We have an application with a good amount of jQuery JSON calls to server side code. Because of this, we have a large amount of binding code to parse responses and bind the appropriate values to the form. This is a two part question.
What is the reccomended approach for dealing with a large number of forms that all have different data. Right now were are trying to take a structured approach in setting up a js "class" for each page, with an init, wireClickEvents etc.. to try to have everything conformed.
Is there any "best practices" with creating repetitive jQuery code or any type of reccomended structure other than just throwing a bunch of functions in a js file?
You should probably look into a framework like knockout.js This way you can just update your models and the forms will update automatically.
Not 100% sure example what you are asking, but personally, and I use MochiKit, I create JavaScript "classes" (or widgets, if you prefer) for every significant client-side UI structure. These know, of course, how to populate themselves with data.
I don't know what more there is to say - writing UI code for the browser in JavaScript is no different than writing UI code for other types of apps, as far as I am concerned. Build classes and instantiate them as needed, populate them with data, have them throw events, etc. etc.
Am I up in the night on this? :)
EDIT: In other words, yes - do what you are doing, for the most part. I see too many novice JavaScript hackers write a bunch of poorly-cohesive functions that don't appear to be a part of anything specific other than they are all in a single file. Hope that makes sense.
I think there are multiple challanges for you. The first question is how to structure javascript code, i.e. how to build namespaces so that you don't fight name clashes or have to name your functions like
form1validate
form1aftersubmit
form2validate
form2aftersubmit
One of the proven patterns for modules in javascript is to use an anonymous function to build a new naming scope. The basic idea is shon in the following code
(function() {
var foo = 1;
})();
(function() {
if(foo == 1) alert("namespace separation failed!")
})();
I think this blog entry is a good introduction.
The second question you face is how to avoid all the repetition in javascript code.
You have a couple of weapons against this.
functions - this seams obvious but it's often forgotten to refactor common code into functions where it can be done. In you case this will be functions to copy values from the json response into the forms and like that
higher order function - or functions as data - or callback, as they are often called in javascript. These are the mightiest weapon in javascript. In case for form and ajax handling you can use callback to avoid repetition in the control flow of your forms.
Let me construct an example out of my head (using jquery for convinence)
// this is a validator for one form
var form1validator = function() {
if($("input[name=name]",this).attr("value").length < 1 &&
$("input[name=organisation]",this).attr("value").length < 1)
return "Either name or organisation required"
}
// and this for a second form
var form2validator = function() {
if($("input[name=age]",this).attr("value").length < 21
return "Age of 21 required"
}
// and a function to display a validation result
var displayResult = function(r) {
$(this).prepend("<span></span>").text(r);
}
// we use them as higher order functions like that
$("#form1").onSubmit(validator(form1validator, displayResult, function() {
//on submit
...send some xhr request or like that
});
$("#form2").onSubmit(validator(form2validator, displayResult, function() {
this.submit() // simply submit form
});
$("#form1b").onSubmit(validator(form1validator, function(r) {
alert("There was an validation error " + r);
}, function() {
//on submit
...send some xhr request or like that
});
// the validator function itself would be defined as
function validator(formValidator, displayResult, onSubmit) {
var r = formValidator.apply(this)
if(typeof(r) === 'undefined')
onSubmit(this)
else
displayResult(r)
}
Related
I've got about 30 web pages, all of them HTML forms. Each page has two or more different form elements - select, input text, checkboxes, text areas - along with various ui elements, popups, form validation etc. I'm trying to refactor the jquery used in the pages to use the DRY principle but am not sure how to do it. Here area few examples of some of the jquery used:
Example Code Block A:
$(".show-tool", _container).mouseover(function() {
$(this).nextAll(":hidden").css('display','block');
});
Example Code Block B:
$(".optional").blur(function(){
if ($(this).val() == '')
{
$(this).addClass('optional');
$(this).val('(Optional)');
}
});
Example Code Block C:
$('.howtoremain').click(function() {
$('.hiddendiv').slideToggle("10000");
if($(this).hasClass('howtoremain')) {
$(this).removeClass('howtoremain').addClass('howtoremain2');
}
else {
$(this).removeClass('howtoremain2').addClass('howtoremain');
}
});
All of these are contained in the document.ready. The actual code list above isn't that relevant. I'm trying to have each HTML page only include the jquery code that is relevant. For example page 1 might use code block A and B. Page 2 might use A,B,C,D,E, and F. Page 3 might use code block C and G. Rather than have one giant document.ready with every code block (which will probably cause bugs at some point anyway if one code block needs to be slightly different than another for the same form element), how do you code this? Have one javascript file per code block also seems lousy, as it would cause multiple hits to the server per page. I think I am trying to get at one big javascript file, but only initialize in the document.ready those functions that are relevant to each page.
In my projects, I have gone over to using multiple JS-Files per module and concatenating them into a closure within a build process. This is similar to what jQuery does in its build process (cf. intro.js, outro.js)
This way, I can use granular, DRY modules in smaller files, then concatenate them. A typical single module file might look like this for your Example B:
( function($) {
var subjects = $('.optional');
if ( subjects.length === 0 ) {
// this is a knockout criteria for this module, thus exit this enclosed function
return;
}
subjects.blur(function(){
if ($(this).val() == '')
{
$(this).addClass('optional');
$(this).val('(Optional)');
}
});
// now use whatever you need to initialise.
})($);
As you can see, I use the outer function not only to keep my scope clean, but much more important, to be able to cancel the module's initialisation as soon as I realise, it is not needed on the current page / event / ... - Of course, you may find several more efficient ways of determining whether or not each module should initialise itself.
On some projects, I have a build script to concatenate these modules within another closure which might look like this:
( function( window ) {
var $ = window.jQuery; //call me paranoid, but I like my vars clean
$(document).ready( function() {
// stuff the modules here, one after another, in any sensible order.
});
}(window);
In other projects, I am able to move the $(document).ready()-Bit into the modules where document.ready is needed, and listening to other Initialisation-Events within others, which feels a bit cleaner for me.
But anyway - having
a build process rather than a lot of single requests
several small, "one-thing-only"-Files to go into the build
a self-enforced "top-level lambda function" due to the intro/outro-Concatenation-Style I adapted from jQuery itself
has significantly improved my DRY-ness and, even, my JS code style.
I have file called common.js and it's included in each page of my site using <script />.
It will grow fast as my sites functionality will grow (I hope; I imagine). :)
Lets example I have a jQuery event:
$('#that').click(function() {
one_of_many_functions($(this));
}
For the moment, I have that one_of_many_functions() in common.js.
Is it somehow possible that JavaScript automatically loads file one_of_many_functions.js when such function is called, but it doesn't exist? Like auto-loader. :)
The second option I see is to do something like:
$('#that').click(function() {
include('one_of_many_functions');
one_of_many_functions($(this));
}
That not so automatically, but still - includes wanted file.
Is any of this possible? Thanks in an advice! :)
It is not possible to directly auto-load external javascripts on demand. It is, however, possible to implement a dynamic inclusion mechanism similar to the second route you mentioned.
There are some challenges though. When you "include" a new external script, you aren't going to be able to immediately use the included functionality, you'll have to wait until the script loads. This means that you'll have to fragment your code somewhat, which means that you'll have to make some decisions about what should just be included in the core vs. what can be included on demand.
You'll need to set up a central object that keeps track of which assets are already loaded. Here's a quick mockup of that:
var assets = {
assets: {},
include: function (asset_name, callback) {
if (typeof callback != 'function')
callback = function () { return false; };
if (typeof this.assets[asset_name] != 'undefined' )
return callback();
var html_doc = document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0];
var st = document.createElement('script');
st.setAttribute('language', 'javascript');
st.setAttribute('type', 'text/javascript');
st.setAttribute('src', asset_name);
st.onload = function () { assets._script_loaded(asset_name, callback); };
html_doc.appendChild(st);
},
_script_loaded: function (asset_name, callback) {
this.assets[asset_name] = true;
callback();
}
};
assets.inlude('myfile.js', function () {
/* do stuff that depends on myfile.js */
});
Sure it's possible -- but this can become painful to manage. In order to implement something like this, you're going to have to maintain an index of functions and their corresponding source file. As your project grows, this can be troublesome for a few reasons -- the 2 that stick out in my mind are:
A) You have the added responsibility of maintaining your index object/lookup mechanism so that your scripts know where to look when the function you're calling cannot be found.
B) This is one more thing that can go wrong when debugging your growing project.
I'm sure that someone else will mention this by the time I'm finished writing this, but your time would probably be better spent figuring out how to combine all of your code into a single .js file. The benefits to doing so are well-documented.
I have created something close to that a year ago. In fact, I have found this thread by search if that is something new on the field. You can see what I have created here: https://github.com/thiagomata/CanvasBox/blob/master/src/main/New.js
My project are, almost 100% OOP. So, I used this fact to focus my solution. I create this "Class" with the name "New" what is used to, first load and after instance the objects.
Here a example of someone using it:
var objSquare = New.Square(); // Square is loaded and after that instance is created
objSquare.x = objBox.width / 2;
objSquare.y = objBox.height / 2;
var objSomeExample = New.Stuff("some parameters can be sent too");
In this version I am not using some json with all js file position. The mapping is hardcore as you can see here:
New.prototype.arrMap = {
CanvasBox: "" + window.MAIN_PATH + "CanvasBox",
CanvasBoxBehavior: "" + window.MAIN_PATH + "CanvasBoxBehavior",
CanvasBoxButton: "" + window.MAIN_PATH + "CanvasBoxButton",
// (...)
};
But make this more automatic, using gulp or grunt is something what I am thinking to do, and it is not that hard.
This solution was created to be used into the project. So, the code may need some changes to be able to be used into any project. But may be a start.
Hope this helps.
As I said before, this still is a working progress. But I have created a more independent module what use gulp to keep it updated.
All the magic que be found in this links:
https://github.com/thiagomata/CanvasBox/blob/master/src/coffee/main/Instance.coffee
https://github.com/thiagomata/CanvasBox/blob/master/src/node/scripts.js
https://github.com/thiagomata/CanvasBox/blob/master/gulpfile.js
A special look should be in this lines of the Instance.coffee
###
# Create an instance of the object passing the argument
###
instaceObject = (->
ClassElement = (args) ->
window[args["0"]].apply this, args["1"]
->
ClassElement:: = (window[arguments["0"]])::
objElement = new ClassElement(arguments)
return objElement
)()
This lines allows me to initialize a instance of some object after load its file. As is used in the create method:
create:()->
#load()
return instaceObject(#packageName, arguments)
I have created a sizable application javascript and jQuery. However my file structure is getting a bit messy!
At the moment I have one large JS file with a if ($('#myDiv').length > 0) { test at the top to only execute the code on the correct page, is this good practice?
There is also a mixture of plain JS functions and jQuery extensions in the same file e.g $.fn.myFunction = function(e) {.
I also have a few bits of code that look like this:
function Product() {
this.sku = '';
this.name = '';
this.price = '';
}
var myProduct = new Product;
Basket = new Object;
My question is for pointers on good practice regarding javascript and jQuery projects.
The code if ($('#myDiv').length > 0) { is not good practice. Instead, make your page specific JS as functions and execute them in the corresponding page . Like this:
var T01 = function(){
// JS specific to Template 01
};
var T02 = function(){
// JS specific to Template 02
};
HTML head of Template 01:
<script type="text/javascript"> $(T01); </script>
Consistency is the golden rule.
You can discuss design patterns back and forth, but if you want to have easily maintainable code where new people can come in and get an overview fairly quickly, the most important part, whatever design patterns you chose, is to have a consistent code base.
It is also the hardest thing to do - keeping your codebase clean and consistent is probably the hardest thing you can do as a programmer, and especially as a team.
Of course the first tip I can give you is to separate the jQuery extensions in their own source files. You can always serve everything together with a minification tool, so you should not worry about performance.
About the code youo mention, it could be simplified to
var Product = {
sku: '',
name: '',
price: ''
}
var myProduct = objectCopy(Product);
var Basket = {};
provided you write a simple objectCopy function which loops through the object own properties and just copies them to a new object (you can make a shallow or a deep copy, according to your needs).
Finally, if you think your code is starting to get messy, you may want to learn some patterns to organize JS code, like the module pattern. Alternatively, if you are familiar with doing this on the backend, you may want to organize your application following the MVC pattern. personal advertisement - I have written myself a tiny library which helps organize your code in this fashion. There are also many other libraries for the same task, often adding other functionality as well.
If you follow the MVC pattern, your page will actually correspond to some action in some controller, and you could just start it with a call like
<script>someController.someAction()</script>
in the head of your document, hence removing the need for the manual check for #myDiv. If you use my library MCV, it will be enough to declare your body like
<body class="mcv:controller/action">
and start the application with
$(document).ready(function() {
mcv.autostart();
});
Yes it's good practice to put as much of your code into a seperate JS file as this could then be compressed before transmission and hence speed up download time. However no you should not have code that looks like
if ($('#myDiv').length > 0) {
on every page. Split your JS code up into manageable functions and call those as-and-when you need to.
I don't see a problem with mixing JS and jQuery functions up in the same file.
i've been playing with MVC for a while now, but since the project i'm on is starting to get wind in its sails more and more people are added to it. Since i'm in charge of hacking around to find out some "best practice", i'm especially wary about the possible misuses of javascript and would like to find out what would be the best way to have our views and partial views play nicely with javascript.
For the moment, we're having code that looks like this (only simplified for example's sake)
<script type="text/javascript">
function DisableInputsForSubmit() {
if ($('#IsDisabled').is(':checked')) {
$('#Parameters :input').attr('disabled', true);
} else {
$('#Parameters :input').removeAttr('disabled');
}
}
</script>
<%=Html.SubmitButton("submit", Html.ResourceText("submit"), New With {.class = "button", .onclick = "DisableInputsForSubmit(); if ($('#EditParameters').validate().form()) {SetContentArea(GetHtmlDisplay('SaveParameters', 'Area', 'Controller'), $('#Parameters').serialize());} return false;"})%><%=Html.ResourceIcon("Save")%>
Here, we're saving a form and posting it to the server, but we disable inputs we don't want to validate if a checkbox is checked.
a bit of context
Please ignore the Html.Resource* bits, it's the resource management
helpers
The SetContentArea method wraps ajax calls, and GetHtmlDisplay
resolves url regarding an area,
controller and action
We've got combres installed that takes care of compressing, minifying
and serving third-parties libraries and what i've clearly identified as reusable javascript
My problem is that if somebody else defines a function DisableInputsForSubmit at another level (let's say the master page, or in another javascript file), problems may arise.
Lots of videos on the web (Resig on the design of jQuery, or Douglas Crockford for his talk at Google about the good parts of javascript) talk about using the namespaces in your libraries/frameworks.
So far so good, but in this case, it looks a bit overkill. What is the recommended way to go? Should i:
Create a whole framework inside a namespace, and reference it globally in the application? Looks like a lot of work for something so tiny as this method
Create a skeleton framework, and use local javascript in my views/partials, eventually promoting parts of the inline javascript to framework status, depending on the usage we have? In this case, how can i cleanly isolate the inline javascript from other views/partials?
Don't worry and rely on UI testing to catch the problem if it ever happens?
As a matter of fact, i think that even the JS code i've written that is in a separate file will benefit from your answers :)
As a matter of safety/best practice, you should always use the module pattern. If you also use event handlers rather than shoving javascript into the onclick attribute, you don't have to worry about naming conflicts and your js is easier to read:
<script type="text/javascript">
(function() {
// your button selector may be different
$("input[type='submit'].button").click(function(ev) {
DisableInputsForSubmit();
if ($('#EditParameters').validate().form()) {
SetContentArea(GetHtmlDisplay('SaveParameters', 'Area','Controller'), $('#Parameters').serialize());
}
ev.preventDefault();
});
function DisableInputsForSubmit() {
if ($('#IsDisabled').is(':checked')) {
$('#Parameters :input').attr('disabled', true);
} else {
$('#Parameters :input').removeAttr('disabled');
}
}
})();
</script>
This is trivially easy to extract into an external file if you decide to.
Edit in response to comment:
To make a function re-usable, I would just use a namespace, yes. Something like this:
(function() {
MyNS = MyNS || {};
MyNS.DisableInputsForSubmit = function() {
//yada yada
}
})();
tl;dr: How does one implement MVC in JavaScript in a clean way?
I'm trying to implement MVC in JavaScript. I have googled and reorganized with my code countless times but have not found a suitable solution. (The code just doesn't "feel right".)
Here's how I'm going about it right now. It's incredibly complicated and is a pain to work with (but still better than the pile of code I had before). It has ugly workarounds that sort of defeat the purpose of MVC.
And behold, the mess, if you're really brave:
// Create a "main model"
var main = Model0();
function Model0() {
// Create an associated view and store its methods in "view"
var view = View0();
// Create a submodel and pass it a function
// that will "subviewify" the submodel's view
var model1 = Model1(function (subview) {
view.subviewify(subview);
});
// Return model methods that can be used by
// the controller (the onchange handlers)
return {
'updateModel1': function (newValue) {
model1.update(newValue);
}
};
}
function Model1(makeSubView) {
var info = '';
// Make an associated view and attach the view
// to the parent view using the passed function
var view = View1();
makeSubView(view.__view); // Dirty dirty
// Return model methods that can be used by
// the parent model (and so the controller)
return {
'update': function (newValue) {
info = newValue;
// Notify the view of the new information
view.events.value(info);
}
};
}
function View0() {
var thing = document.getElementById('theDiv');
var input = document.getElementById('theInput');
// This is the "controller", bear with me
input.onchange = function () {
// Ugly, uses a global to contact the model
main.updateModel1(this.value);
};
return {
'events': {},
// Adds a subview to this view.
'subviewify': function (subview) {
thing.appendChild(subview);
}
};
}
// This is a subview.
function View1() {
var element = document.createElement('div');
return {
'events': {
// When the value changes this is
// called so the view can be updated
'value': function (newValue) {
element.innerHTML = newValue;
}
},
// ..Expose the DOM representation of the subview
// so it can be attached to a parent view
'__view': element
};
}
How does one implement MVC in JavaScript in a cleaner way? How can I improve this system? Or is this the completely wrong way to go, should I follow another pattern?
There are at least a couple of established and usable MVC frameworks for JavaScript JavaScriptMVC and pureMVC. There are probably more. I've used JavaScriptMVC for browser based and Air apps and keep coming back to it - it has its problems but I've found it to be quite useful.
There are other solutions too, have a look at Sammy, a new thing I've heard good things about. I haven't used myself but intend to try soon. I don't know enough about it to describe it properly, but to me it seems like a front controller which works on routes, a templating system and ReSTful data stores. I'm not sure if it is MVC but has similar ingredients.
I have to disagree with mway's answer. MVC may be a bit diferent to implement in JavaScript but its benefits are very important to organising this mess. The design patterns usually associated with OO languages don't go out the window just because js isn't class based.
I would say that MVC is more suitable for JavaScript apps than for request based (server side) applications. Those objects can hang around for a while in a one page JavaScript app - minutes if not hours - and having a well organised way of organising their interaction will make your code much more robust and easy to deal with. There are books on the subject.
A couple of other points regarding the code you posted.
The view objects have responsibility for applying event listeners to DOM elements. This is the controller's job. The view just renders the HTML - the controller listens for the events and acts accordingly.
Your models seem to know your views. The model layer should have minimal knowledge of the view layer (perhaps being registered as observers). Keep your model clean and to the point, I mean the business point - business logic. In js apps you may just be proxying for a sever side model layer but it is important for your sanity to keep your model to the business logic and nothing else. Application logic is the controllers job
To be honest, MVC isn't well-suited for Javascript. It can support the basic fundamentals of the design, sure - you can create pseudoclasses to act as controllers or models, support basic inheritance, and you can have it manipulate or create any number of DOM elements, but there's a price that you pay for that - in overhead, accessibility, and usability.
In my opinion, I consider Javascript more of an augmentation - the KISS mentality exists for a good reason. If you're interested in better ways to organize your code, there's always the option of packaging related functionality into modules (sic) and abstracting out portions as appropriate. For example, creating a factory to do more complex AJAX request management, or a pseudoclass to handle processing of similar types of data. Using a standard base function for controllers, another for models, etc, as prototypes for new instances of those objects can accomplish similar functionality... but again, it's sort of going against the grain of Javascript.
However, if you're stuck on the MVC idea just for the sake of structure, consider something like the following:
;(function(window, $) {
/**
* Event Object
* A quick description goes here.
**/
var Events = window.Events = {
'bindTrackables': function() {
$('a.trackable').live('click', function() {
if(!_gaq)
_gaq = [];
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview', '/ajax/foobar']);
});
},
'bindSomeEvent': function() {
// etc
}
};
/**
* Data Cache
* I'll need to remember stuff later, so I store it here
**/
var Cache = window.Cache = {
'data': {},
'store': function(key, value) {
Cache.data[key] = value;
},
'fetch': function(key) {
return Cache.data[key];
}
};
/**
* Request Object
* Stores native AJAX requests for later use
**/
var Request = window.Request = {
'current_requests': [],
'send': function(url, type, data, callback) {
Request.current_requests.push($.ajax({
'url': url,
'type': type,
'data': data,
'callback': callback
}));
},
}
// add some private logic here
})(window, jQuery);
It's extremely basic, but you get the idea. Modular code is key... in JS, this is more important than forcing your application (or the language) to fit a certain style.