Inheritance in Javascript question

[Robert]

Hi!

So far I have been doing "inheritanc e" in Javascript like this:

******
function TestObject(valu e)
{
this.value = value;
}

function ExtendedObject( value1, value2)
{
TestObject.call (this, value1);
this.value2 = value2;
}

ExtendedObject. prototype = new TestObject();
******

This works okay, but I have a wrong feeling with the TestObject
constructor being called just to "inherit" from it and a second time
again later. Especially if the TestObject function really expected a
value parameter. Is there a way so I can "inherit" without doing
ExtendedObject. prototype = new TestObject();

I looked at http://www.crockford.com/javascript/inheritance.html
but the constructor is called twice in that framework too.

[VK]

Robert wrote:

Hi!

So far I have been doing "inheritanc e" in Javascript like this:

******
function TestObject(valu e)
{
this.value = value;
}

function ExtendedObject( value1, value2)
{
TestObject.call (this, value1);
this.value2 = value2;
}

ExtendedObject. prototype = new TestObject();
******

This works okay, but I have a wrong feeling with the TestObject
constructor being called just to "inherit" from it and a second time
again later. Especially if the TestObject function really expected a
value parameter. Is there a way so I can "inherit" without doing
ExtendedObject. prototype = new TestObject();

Well, you may decide first what kind of inheritance you want to use -
because the above looks like a holly cocktail of both methods :-)

Either you have a set of independent constructors extending and
inheriting each other in any defined way (what is what called
"parasiting inheritance" in one article I read which is a sure way for
a heart attack for C/Java programmers :-)

Or you are patching the prototype chain of a single constructor until
it starts producing needed objects.

I see no reason to use both ways at once - unless you want to
complicate your own life.

[Robert]

VK wrote:

Robert wrote:

Hi!

So far I have been doing "inheritanc e" in Javascript like this:

******
function TestObject(valu e)
{
this.value = value;
}

function ExtendedObject( value1, value2)
{
TestObject.call (this, value1);
this.value2 = value2;
}

ExtendedObject. prototype = new TestObject();
******

This works okay, but I have a wrong feeling with the TestObject
constructor being called just to "inherit" from it and a second time
again later. Especially if the TestObject function really expected a
value parameter. Is there a way so I can "inherit" without doing
ExtendedObject. prototype = new TestObject();

Well, you may decide first what kind of inheritance you want to use -
because the above looks like a holly cocktail of both methods :-)

I don't really see why the above would look like a cocktail, but if you
have a better way please show it. I really don't mind which method it is.

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

Robert <ro****@noreply .x> writes:

So far I have been doing "inheritanc e" in Javascript like this:

******
function TestObject(valu e)
{
this.value = value;
}

function ExtendedObject( value1, value2)
{
TestObject.call (this, value1);
this.value2 = value2;
}

ExtendedObject. prototype = new TestObject();
******

This works okay, but I have a wrong feeling with the TestObject
constructor being called just to "inherit" from it and a second time
again later.

I concur.

What I would do is to create an object extending from
TestObject.prot otype, and use that as ExtendedObject. prototype.
That is kindof what you do, except that the function you use
to create the extending object also initializes the new object.
We don't want that.

So, we create another function with TestObject.prot otype and
no other effect, and use that to extend the object. This
is a general operation, so let's make a function that does it:

function clone(object) {
function Dummy(){};
Dummy.prototype = object;
return new Dummy();
}

Then you can do:
ExtendedObject. prototype = clone(TestObjec t.prototype);

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lr*@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleD OM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

[Robert]

Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:

Robert <ro****@noreply .x> writes:

So far I have been doing "inheritanc e" in Javascript like this:

******
function TestObject(valu e)
{
this.value = value;
}

function ExtendedObject( value1, value2)
{
TestObject.call (this, value1);
this.value2 = value2;
}

ExtendedObject. prototype = new TestObject();
******

So, we create another function with TestObject.prot otype and
no other effect, and use that to extend the object. This
is a general operation, so let's make a function that does it:

function clone(object) {
function Dummy(){};
Dummy.prototype = object;
return new Dummy();
}

Then you can do:
ExtendedObject. prototype = clone(TestObjec t.prototype);

Looks interesting.
I'm trying hard to understand what happens in this code, but my mind
can't understand it fully.
How is this different compared to directly doing
ExtendedObject. prototype = TestObject.prot otype;
?

[John G Harris]

In article <44************ ***********@new s.xs4all.nl>, Robert
<ro****@noreply .x> writes

Hi!

So far I have been doing "inheritanc e" in Javascript like this:

******
function TestObject(valu e)
{
this.value = value;
}

function ExtendedObject( value1, value2)
{
TestObject.call (this, value1);
this.value2 = value2;
}

ExtendedObject .prototype = new TestObject();
Why do you want a prototype that holds data (the value property)? It's
no use to you.

A prototype object is really a different type, so why not give it a
separate constructor :

function ProtoExtendedOb ject()
{
// Attach method functions here
}

ProtoExtendedOb ject.prototype = new ProtoTestObject (); // Proto chain
ExtendedObject. prototype = new ProtoExtendedOb ject();

******

This works okay, but I have a wrong feeling with the TestObject
constructor being called just to "inherit" from it and a second time
again later. Especially if the TestObject function really expected a
value parameter. Is there a way so I can "inherit" without doing
ExtendedObject .prototype = new TestObject();

I looked at http://www.crockford.com/javascript/inheritance.html
but the constructor is called twice in that framework too.

--
John Harris

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

Robert <ro*@secret.xyz > writes:

Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:

Then you can do:
ExtendedObject. prototype = clone(TestObjec t.prototype);

I'm trying hard to understand what happens in this code, but my mind
can't understand it fully.
How is this different compared to directly doing
ExtendedObject. prototype = TestObject.prot otype;
?

The difference is that there is another object in the prototype chain.
The prototype chain of the new ExtendedObject is:

[new cloned object]
|
v
[TestObject.prot otype]
|
v
[Object.prototyp e]
You don't use it here, but you could use it to add properties to
ExtendedObject. prototype that is shared by all instances of
ExtendedObject, but is not shared by TestObject instances.

If you just assign TestObject.prot otype directly to
ExtendedObject. prototype, you can't add properties to only
ExtendedObject' s prototype.

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lr*@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleD OM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

[Michael Winter]

On 01/05/2006 20:42, Robert wrote:

Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:

[snip]

function clone(object) {
function Dummy(){};
Dummy.prototype = object;
return new Dummy();
}

Then you can do:
ExtendedObject. prototype = clone(TestObjec t.prototype);

Looks interesting.
I'm trying hard to understand what happens in this code, but my mind
can't understand it fully.
How is this different compared to directly doing
ExtendedObject. prototype = TestObject.prot otype;

If one did what you suggest, then

ExtendedObject. prototype.myPro perty = 'value';

would not only change the prototype object for ExtendedObject, but also
that of TestObject as both prototype properties reference, rather than
copy, the same object.

Lasse's code creates a new object specifically for the task of acting as
the prototype object of ExtendedObject. This prevents such interference.

Mike
--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.

[Robert]

Michael Winter wrote:

On 01/05/2006 20:42, Robert wrote:

Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:

[snip]

function clone(object) {
function Dummy(){};
Dummy.prototype = object;
return new Dummy();
}

Then you can do:
ExtendedObject. prototype = clone(TestObjec t.prototype);

Looks interesting.
I'm trying hard to understand what happens in this code, but my mind
can't understand it fully.
How is this different compared to directly doing
ExtendedObject. prototype = TestObject.prot otype;

If one did what you suggest, then

ExtendedObject. prototype.myPro perty = 'value';

would not only change the prototype object for ExtendedObject, but also
that of TestObject as both prototype properties reference, rather than
copy, the same object.

Thank you! Now it all makes sense :)