check Mootools source to get more detail answer to you question and js object model
On the upside I'm kinda bright, on the downside I'm wracked with ADD. If I have a simple example, that fits with what I already understand, I get it. I hope someone here can help me get it.
I've got a page that, on an interval, polls a server, processes the data, stores it in an object, and displays it in a div. It is using global variables, and outputing to a div defined in my html. I have to get it into an object so I can create multiple instances, pointed at different servers, and managing their data seperately.
My code is basically structured like this...
HTML...
<div id="server_output" class="data_div"></div>
JavaScript...
// globals
var server_url = "http://some.net/address?client=Some+Client";
var data = new Object();
var since_record_id;
var interval_id;
// window onload
window.onload(){
getRecent();
interval_id = setInterval(function(){
pollForNew();
}, 300000);
}
function getRecent(){
var url = server_url + '&recent=20';
// do stuff that relies on globals
// and literal reference to "server_output" div.
}
function pollForNew(){
var url = server_url + '&since_record_id=' + since_record_id;
// again dealing with globals and "server_output".
}
How would I go about formatting that into an object with the globals defined as attributes, and member functions(?) Preferably one that builds its own output div on creation, and returns a reference to it. So I could do something like...
dataOne = new MyDataDiv('http://address/?client');
dataOne.style.left = "30px";
dataTwo = new MyDataDiv('http://different/?client');
dataTwo.style.left = "500px";
My code is actually much more convoluted than this, but I think if I could understand this, I could apply it to what I've already got. If there is anything I've asked for that just isn't possible please tell me. I intend to figure this out, and will. Just typing out the question has helped my ADD addled mind get a better handle on what I'm actually trying to do.
As always... Any help is help.
Thanks
Skip
UPDATE:
I've already got this...
$("body").prepend("<div>text</div>");
this.test = document.body.firstChild;
this.test.style.backgroundColor = "blue";
That's a div created in code, and a reference that can be returned. Stick it in a function, it works.
UPDATE AGAIN:
I've got draggable popups created and manipulated as objects with one prototype function. Here's the fiddle. That's my first fiddle! The popups are key to my project, and from what I've learned the data functionality will come easy.
This is pretty close:
// globals
var pairs = {
{ div : 'div1', url : 'http://some.net/address?client=Some+Client' } ,
{ div : 'div2', url : 'http://some.net/otheraddress?client=Some+Client' } ,
};
var since_record_id; //?? not sure what this is
var intervals = [];
// window onload
window.onload(){ // I don't think this is gonna work
for(var i; i<pairs.length; i++) {
getRecent(pairs[i]);
intervals.push(setInterval(function(){
pollForNew(map[i]);
}, 300000));
}
}
function getRecent(map){
var url = map.url + '&recent=20';
// do stuff here to retrieve the resource
var content = loadResoucrce(url); // must define this
var elt = document.getElementById(map.div);
elt.innerHTML = content;
}
function pollForNew(map){
var url = map.url + '&since_record_id=' + since_record_id;
var content = loadResoucrce(url); // returns an html fragment
var elt = document.getElementById(map.div);
elt.innerHTML = content;
}
and the html obviously needs two divs:
<div id='div1' class='data_div'></div>
<div id='div2' class='data_div'></div>
Your 'window.onload` - I don't think that's gonna work, but maybe you have it set up correctly and didn't want to bother putting in all the code.
About my suggested code - it defines an array in the global scope, an array of objects. Each object is a map, a dictionary if you like. These are the params for each div. It supplies the div id, and the url stub. If you have other params that vary according to div, put them in the map.
Then, call getRecent() once for each map object. Inside the function you can unwrap the map object and get at its parameters.
You also want to set up that interval within the loop, using the same parameterization. I myself would prefer to use setTimeout(), but that's just me.
You need to supply the loadResource() function that accepts a URL (string) and returns the HTML available at that URL.
This solves the problem of modularity, but it is not "an object" or class-based approach to the problem. I'm not sure why you'd want one with such a simple task. Here's a crack an an object that does what you want:
(function() {
var getRecent = function(url, div){
url = url + '&recent=20';
// do stuff here to retrieve the resource
var content = loadResoucrce(url); // must define this
var elt = document.getElementById(div);
elt.innerHTML = content;
}
var pollForNew = function(url, div){
url = url + '&since_record_id=' + since_record_id;
var content = loadResoucrce(url); // returns an html fragment
var elt = document.getElementById(div);
elt.innerHTML = content;
}
UpdatingDataDiv = function(map) {
if (! (this instanceof arguments.callee) ) {
var error = new Error("you must use new to instantiate this class");
error.source = "UpdatingDataDiv";
throw error;
}
this.url = map.url;
this.div = map.div;
this.interval = map.interval || 30000; // default 30s
var self = this;
getRecent(this.url, this.div);
this.intervalId = setInterval(function(){
pollForNew(self.url, self.div);
}, this.interval);
};
UpdatingDataDiv.prototype.cancel = function() {
if (this.intervalId) {
clearInterval(this.intervalId);
this.intervalId = null;
}
}
})();
var d1= new UpdatingDataDiv('div1','http://some.net/address?client=Some+Client');
var d2= new UpdatingDataDiv('div2','http://some.net/otheraddress?client=Some+Client');
...
d1.cancel();
But there's not a lot you can do with d1 and d2. You can invoke cancel() to stop the updating. I guess you could add more functions to extend its capability.
OK, figured out what I needed. It's pretty straight forward.
First off disregard window.onload, the object is defined as a function and when you instantiate a new object it runs the function. Do your setup in the function.
Second, for global variables that you wish to make local to your object, simply define them as this.variable_name; within the object. Those variables are visible throughout the object, and its member functions.
Third, define your member functions as object.prototype.function = function(){};
Fourth, for my case, the object function should return this; This allows regular program flow to examine the variables of the object using dot notation.
This is the answer I was looking for. It takes my non-functional example code, and repackages it as an object...
function ServerObject(url){
// global to the object
this.server_url = url;
this.data = new Object();
this.since_record_id;
this.interval_id;
// do the onload functions
this.getRecent();
this.interval_id = setInterval(function(){
this.pollForNew();
}, 300000);
// do other stuff to setup the object
return this;
}
// define the getRecent function
ServerObject.prototype.getRecent = function(){
// do getRecent(); stuff
// reference object variables as this.variable;
}
// same for pollForNew();
ServerObject.prototype.pollForNew = function(){
// do pollForNew(); stuff here.
// reference object variables as this.variable;
}
Then in your program flow you do something like...
var server = new ServerObject("http://some.net/address");
server.variable = newValue; // access object variables
I mentioned the ADD in the first post. I'm smart enough to know how complex objects can be, and when I look for examples and explanations they expose certain layers of those complexities that cause my mind to just swim. It is difficult to drill down to the simple rules that get you started on the ground floor. What's the scope of 'this'? Sure I'll figure that out someday, but the simple truth is, you gotta reference 'this'.
Thanks
I wish I had more to offer.
Skip