Develop Reference

Arguments at instantiation of a namespace

I have a namespace generator that looks like this: (As a requirement, it also needs to have prototype objects extra and default).
function generateNamespace(staticMethods, prototypeMethods){
var namespace = function(){}; //create namespace
/**add staticMehods and prototypeMethods to namespace*/
extend(namespace, staticMethods); //extend function from NojeJS
extend(namespace.prototype, prototypeMethods);
//create extra and default objects.
namespace.prototype.default = namespace.prototype.default || {};
namespace.prototype.extra = namespace.prototype.extra || {};
return namespace;
}
The idea is to generate a namespace like this:
var protObj = {id: function(){
console.log("id");
}
}
var myNameSpace = generateNamespace({}, protObj);
When I instantiate:
var instanceOfmyNameSpace = new myNameSpace();
the result contains the functions id, and the objects default, and extra.
But if I run:
var instance2 = new myNameSpace({test: "foo"});
Then: assert.equal(instance2, instanceOfmyNameSpace) \\=true
so that means(?) that the given object just gets ignored.
What do I have to do to merge that object with the default one, for example? The perfect input/output would be:
//input
var instance2 = new myNameSpace({test: "foo"});
//output
console.log(instance2.default.test) \\-> "foo"
UPDATE, ANSWER
All I needed to do was create the namespace as a constructor, and then add staticMethods and prototypeMethods to it:
var extend = require('util')._extend;
function generateNamespace(staticMethods, prototypeMethods){
var namespace = function(defaults, extras){
this.default = extend({}, this.constructor.default, defaults);
this.extra = extend({}, this.constructor.extra, extras);
}
extend(namespace, staticMethods);
extend(namespace.prototype, prototypeMethods);
return namespace;
}

Your code doesn't show how you are copying prototypeMethods or even staticMethods to namespace which makes answering the question hard. I typically use a copy function to do operations like these. It would work for both the static and prototype methods.
Here is the mixin/copy function:
var mixin = function (obj, mixins) {
var keys = Object.keys(mixins);
for (var i = 0; i < keys.length; i++) {
var key = keys[i];
obj[key] = mixins[key];
}
};
And you would use it like:
function generateNamespace(staticMethods, prototypeMethods){
var namespace = function () {}; //create namespace
// copy staticMethods to namespace
mixin(namespace, staticMethods);
// copy prototype members
mixin(namespace.prototype, prototypeMethods);
//create extra and default objects.
namespace.prototype.default = namespace.prototype.default || {};
namespace.prototype.extra = namespace.prototype.extra || {};
return namespace;
}
Also note that with the line: namespace = function(){}; //create namespace you need to add a var as I did when declaring namespace otherwise the variable is made global and could exhibit unexpected behaviors.

Adding methods to an JavaScript object

I could create an object with some methods, and later add a property to it as follows:
var myObj = (function () {
var my = {};
my.method1=function(){}
my.method2=function(){}
my.method3=function(){}
return my;
}());
myObj.myProperty=123;
How could I create the object first and add a property, and then later add the methods afterwards?
myObj={};
myObj.myProperty=123;
//How do I add the above methods to myObj?

I guess there are two solutions:
Merge the objects:
var myObj = {...};
// ...
var objWithMethods = (function() { ... }());
Object.assign(myObj, objWithMethods);
(Object.assign is an ES6 methods. A polyfill can be found in the link, libraries often also provide a method with similar behavior).
Pass the object the methods should be assigned to as argument:
var myObj = {};
myObj = (function (obj) {
var my = obj || {};
my.method1=function(){}
my.method2=function(){}
my.method3=function(){}
return my;
}(myObj));

You can do an extend operation using an existing object
var myObj = {...}
var myAdditionalMethods = { someMethod : function(){ } }
//extend the object
for(var i in myAdditionalMethods)
if(!myObj.hasOwnProperty(i))
myObj[i] = myAdditionalMethods[i];
there are a lot of libraries that have this functionality built in, but that is how you would do it without one

Even prototype can add the functions to original object.
var myObj = function() {
this.myProperty = 123;
}
myObj.prototype.method1 = function method1() {
alert("method1")
}
myObj.prototype.method2 = function method2() {
alert("method2")
}
var newObj = new myObj();
newObj.method1();
newObj.method2();
console.log(newObj)

Making private instance variable accessible to prototype methods enclosed in anonymous function

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

stringify javascript function

I am in the final stages of a game development and i have a bunch of objects like this;
roomBedroom = function () {
this.title = "Bedroom";
this.description = "I'm in a bedroom";
this.noun = "bed";
this.entities = new Array();
}
var bedroom = new roomBedroom();
What I want to do now is place all of my game objects into an array;
var savedGameObjects = {};
savedGameObjects['bedroom'] = bedroom;
var jsonGame = JSON.stringify(savedGameObjects);
The plan is to then save the savedGameObjects array and then recall it when the user loads the game again.
If I replace savedGameObjects['bedroom'] = bedroom; with savedGameObjects['bed'] = 'slappy'; it works but not when I have the object.
I really need to save the objects in their current state. I'd rather not go through each object saving key pieces of information one by one.

This feels like a bit of a hack, but its the best I can come up with right now
Your serialization/deserializtion utility
This is going to attach obj.constructor.name to obj.__prototype before serialization. Upon deserializing, the prototype will be put back in place.
(function(global) {
function serialize(obj) {
obj.__prototype = obj.constructor.name;
return JSON.stringify(obj);
};
function deserialize(json) {
var obj = JSON.parse(json);
obj.__proto__ = global[obj.__prototype].prototype;
return obj;
}
global.serialize = serialize;
global.deserialize = deserialize;
})(window);
A sample "class"
(function(global) {
function Foo() {
this.a = "a";
this.b = "b";
}
Foo.prototype.hello = function() {
console.log("hello");
}
global.Foo = Foo;
})(window);
Let's try it out
var foo = new Foo();
var json = serialize(foo);
console.log(json);
var newFoo = deserialize(json);
console.log('a', newFoo.a); // a
console.log('b', newFoo.b); // b
newFoo.hello(); // hello
Watch out for some gotchas
If you use an expression to define your "class", you will have a nameless constructor
var Foo = function() {};
var foo = new Foo();
foo.constructor.name; // ""
As opposed to a named function
function Foo() {}
var foo = new Foo();
foo.constructor.name; // Foo
In order for serialize and deserialize to work, you will need to use named functions
Another gotcha
The deserialize method expects your "classes" to exist on the in the same namespace (window in this case). You could encapsulate your game object classes in another way, just make sure that you reconfigure the deserialize method so that it can find the prototypes as needed.
Making this better
Instead of attaching serialize to the global window, you could have serialize live on (e.g.) the GameObject.prototype then your individual classes could inherit from GameObject. Serializing an object would then be as simple as
var json = foo.serialize();
// {"a":"a","b":"b","__prototype":"Foo"}
You could then define deserialize as GameObject.deserialize and restoring foo would be
var foo = GameObject.deserialize(json);
An alternative solution
Instead of implementing a custom serializer and deserializer, you could make very clever use of the Factory Method Pattern.
This might be a little verbose, but it does give you individual control over how a game object should be deserialized/restored.
var savedData = // your normal JSON here
var player = Player.create(savedData.player);
var items = [];
for (var i=0, i<savedData.items.length; i++) {
items.push(Item.create(savedData.items[i]));
}
var map = Map.create(savedData.map);
This was a pretty interesting problem and I'm sure you're not the first to encounter it. I'm really curious to see what other people come up with.

If I run the following code in a browser there is no problem getting the JSON string of the bedroom object, not sure what the problem is.
Note that JSON is data and bedroom is an object, bedroom may have behaviour like turnOffLight() that JSON doesn't have.
roomBedroom = function () {
this.title = "Bedroom";
this.description = "I'm in a bedroom";
this.noun = "bed";
this.entities = new Array();
}
var bedroom = new roomBedroom();
var savedGameObjects = {};
savedGameObjects['bedroom'] = bedroom;
//logs {"bedroom":{"title":"Bedroom","description":
// "I'm in abedroom","noun":"bed","entities":[]}}
console.log(JSON.stringify(savedGameObjects));
So if you want to re create object instances from JSON data then you can change your constructor:
roomBedroom = function (args) {
//following fails fast and loud, you could silently
//fail by setting args to {}
if(typeof args!=="object")
throw new Error("Have to create roomBedroom by passing an object");
//or do args={} to silently fail
this.title = args.title||"Bedroom";
this.description = args.description||"I'm in a bedroom";
this.noun = args.noun||"bed";
//if entities are objects with behavior
// you have to re create them here passing the JSON data
// as I've done with roomBedroom
this.entities = args.entities||new Array();
}
var jsonString='{"bedroom":{"title":"Bedroom",'+
'"description":"I\'m in a bedroom",'+
'"noun":"bed","entities":[]}}';
var bedroom = new roomBedroom({});
bedroom.entities.push({hi:"there"});
bedroom.title="Master Bedroom";
//serialize bedroom to a json string
var jsonString = JSON.stringify(bedroom);
//create a roomBedroom instance named br2 using
// the serialized string
var br2=new roomBedroom(JSON.parse(jsonString));
//compare if they are the same
console.log(JSON.stringify(bedroom)===JSON.stringify(br2));//true

I have an approach that might work for you. You can see it in action on JSFiddle.
The main point is to use the reviver parameter to JSON.parse to reconstruct your object when it's parsed.
I do this with a general-purpose reviver that can be configured for multiple different types, although here the only one used is the RoomBedroom constructor. This implementation assumes that you have simple copy constructors that create new objects using a reference to an existing one. (For other, more sophisticated possibilities, see an answer to another question I gave in February.) To make it easy to have a copy constructor, I have one more function that accepts a very simple constructor function and a set of default values and builds a copy constructor function for you.
var MultiReviver = function(types) {
return function(key, value) {
var type;
for (var i = 0; i < types.length; i++) {
type = types[i];
if (type.test(value)) {
return new type.constructor(value);
}
}
return value;
};
};
var makeCloningConstructor = (function() {
var clone = function(obj) {return JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj));};
var F = function() {};
return function(Constructor, defaults) {
var fn = function(obj) {
Constructor.call(this);
var self = this;
var config = obj || {};
Object.keys(defaults).forEach(function(key) {
self[key] = clone(defaults[key]);
});
Object.keys(config).forEach(function(key) {
self[key] = clone(config[key]);
});
};
F.prototype = Constructor.prototype;
fn.prototype = new F();
fn.constructor = Constructor;
return fn;
};
})();
// Note: capitalize constructor functions
var RoomBedroom = makeCloningConstructor(function RoomBedroom() {}, {
title: "Bedroom",
description: "I'm in a bedroom",
noun: "bed",
entities: [] // Note: use `[]` instead of `new Array()`.
});
RoomBedroom.prototype.toggleLight = function() {
this.lightOn = !this.lightOn;
};
RoomBedroom.prototype.checkLights = function() {
return "light is " + (this.lightOn ? "on" : "off");
};
var bedroom = new RoomBedroom();
bedroom.windowCount = 3; // add new property
bedroom.noun = "king-sized bed"; // adjust property
bedroom.toggleLight(); // create new propery, use prototype function
console.log(bedroom.checkLights());
var savedGameObjects = {};
savedGameObjects['bedroom'] = bedroom;
var jsonGame = JSON.stringify(savedGameObjects);
var reviver = new MultiReviver([{
constructor: RoomBedroom,
test: function(obj) {
var toString = Object.prototype.toString, str = "[object String]",
arr = "[object Array]";
return toString.call(obj.title) == str &&
toString.call(obj.description) == str &&
toString.call(obj.noun) == str &&
toString.call(obj.entities) == arr;
}
}]);
var retrievedGameObjects = JSON.parse(jsonGame, reviver);
// data comes back intact
console.log(JSON.stringify(retrievedGameObjects, null, 4));
// constructor is as expected
console.log("Constructor: " + retrievedGameObjects.bedroom.constructor.name);
// prototype functions work
console.log(retrievedGameObjects.bedroom.checkLights());
I don't know if it's precisely what you were looking for, but I think it's at least an interesting approach.

the faster route
It is better — from an optimisation point of view — to do as Adeneo states, which is power each of your Game Objects by an exportable simple object i.e:
roomBedroom = function(){
this.data = {};
this.data.title = 'Bedroom'
/// and so on...
}
These can then be easily stored and re-imported just by JSON.Stringifying and overwriting the data property. For example, you could set-up the system that Maček mentions (+1) which is to give each of your game objects serialize and deserialize functions:
roomBedroom.prototype.serialize = function(){
return JSON.stringify( this.data );
};
roomBedroom.prototype.deserialize = function( jstr ){
this.data = JSON.parse(jstr);
};
the quicker way
However, you can make a simple addition to what you already have using the following:
First enhance your Game Objects with an objectName property. This is because constructor.name and function.name are unreliable and do strange things the further back in time you go, far better to use a string you have set in stone.
var roomBedroom = function ( title ) {
this.objectName = "roomBedroom";
this.title = title;
this.description = "I'm in a bedroom";
this.noun = "bed";
this.entities = new Array();
};
Then the additional code to help with storage:
var storage = {};
/// add your supported constructors to this list, there are more programmatic
/// ways to get at the constructor but it's better to be explicit.
storage.constructors = {
'roomBedroom' : roomBedroom
};
/// take an instance and convert to simple object
storage.to = function( obj ){
if ( obj.toStorage ) {
return obj.toStorage();
}
else {
var keep = {};
for ( var i in obj ) {
if ( obj.hasOwnProperty(i) && !obj[i].call ) {
keep[i] = obj[i];
}
}
return keep;
}
}
/// take simple object and convert to an instance of constructor
storage.from = function( obj ){
var n = obj && obj.objectName, c = storage.constructors[n];
if ( n && c ) {
if ( c.fromStorage ) {
return c.fromStorage( obj );
}
else {
var inst = new c();
for ( var i in obj ) {
if ( obj.hasOwnProperty(i) ) {
inst[i] = obj[i];
}
}
return inst;
}
}
else {
throw new Error('`' + n + '` undefined as storage constructor');
}
}
Once you have that you can use it like so:
var savedGameObjects = {};
savedGameObjects['bedroom'] = storage.to(new roomBedroom("bedroom"));
savedGameObjects['bedroom2'] = storage.to(new roomBedroom("bedroom2"));
var jsonGame = JSON.stringify(savedGameObjects);
console.log(jsonGame);
savedGameObjects = JSON.parse(jsonGame);
for( var i in savedGameObjects ) {
savedGameObjects[i] = storage.from(savedGameObjects[i]);
console.log(savedGameObjects[i]);
}
extras
You can also be specific about the way objects get stored/unstored by supplying toStorage and fromStorage methods on your constructed instances and constructors respectively. For example, you could use the following if you only wanted to store titles of roomBedrooms. Obviously this is an unrealistic use-case, you'd more often use this to avoid storing cached or computed sub-objects and properties.
roomBedroom.prototype.toStorage = function( obj ){
var ret = {};
ret.title = obj.title;
return ret;
};
roomBedroom.fromStorage = function( obj ){
var inst = new roomBedroom();
inst.title = obj.title;
return inst;
};
The above also means you can take advantage of improving your Game Object construction by providing parameters, rather than iterating over properties which can be slow and error-prone.
roomBedroom.fromStorage = function( obj ){
return new roomBedroom( obj.title );
};
Or even:
roomBedroom.fromStorage = function( obj ){
return new roomBedroom( obj ); // <-- the constructor processes the import.
};
fiddle
http://jsfiddle.net/XTUdp/
disclaimer
The above code relies on the existence of hasOwnProperty which is not present cross-browser yet, a polyfill should be used until it is... or, if you aren't doing anything complicated with prototype inheritance you don't need to worry and can remove it from the code.

you can declare a big variable like
var world = {};
and each small variable declare as
var bedroom = world.bed = (world.bed || new roomBedroom());
remember never change bedroom to another object, i think this will work fine, but looks too long winded

Can you use custom objects as properties of an object in javascript?

Suppose I create a custom object/javascript "class" (airquotes) as follows:
// Constructor
function CustomObject(stringParam) {
var privateProperty = stringParam;
// Accessor
this.privilegedGetMethod = function() {
return privateProperty;
}
// Mutator
this.privilegedSetMethod = function(newStringParam) {
privateProperty = newStringParam;
}
}
Then I want to make a list of those custom objects where I can easily add or remove things from that list. I decide to use objects as a way to store the list of custom objects, so I can add custom objects to the list with
var customObjectInstance1 = new CustomObject('someString');
var customObjectInstance2 = new CustomObject('someOtherString');
var customObjectInstance3 = new CustomObject('yetAnotherString');
myListOfCustomObjects[customObjectInstance1] = true;
myListOfCustomObjects[customObjectInstance2] = true;
myListOfCustomObjects[customObjectInstance3] = true;
and remove custom objects from the list with
delete myListOfCustomObjects[customObjectInstance1];
but if i try to iterate through the list with
for (i in myListOfCustomObjects) {
alert(i.privilegedGetMethod());
}
I would get an error in the FireBug console that says "i.privilegedGetMethod() is not a function". Is there a way to fix this problem or an idiom in javascript to do what I want? Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I'm new to javascript and have scoured the internet for solutions to my problem with no avail. Any help would be appreciated!
P.S. I realize that my example is super simplified, and I can just make the privateProperty public using this.property or something, but then i would still get undefined in the alert, and I would like to keep it encapsulated.

i won't be the original object as you were expecting:
for (i in myListOfCustomObjects) {
alert(typeof i); // "string"
}
This is because all keys in JavaScript are Strings. Any attempt to use another type as a key will first be serialized by toString().
If the result of toString() isn't somehow unique for each instance, they will all be the same key:
function MyClass() { }
var obj = {};
var k1 = new MyClass();
var k2 = new MyClass();
obj[k1] = {};
obj[k2] = {};
// only 1 "[object Object]" key was created, not 2 object keys
for (var key in obj) {
alert(key);
}
To make them unique, define a custom toString:
function CustomObject(stringParam) {
/* snip */
this.toString = function () {
return 'CustomObject ' + stringParam;
};
}
var obj = {};
var k1 = new CustomObject('key1');
var k2 = new CustomObject('key2');
obj[k1] = {};
obj[k2] = {};
// "CustomObject key1" then "CustomObject key2"
for (var key in obj) {
alert(key);
}
[Edit]
With a custom toString, you can set the object as the serialized key and the value to keep them organized and still continue to access them:
var customObjectInstance1 = new CustomObject('someString');
var customObjectInstance2 = new CustomObject('someOtherString');
var customObjectInstance3 = new CustomObject('yetAnotherString');
myListOfCustomObjects[customObjectInstance1] = customObjectInstance1;
myListOfCustomObjects[customObjectInstance2] = customObjectInstance2;
myListOfCustomObjects[customObjectInstance3] = customObjectInstance3;
for (i in myListOfCustomObjects) {
alert(myListOfCustomObjects[i].privilegedGetMethod());
}

The for iteration variable is just the index, not the object itself. So use:
for (i in myListOfCustomObjects) {
alert(myListOfCustomObjects[i].privilegedGetMethod());
}
and, in my opinion, if you use an Object as an array index / hash, it just would be converted to the string "Object", which ends up in a list with a single entry, because all the keys are the same ("Object").

myListOfCustomObjects =[
new CustomObject('someString'),
new CustomObject('someOtherString'),
new CustomObject('yetAnotherString')
]
you will get access to any element by index of array.