Related
I realize that, strictly speaking, this is not subclassing the array type, but will this work in the way one might expect, or am I still going to run into some issues with .length and the like? Are there any drawbacks that I would not have if normal subclassing were an option?
function Vector()
{
var vector = [];
vector.sum = function()
{
sum = 0.0;
for(i = 0; i < this.length; i++)
{
sum += this[i];
}
return sum;
}
return vector;
}
v = Vector();
v.push(1); v.push(2);
console.log(v.sum());
I'd wrap an array inside a proper vector type like this:
window.Vector = function Vector() {
this.data = [];
}
Vector.prototype.push = function push() {
Array.prototype.push.apply(this.data, arguments);
}
Vector.prototype.sum = function sum() {
for(var i = 0, s=0.0, len=this.data.length; i < len; s += this.data[i++]);
return s;
}
var vector1 = new Vector();
vector1.push(1); vector1.push(2);
console.log(vector1.sum());
Alternatively you can build new prototype functions on arrays and then just use normal arrays.
If you are consistent with naming the arrays so they all start with a lowercase v for example or something similar that clearly mark them aw vector and not normal arrays, and you do the same on the vector specific prototype functions, then it should be fairly easy to keep track of.
Array.prototype.vSum = function vSum() {
for(var i = 0, s=0.0, len=this.length; i < len; s += this[i++]);
return s;
}
var vector1 = [];
vector1.push(1); vector1.push(2);
console.log(vector1.vSum());
EDIT -- I originally wrote that you could subclass an Array just like any other object, which was wrong. Learn something new every day. Here is a good discussion
http://perfectionkills.com/how-ecmascript-5-still-does-not-allow-to-subclass-an-array/
In this case, would composition work better? i.e. just create a Vector object, and have it backed by an array. This seems to be the path you are on, you just need to add the push and any other methods to the prototype.
Nowadays you could use subclassing with ES6 classes:
class Vector extends Array {
sum(){
return this.reduce((total, value) => total + value)
}
}
let v2 = new Vector();
v2.push(1);
v2.push(2);
console.log(v2.sum());
console.log(v2.length);
v2.length = 0;
console.log(v2.length);
console.log(v2);
Just another example of the wrapper. Having some fun with .bind.
var _Array = function _Array() {
if ( !( this instanceof _Array ) ) {
return new _Array();
};
};
_Array.prototype.push = function() {
var apContextBound = Array.prototype.push,
pushItAgainst = Function.prototype.apply.bind( apContextBound );
pushItAgainst( this, arguments );
};
_Array.prototype.pushPushItRealGood = function() {
var apContextBound = Array.prototype.push,
pushItAgainst = Function.prototype.apply.bind( apContextBound );
pushItAgainst( this, arguments );
};
_Array.prototype.typeof = (function() { return ( Object.prototype.toString.call( [] ) ); }());
#hvgotcodes answer has an awesome link. I just wanted to summerize the conclusion here.
Wrappers. Prototype chain injection
This seems to be the best method to extend array from the article.
wrappers can be used ... in which object’s prototype chain is augmented, rather than object itself.
function SubArray() {
var arr = [ ];
arr.push.apply(arr, arguments);
arr.__proto__ = SubArray.prototype;
return arr;
}
SubArray.prototype = new Array;
// Add custom functions here to SubArray.prototype.
SubArray.prototype.last = function() {
return this[this.length - 1];
};
var sub = new SubArray(1, 2, 3);
sub instanceof SubArray; // true
sub instanceof Array; // true
Unfortunally for me, this method uses arr.__proto__, unsupported in IE 8-, a browser I have to support.
Wrappers. Direct property injection.
This method is a little slower than the above, but works in IE 8-.
Wrapper approach avoids setting up inheritance or emulating length/indices relation. Instead, a factory-like function can create a plain Array object, and then augment it directly with any custom methods. Since returned object is an Array one, it maintains proper length/indices relation, as well as [[Class]] of “Array”. It also inherits from Array.prototype, naturally.
function makeSubArray() {
var arr = [ ];
arr.push.apply(arr, arguments);
// Add custom functions here to arr.
arr.last = function() {
return this[this.length - 1];
};
return arr;
}
var sub = makeSubArray(1, 2, 3);
sub instanceof Array; // true
sub.length; // 3
sub.last(); // 3
There is a way that looks and feels like prototypical inheritance, but it's different in only one way.
First lets take a look at one of the standard ways of implementing prototypical inheritance in javascript:
var MyClass = function(bar){
this.foo = bar;
};
MyClass.prototype.awesomeMethod = function(){
alert("I'm awesome")
};
// extends MyClass
var MySubClass = function(bar){
MyClass.call(this, bar); // <- call super constructor
}
// which happens here
MySubClass.prototype = Object.create(MyClass.prototype); // prototype object with MyClass as its prototype
// allows us to still walk up the prototype chain as expected
Object.defineProperty(MySubClass.prototype, "constructor", {
enumerable: false, // this is merely a preference, but worth considering, it won't affect the inheritance aspect
value: MySubClass
});
// place extended/overridden methods here
MySubClass.prototype.superAwesomeMethod = function(){
alert("I'm super awesome!");
};
var testInstance = new MySubClass("hello");
alert(testInstance instanceof MyClass); // true
alert(testInstance instanceof MySubClass); // true
The next example just wraps up the above structure to keep everything clean. And there is a slight tweak that seems at first glance to perform a miracle. However, all that is really happening is each instance of the subclass is using not the Array prototype as a template for construction, but rather an instance of an Array - so the prototype of the subclass comes hooked onto the end of a fully loaded object which passes the ducktype of an array - which it then copies. If you still see something strange here and it bothers you, I'm not sure that I can explain it better - so maybe how it works is a good topic for another question. :)
var extend = function(child, parent, optionalArgs){ //...
if(parent.toString() === "function "+parent.name+"() { [native code] }"){
optionalArgs = [parent].concat(Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 2));
child.prototype = Object.create(new parent.bind.apply(null, optionalArgs));
}else{
child.prototype = Object.create(parent.prototype);
}
Object.defineProperties(child.prototype, {
constructor: {enumerable: false, value: child},
_super_: {enumerable: false, value: parent} // merely for convenience (for future use), its not used here because our prototype is already constructed!
});
};
var Vector = (function(){
// we can extend Vector prototype here because functions are hoisted
// so it keeps the extend declaration close to the class declaration
// where we would expect to see it
extend(Vector, Array);
function Vector(){
// from here on out we are an instance of Array as well as an instance of Vector
// not needed here
// this._super_.call(this, arguments); // applies parent constructor (in this case Array, but we already did it during prototyping, so use this when extending your own classes)
// construct a Vector as needed from arguments
this.push.apply(this, arguments);
}
// just in case the prototype description warrants a closure
(function(){
var _Vector = this;
_Vector.sum = function sum(){
var i=0, s=0.0, l=this.length;
while(i<l){
s = s + this[i++];
}
return s;
};
}).call(Vector.prototype);
return Vector;
})();
var a = new Vector(1,2,3); // 1,2,3
var b = new Vector(4,5,6,7); // 4,5,6,7
alert(a instanceof Array && a instanceof Vector); // true
alert(a === b); // false
alert(a.length); // 3
alert(b.length); // 4
alert(a.sum()); // 6
alert(b.sum()); // 22
Soon we'll have class and the ability to extend native classes in ES6 but that may be a another year yet. In the mean time I hope this helps someone.
function SubArray(arrayToInitWith){
Array.call(this);
var subArrayInstance = this;
subArrayInstance.length = arrayToInitWith.length;
arrayToInitWith.forEach(function(e, i){
subArrayInstance[i] = e;
});
}
SubArray.prototype = Object.create(Array.prototype);
SubArray.prototype.specialMethod = function(){alert("baz");};
var subclassedArray = new SubArray(["Some", "old", "values"]);
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 often use Crockford's prototypal pattern when writing JavaScript programs. I thought I understood all the "gotchas" involved, but I discovered one I didn't think about before. I'd like to know if anyone has a best practice for handling it.
Here's a simple example:
// Here's the parent object
var MyObject = {
registry: {},
flatAttribute: null,
create: function () {
var o, F = function () {};
F.prototype = this;
o = new F();
return o;
}
};
// instance is an empty object that inherits
// from MyObject
var instance = MyObject.create();
// Attributes can be set on instance without modifying MyObject
instance.flatAttribute = "This is going to be applied to the instance";
// registry doesn't exist on instance, but it exists on
// instance.prototype. MyObject's registry attribute gets
// dug up the prototype chain and altered. It's not possible
// to tell that's happening just by examining this line.
instance.registry.newAttribute = "This is going to be applied to the prototype";
// Inspecting the parent object
// prints "null"
console.log(MyObject.flatAttribute);
// prints "This is going to be applied to the prototype"
console.log(MyObject.registry.newAttribute);
I want to feel safe that any changes that appear to be made to the instance don't propagate up the inheritance change. This is not the case when the attribute is an object and I'm setting a nested property.
A solution is to re-initialize all object attributes on the instance. However, one of the stated advantages of using this pattern is removing re-initialization code from the constructor. I'm thinking about cloning all the object attributes of the parent and setting them on the instance within the create() function:
{ create: function () {
var o, a, F = function () {};
F.prototype = this;
o = new F();
for (a in this) {
if (this.hasOwnProperty(a) && typeof this[a] === 'object') {
// obviously deepclone would need to be implemented
o[a] = deepclone(this[a]);
}
}
return o;
} };
Is there a better way?
There is a very simple solution to ensuring that they are instance variables only, which is to use the this keyword in the constructor.
var MyObject = {
flatAttribute: null,
create: function () {
var o, F = function () {
this.registry = {}
};
F.prototype = this;
o = new F();
return o;
}
};
this ensures that all properties of "instance.registry.*" are local to the instance because the lookup order for javascript opjects is as follows.
object -> prototype -> parent prototype ...
so by adding a variable to the instance in the constructor function named "registry" that will always be found first.
another solution, which I think is more elegant is to not use crockford's (java style) constructors and use a layout that reflects javascripts object system more naturally. most of those gotchas are from the misfit between practice and language.
// instance stuff
var F = function () {
this.registry = {}
};
F.prototype = {
// static attributes here
flatAttribute: null,
methodA: function(){
// code here 'this' is instance object
this.att = 'blah';
}
};
var instanceA = new F();
instanceA.registry['A'] = 'hi';
var instanceB = new F();
instanceB.registry['B'] = 'hello';
instanceA.registry.A == 'hi'; // true
instanceB.registry.B == 'hello'; // true
F.prototype.registry == undefined; // true
Will this give you the expected result? Here I am not using an Object literal, but an instantly instantiated constructor function for the parent object (Base):
var Base = ( function(){
function MyObject(){
this.registry = {},
this.flatAttribute = null;
if (!MyObject.prototype.create)
MyObject.prototype.create = function(){
return new this.constructor();
};
}
return new MyObject;
} )(),
// create 2 instances from Base
instance1 = Base.create(),
instance2 = Base.create();
// assign a property to instance1.registry
instance1.registry.something = 'blabla';
// do the instance properties really belong to the instance?
console.log(instance1.registry.something); //=> 'blabla'
console.log(instance2.registry.something === undefined); //=> true
But it's all a bit virtual. If you don't want to use the new operator (I think that was te whole idea of it), the following offers you a way to do that without the need for a create method :
function Base2(){
if (!(this instanceof Base2)){
return new Base2;
}
this.registry = {},
this.flatAttribute = null;
if (!Base2.prototype.someMethod){
var proto = Base2.prototype;
proto.someMethod = function(){};
//...etc
}
}
//now the following does the same as before:
var instance1 = Base2(),
instance2 = Base2();
// assign a property to instance1.registry
instance1.registry.something = 'blabla';
// do the instance properties really belong to the instance?
console.log(instance1.registry.something); //=> 'blabla'
console.log(instance2.registry.something === undefined); //=> true
Example in a jsfiddle
I always like to keep in mind that object.Create is one option, and not the only way of achieving non-classical inheritance in javascript.
For myself, I always find that Object.create works best when I want to inherit elements from the parent objects prototype chain (i.e. methods that I'd like to be able to apply to the inheriting object).
--
For simple "Own Property" inheritance, Object.create is largely unnecessary. When I want to inherit own properties, i prefer to use the popular Mixin & Extend patterns (which simply copy one object's own properties to another, without worrying about prototype or "new").
In the Stoyan Stefanov book "Javascript Patterns" he gives an example of a deep extend function that does what you're looking for recursively, and includes support for properties that are arrays as well as standard key/value objects:
function extendDeep(parent, child){
var i,
toStr = Object.prototype.toString,
astr = "[object Array]";
child = child || {};
for (i in parent) {
if (parent.hasOwnProperty(i)) {
if (typeof parent[i] === "object") {
child[i] = (toStr.call(parent[i]) === astr) ? [] : {};
extendDeep(parent[i], child[i]);
} else {
child[i] = parent[i];
}
}
}
return child;
}
If you're using jQuery, jQuery.extend() has an optional "deep" argument that lets you extend an object in near-identical fashion.
i think you're using prototypal inheritance to simulate a classic, Object Oriented inheritance.
What are you trying to do is to stop the prototype method lookup which limits its expressiveness, so why using it? You can achieve the same effect by using this functional pattern:
var MyObject = function() {
// Declare here shared vars
var global = "All instances shares me!";
return {
'create': function() {
var flatAttribute;
var register = {};
return {
// Declare here public getters/setters
'register': (function() {
return register;
})(),
'flatAttribute': (function() {
return flatAttribute;
})(),
'global': (function() {
return global;
})()
};
}
};
}();
var instance1 = MyObject.create();
var instance2 = MyObject.create();
instance1.register.newAttr = "This is local to instance1";
instance2.register.newAttr = "This is local to instance2";
// Print local (instance) var
console.log(instance1.register.newAttr);
console.log(instance2.register.newAttr);
// Print global var
console.log(instance1.global);
console.log(instance2.global);
Code on jsFiddle
if (typeof Object.create4 !== 'function') {
Object.create4 = function (t) {
var F, f, i, ins = {}, sta = {};
for(i in t){
// method: static, means will only exists 1, so is less memory intensive
if(typeof t[i] === 'function'){
sta[i] = t[i];
}
// vars: instance, means 1 for each object, so is more memory intensive
else{
ins[i] = t[i];
}
}
// make a copy of the instances
ins = jQuery.extend(true, {}, ins);
F = function() {}
F.prototype = sta;
f = new F();
// assign instances to the instance
for(i in ins){
f[i] = ins[i];
}
return f;
};
}
var Vehicle4 = (function(){
var that = {}
that.instanceVar = {hey: 1}
that.staticMethod = function(){
console.log(this.instanceVar);
}
return that;
}())
var v31 = Object.create4(Vehicle4);
var v32 = Object.create4(Vehicle4);
v31.instanceVar.hey = 2;
v31.staticMethod();
v32.staticMethod();
is this ok in terms of memory?
I mean:
in 1000 objects instanced there will be:
1*staticMethod
1000*instanceVar
is this efficient? I want to note that the instanceVar will be modified in each object so a signle object is not enought.
and might have any memory leaks?
var inherit = function(P, C) {
return jQuery.extend(true, {}, P, C);
}
var Vehicle = function() {}
Vehicle.prototype = {
init: function(){
this.instanceVar = {hey: 1}
},
staticMethod: function() {
console.log(this.instanceMember);
},
staticMethod3: function() {
console.log(this.instanceMember);
}
}
var SuperVehicle = function() {}
SuperVehicle.prototype = inherit(Vehicle.prototype, {
init: function(){
this.super.init.call(this);
this.instanceVar2 = {hey: 1}
},
staticMethod: function() {
console.log(this.instanceVar.hey);
console.log(this.instanceVar2.hey);
},
staticMethod2: function() {
console.log(this.instanceVar.hey);
console.log(this.instanceVar2.hey);
}
});
SuperVehicle.prototype.super = Vehicle.prototype;
var s = new SuperVehicle();
s.init();
s.staticMethod();
s.staticMethod2();
s.staticMethod3();
I can tell you for sure that it is correct and you won't have memory leaks, but concerning the efficiency, i have some doubts.
Firstly, your static members aren't quite static... they are just added to the prototypic chain of the object. The whole prototype inheritance system relies on the fact that every object inherits it's fathers prototype recursively.
So, if you add a property to the primitive Object , such as:
Object.prototype.toString = function(){console.log("I am a primitive object");}
all of the object in your window would inherit this function and they would be "primitive" :)).
You could call this a "static" method only if you consider the fact that it is loaded in the memory only once and not for every instance, but you cannot consider it static, because it interacts with the current instance of the object (in other object oriented languages, if you put the "this" keyword inside a static method, it throws an exception)
But I don't see the point of all that in your example.
In your example, you pin the "static" methods into the prototype of the object you want to create, but you recreate the prototype for each object instance. If you create 2 or more instances of the same "class", they won't share the prototype but they will each have identical ones.
It's right there:
F = function() {};
F.prototype = sta;
f = new F();
Every time you create vehicles with this method:
var myVehicle = Object.create4(Vehicle4);
var anotherVehicle = Object.create4(Vehicle4);
You create prototypes for each instance, witch kind of defeats the purpose of the prototypic inheritance.
I would definitely go for the classic method of creating objects (with the "new" operator) :
var Vehicle = function(val){this.instanceMember = val;}
Vehicle.prototype = {
"staticMethod": function(){console.log(this.instanceMember);}
}
var v1 = new Vehicle("foo");
var v2 = new Vehicle("bar");
This way you can easily change the staticMethod and affect all Vehicle instances:
Vehicle.prototype.staticMethod = function(){
console.log(arguments[0] || this.instanceMember);
};
while in your example if you change the staticMethod, the changes will be applied only to the instances constructed after the change occurred.
This being said, in this case, the old classic way of creating objects with "static" members is by far more efficient.
P.S. : Sorry if i got carried away :)
I would like to make an object's structure immutable, preventing its properties from being subsequently replaced. The properties need to be readable, however. Is this possible?
I'm sure there are no language features (along the lines of final in Java and readonly in C#) to support this but wondered whether there might be another mechanism for achieving the same result?
I'm looking for something along these lines:
var o = {
a: "a",
f: function () {
return "b";
}
};
var p = o.a; // OK
o.a = "b"; // Error
var q = o.f(); // OK
o.f = function () { // Error
return "c";
};
ECMAScript 5 will have seal() and freeze(), but there's no good way to do this with current JavaScript implementations.
Source.
the best thing you can do is hide your properties inside of a closure.
var getMap = function(){
var hidden = "1";
return {
getHidden : function() { return hidden; }
}
}
var f = getMap ();
alert(f.getHidden());
I took a stab at it. In the above code you will need to not just return hidden but copy it into a new object perhaps. maybe you can use jquery's extend to do this for you, so you will be returning a new object, not the reference. This may be completely wrong though =)
Using var in an object constructor will create a private variable. This is essentially a closure. Then you can create a public function to access/modify it. More information and examples available on Private Members in Javascript by Douglas Crockford.
As mkoryak said, you can create a closure to hide properties
function Car(make, model, color) {
var _make = make, _model = model, _color = color;
this.getMake = function() {
return _make;
}
}
var mycar = new Car("ford", "mustang", "black");
mycar.getMake(); //returns "ford"
mycar._make; //error
Okay, so there's been already a couple of answers suggesting you return an object with several getters methods. But you can still replace those methods.
There's this, which is slightly better. You won't be able to replace the object's properties without replacing the function completely. But it's still not exactly what you want.
function Sealed(obj) {
function copy(o){
var n = {};
for(p in o){
n[p] = o[p]
}
return n;
}
var priv = copy(obj);
return function(p) {
return typeof p == 'undefined' ? copy(priv) : priv[p]; // or maybe copy(priv[p])
}
}
var mycar = new Sealed({make:"ford", model:"mustang", color:"black"});
alert( mycar('make') ); // "ford"
alert( mycar().make ); // "ford"
var newcopy = mycar();
newcopy.make = 'volkwagen';
alert( newcopy.make ); // "volkwagen" :(
alert( mycar().make ); // still "ford" :)
alert( mycar('make') ); // still "ford" :)
You can now force a single object property to be frozen instead of freezing the whole object. You can achieve this with Object.defineProperty and the parameter writable: false
var obj = {
"first": 1,
"second": 2,
"third": 3
};
Object.defineProperty(obj, "first", {
writable: false,
value: 99
});
In this example, obj.first now has its value locked to 99.