I was hoping I could get some input on how to use Knockout components in an object-oriented fashion using Object.create (or equivalent). I'm also using Postbox and Lodash, in case some of my code seems confusing. I've currently built a bunch of components and would like to refactor them to reduce code redundancy. My components, so far, are just UI elements. I have custom input boxes and such. My initial approach was as follows, with some discretion taken to simplify the code and not get me fired :)
// Component.js
function Component() {
var self = this
self.value = ko.observable()
self.initial = ko.observable()
...
self.value.subscribeTo('revert', function() {
console.log('value reverted')
self.value(self.initial())
}
}
module.exports = Component
// InputBox.js
var Component = require('./Component')
var _ = require('lodash')
function InputBox(params) {
var self = this
_.merge(self, params) // quick way to attach passed in params to 'self'
...
}
InputBox.prototype = Object.create(new Component)
ko.components.register('input-box', InputBox)
Now this kind of works, but the issue I'm having is that when I use the InputBox in my HTML, I pass in the current value as a parameter (and it's also an observable because the value is retrieved from the server and passed down through several parent components before getting to the InputBox component). Then Lodash merges the params object with self, which already has a value observable, so that gets overwritten, as expected. The interesting part for me is that when I use postbox to broadcast the 'revert' event, the console.log fires, so the event subscription is still there, but the value doesn't revert. When I do this in the revert callback, console.log(self.value(), self.initial()), I get undefined. So somehow, passing in the value observable as a parameter to the InputBox viewmodel causes something to go haywire. When the page initially loads, the input box has the value retrieved from the server, so the value observable isn't completely broken, but changing the input field and then hitting cancel to revert it doesn't revert it.
I don't know if this makes much sense, but if it does and someone can help, I'd really appreciate it! And if I can provide more information, please let me know. Thanks!
JavaScript does not do classical inheritance like C++ and such. Prototypes are not superclasses. In particular, properties of prototypes are more like static class properties than instance properties: they are shared by all instances. It is usual in JS to have prototypes that only contain methods.
There are some libraries that overlay a classical-inheritance structure onto JavaScript. They usually use "extends" to create subclasses. I don't use them, so I can't recommmend any in particular, but you might look at Coffeescript if you like the classical-inheritance pattern.
I often hear "favor composition over inheritance," but I generally see a lot of emphasis on inheritance. As an alternative, consider Douglas Crockford's "class-free object-oriented programming", which does away with inheritance entirely.
For what you're trying to do here, you probably want to have InputBox initialize itself with Component, something like:
function InputBox(params) {
var self = this
Component.bind(self)(); // super()
_.merge(self, params) // quick way to attach passed in params to 'self'
...
}
The new, merged, value will not have the subscription from Component, because the subscription is particular to Component's instance of the observable, which will have been overwritten.
To everyone who responded, thank you very much! I've found a solution that works better for me and will share it here in case anyone is interested.
// Component.js (only relevant parts shown)
function Component(params) {
var self = this
_.merge(self, params)
self.value.subscribeTo('some event', function() {
// do some processing
return <new value for self.value>
}
module.exports = Component
// InputBox.js
var Component = require('./component')
function InputBox(params) {
var self = this
Component.call(self, params)
}
By taking this approach, I avoid the headache of using prototypes and worrying about the prototype chain since everything Component does is done directly to the "inheriting" class. Hope this helps someone else!
Related
Yes, still going with this. My impression is that there's this powerful facility in Raku, which is not really easy to use, and there's so little documentation for that. I'd like to kind of mitigate that.
In this case, I'm trying to force attributes to be read-only by default, to make immutable classes. Here's my attempt:
my class MetamodelX::Frozen is Metamodel::ClassHOW {
method compose_attributes($the-obj, :$compiler_services) {
my $attribute-container = callsame;
my $new-container = Perl6::Metamodel::AttributeContainer.new(
:attributes($attribute-container.attributes),
:attribute_lookup($attribute-container.attribute_table),
:0attr_rw_by_default
);
$new-container.compose_attributes($the-obj, $compiler_services);
}
}
my package EXPORTHOW {
package DECLARE {
constant frozen = MetamodelX::Frozen;
}
}
I'm calling that from a main function that looks like this:
use Frozen;
frozen Foo {
has $.bar;
method gist() {
return "→ $!bar";
}
}
my $foo = Foo.new(:3bar);
say $foo.bar;
$foo.bar(33);
I'm trying to follow the source, that does not really give a lot of facilities to change attribute stuff, so there seems to be no other way that creating a new instance of the container. And that might fail in impredictable ways, and that's what it does:
Type check failed in binding to parameter '$the-obj'; expected Any but got Foo (Foo)
at /home/jmerelo/Code/raku/my-raku-examples/frozen.raku:7
Not clear if this is the first the-obj or the second one, but any way, some help is appreciated.
I have below code to create column:
DTColumnBuilder.newColumn(null).withTitle('Validation').renderWith(validationRenderer)
and render function:
function validationRenderer(data, type, full, meta) {
.......
}
Now, I want to pass custom parameters to validationRenderer so that I can access it inside the function, like below:
DTColumnBuilder.newColumn(null).withTitle('Validation').renderWith(validationRenderer('abc'))
function validationRenderer(data, type, full, meta, additionalParam) {
// do something with additionalParam
}
I could not find it in the documentation but there must be something to pass additional parameters in meta as per the reference from here
Yes, you can. Or, better, you technically can, but you may use a clever workaround to handle your issue.
I had this issue today, and found a pretty sad (but working) solution.
Basically, the big problem is that the render function is a parameter passed to the datatable handler, which is (of course) isolated.
In my case, to make a pratical example, I had to add several dynamic buttons, each with a different action, to a dynamic datatable.
Apparently, there was no solution, until I thought the following: the problem seems to be that the renderer function scope is somewhat isolated and unaccessible. However, since the "return" of the function is called only when the datatable effectively renders the field, you may wrap the render function in a custom self-invoking-anonymous-function, providing arguments there to use them once the cell is being rendered.
Here is what I did with my practical example, considering the following points:
The goal was to pass the ID field of each row to several different custom functions, so the problem was passing the ID of the button to call when the button is effectively clicked (since you can't get any external reference of it when it is rendered).
I'm using a custom class, which is the following:
hxDatatableDynamicButton = function(label, onClick, classNames) {
this.label = label;
this.onClick = onClick;
this.classNames = this.classNames || 'col5p text-center';
}
Basically, it just creates an instance that I'm later using.
In this case, consider having an array of 2 different instances of these, one having a "test" label, and the other one having a "test2" label.
I'm injecting these instances through a for loop, hence I need to pass the "i" to my datatable to know which of the buttons is being pressed.
Since the code is actually quite big (the codebase is huge), here is the relevant snippet that you need to accomplish the trick:
scope.datatableAdditionalActionButtons.reverse();
scope._abstractDynamicClick = function(id, localReferenceID) {
scope.datatableAdditionalActionButtons[localReferenceID].onClick.call(null, id);
};
for (var i = 0; i < scope.datatableAdditionalActionButtons.length; i++) {
var _localReference = scope.datatableAdditionalActionButtons[i];
var hax = (function(i){
var _tmp = function (data, type, full, meta) {
var _label = scope.datatableAdditionalActionButtons[i].label;
return '<button class="btn btn-default" ng-click="_abstractDynamicClick('+full.id+', '+i+')">'+_label+'</button>';
}
return _tmp;
})(i);
dtColumns.unshift(DTColumnBuilder.newColumn(null).notSortable().renderWith(hax).withClass(_localReference.classNames));
}
So, where is the trick? the trick is entirely in the hax function, and here is why it works: instead of passing the regular renderWith function prototype, we are using a "custom" render, which has the same arguments (hence same parameters) as the default one. However, it is isolated in a self invoking anonymous function, which allows us to arbitrarely inject a parameter inside it and, so, allows us to distinguish, when rendering, which "i" it effectively is, since the isolated scope of the function is never lost in this case.
Basically, the output is as follow:
And the inspection actually shows that elements are effectively rendered differently, hence each "i" is being rendered properly, while it wouldn't have if the function wouldn't have been wrapped in a self invoking anonymous function:
So, basically, in your case, you would do something like this:
var _myValidator = (function(myAbcParam){
var _validate = function (data, type, full, meta) {
console.log("additional param is: ", myAbcParam); // logs "abc"
return '<button id="'+myAbcParam+'">Hello!</button>'; // <-- renders id ="abc"
}
return _validate ;
})('abc');
DTColumnBuilder.newColumn(null).withTitle('Validation').renderWith(_myValidator);
// <-- note that _myValidator is passed instead of "_myValidator()", since it is already executed and already returns a function.
I know this is not exactly the answer someone may be expecting, but if you need to accomplish something that complex in datatable it really looks like the only possible way to do this is using a self invoking anonymous function.
Hope this helps someone who is still having issues with this.
I have a (rather philosophical) question which refers to cyclejs components : Is isolate() referentially transparent?.
Looking at the simplified code, reproduced thereafter, I could not discriminate any source of 'impurity'. Is that because the not simplified code introduces it, or because the function would return two different objects with two different references?
In that case, would not those two objects have the same behaviour (i.e. listening and reacting to the same events on the same targets, and producing different vTree$ but which encapsulate exactly the same sequence?). And if that is so, aren't those two objects essentially the same, i.e. replacing one by the other anywhere in the program should not change anything? Which means isolate is referentially transparent? Where did I go wrong?
Actually if both calls returns different objects which cannot be substituted, how do those objects differ?
function isolate(Component, scope) {
return function IsolatedComponent(sources) {
const {isolateSource, isolateSink} = sources.DOM;
const isolatedDOMSource = isolateSource(sources.DOM, scope);
const sinks = Component({DOM: isolatedDOMSource});
const isolatedDOMSink = isolateSink(sinks.DOM, scope);
return {
DOM: isolatedDOMSink
};
};
}
I could not discriminate any source of 'impurity'. Is that because the not simplified code introduces it, or because the function would return two different objects with two different references?
The simplified code does not introduce impurity. The impurity comes from the fact that the parameter scope defaults to newScope() if it is not specified. The actual implementation of isolate() has:
function isolate(dataflowComponent, scope = newScope()) {
// ...
}
Where newScope() is:
let counter = 0
function newScope() {
return `cycle${++counter}`
}
Meaning, if the scope is not given as argument, it defaults to the next value of a hidden global counter which is incremented every time isolate() is called.
In conclusion, isolate(component, scope) is referentially transparent because we give the scope, but isolate(component) is not.
I have started learning Facebook's Flux architecture. I am trying to make a simple login screen. I have followed the flux-chat sample app to create the screen. I have a problem of circular dependency between ServerActionCreator and WebAPIUtils. Please see the code below.
ServerActionCreator.js
var AppDispatcher = require('../dispatcher/AppDispatcher');
var Constants = require('../constants/Constants');
var WebAPIUtils = require('../utils/WebAPIUtils');
var ActionTypes = Constants.ActionTypes;
module.exports = {
receiveLoginStatus: function(status){
AppDispatcher.handleServerAction({
type: ActionTypes.RECEIVE_LOGIN_STATUS,
status: status
});
},
loginSubmit: function(data){
WebAPIUtils.login(data);
}
}
WebAPIUtils.js
var ServerActionCreator = require('../actions/ServerActionCreator');
module.exports = {
login: function (data) {
//Mock server API call
var status = JSON.parse('{"status":"success"}');
ServerActionCreator.receiveLoginStatus(status);
}
};
As you can see ServerActionCreator depends on WebAPIUtils and WebAPIUtils depends ServerActionCreator.
I think, due to circular dependency WebAPIUtils becomes an empty object and I am getting "undefined is not a function" error when loginSubmit function in ServerActionCreator is called. Screenshot below.
How to handle this scenario? or Is there any alternative way? Any help is much appreciated.
Whenever you have a circular dependency between modules, a common solution is to either combine the modules or to create a third entity that will break the cycle.
In your case, I'd argue that you could move loginSubmit to a different action creators module. It's actually a user action, not a sever action, anyway. So maybe loginSubmit could go in UserActionCreators.js along with any number of other user action creator methods.
Another solution to your problem (and to circular dependencies in general) is to make your methods more pure, removing dependencies and instead passing in dependencies as arguments. So WebAPIUtils.login() could take a second argument, which would be the success callback. Thus:
WebAPIUtils.login(data, ServerActionCreator.receiveLoginStatus)
I have a safari extension popover that needs to communicate with its global page. From a content-script I am using
safari.self.tab.dispatchMessage(name,data);
to accomplish that. From a popover I didn't find a way to do that. I know that I can access methods in the global page directly
safari.extension.globalPage.contentWindow
but my goal was to reuse code fragments that are already used in content-scripts. I do the same for the chrome version of the plugin.
Is there code for a little clever proxy that emulates
safari.self.tab.dispatchMessage(name,data);
from the popover?
To be honest it's probably just easier to have different code in your popover and injected scripts. If you really want, you could do something like this:
function dispatchMessage(name, message) {
if (safari.self.tab) {
safari.self.tab.dispatchMessage(name, message);
} else if (safari.extension.globalPage.contentWindow) {
safari.extension.globalPage.contentWindow.handleMessage({name: name, message: message});
}
}
Then just use dispatchMessage('foo', 'bar') in both your popover and injected scripts. It's a bit hacky though, because the message event object normally has more information on it than just the name and message, and you have to ensure that your handleMessage function is actually the same function that is assigned as the message event listener in the global page.
A simplistic way to accomplish reusing your message-based content script code in your popover is by wrapping the safari.self.tab.dispatchMessage calls in an abstraction function that I'll describe below...
But first, you need to make sure to have a single named handler function in your global page that handles all messages, like this:
function handleMessage(evt) {
switch (evt.name) {
case 'Message1':
// do something with evt.message
break;
case 'Message2':
// do something else with evt.message
break;
}
}
safari.application.addEventListener('message', handleMessage, false);
If you have separate handlers for each different message, or if you're using an anonymous function, this approach will not work.
Now, the wrapper function that goes in your popover and content scripts is very simple:
function tellGlobalPage(msgName, msgData) {
if (safari.self instanceof SafariExtensionPopover) {
// this script is running in a popover
var fakeMsgEvt = { name: msgName, message: msgData };
safari.extension.globalPage.contentWindow.handleMessage(fakeMsgEvt);
} else {
// this script is a content script
safari.self.tab.dispatchMessage(msgName, msgData);
}
}
And then instead of safari.self.tab.dispatchMessage(name, data), you use tellGlobalPage(name, data).
Please note that this simplistic approach doesn't deal with roundtrip messaging, where the popover or content script sends a message to the global page, and the global page replies with another message. There are other approaches that can handle that.