Rob, I think I'm going to use the class.prototype.method syntax. I'm
pretty sure it's still more verbose, but I want to use the same class
definitions in the same .js file on the client and server sides, and
it seems I can't if the class is a global variable, instead of a
function (see
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs/browse_frm/thread/62c82c16ef7c7c6c/991e66b3aee31d76#991e66b3aee31d76
if interested).
How does one acheive the effect of $super if not using Prototype's
Class class?
Cheers,
Iain
On Jan 18, 7:13 am, RobG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2:30 am, iporter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In the below code, I expect two alerts '1 : 1' and then '1 : 1', but
> > in reality I get '1 : 1' and '2 : 1'. For some reason, the
> > declaration of the second object of class myClass alters the first
> > object of the same class. However, it only alters
> > 'this.options.value', and not 'this.value'. Can you tell me why this
> > behaviour occurs, and how to resolve it?
>
> > Cheers
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > var myClass = Class.create({
> > options:{},
> > value: false,
> > initialize: function(options) {
> > this.options.value = options.value;
> > this.value = options.value;
> > },
> > myAlert:function() {
> > alert(this.options.value + ' : ' + this.value);
> > }
>
> > });
>
> > var classObj1 = new myClass({value:1});
> > classObj1.myAlert();
> > var classObj2 = new myClass({value:2});
> > classObj1.myAlert();
>
> I think you are better off to understand what is actually happening.
> Javascript does not have classes - it isn't an object oriented
> language, it's object based. It uses prototypes for inheritance, not
> classic OO inheritance.
>
> While you can paper over the differences, they are still there. Two
> features that often cause issues are the this keyword and closures,
> which have combined here to cause an unexpected result.
>
> To write your "class" (it's actually a javascript constructor, but
> whatever) using plain javascript, you would write something like:
>
> function MyClass(obj) {
> this.value = obj.value;}
>
> MyClass.prototype.options = {};
> MyClass.prototype.showValue = function(){
> alert(this.options.value + ':' + this.value);
>
> }
>
> That's it. Note that this takes less code than using Class.create().
> Now if you test this:
>
> var x = new MyClass({value:1});
> x.showValue(); // --> 1:1
>
> var y = new MyClass({value:2});
> x.showValue(); // --> 2:1
>
> You get the result you didn't want - the options object is shared by
> all instances of MyClass because it is a property of the constructor's
> prototype. If you want each instance of MyClass to have its own
> options object, you add it in the constructor:
>
> function MyClass(obj) {
> this.value = obj.value;
> this.options = {};
> this.options.value = this.value; // or obj.value;}
>
> MyClass.prototype.showValue = function(){
> alert(this.options.value + ':' + this.value);
>
> }
>
> Now when you create some instances:
>
> var x = new MyClass({value:1});
> x.showValue(); // --> 1:1
>
> var y = new MyClass({value:2});
> x.showValue(); // --> 1:1
> y.showValue(); // --> 2:2
>
> Is that what you wanted? To me, the above is much simpler and clearer
> than using Class.create, and is less code.
>
> --
> Rob
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
