423,311 Members | 1,224 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 423,311 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

setTimeout and an object's methods

P: n/a
With the following code I can't understand why this.num keeps
incrementing each time I create a new instance of Foo. For each instance
I'm expecting this.num to alert as 1 but keeps incrementing.

Foo = function(type) {
this.num = 0;
this.type = type
this.trigger();
}
Foo.prototype.trigger = function() {
me = this;
setTimeout("me.test();",1000);
}
Foo.prototype.test = function() {
this.num++;
alert(this.type + "+" + this.num);
}

f1 = new Foo("a");
f2 = new Foo("b");
f3 = new Foo("c");

Another aspect I can't resolve is why the alert of this.type is "c" each
time. I guess the issues are being caused by the setTimeout. What's
happening and what's a better way to do this?

Andrew Poulos
Mar 5 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
12 Replies


P: n/a
Andrew Poulos wrote:
With the following code I can't understand why this.num
keeps incrementing each time I create a new instance of
Foo. For each instance I'm expecting this.num to alert
as 1 but keeps incrementing.

Foo = function(type) {
this.num = 0;
this.type = type
this.trigger();
}
Foo.prototype.trigger = function() {
me = this; ^^
Assigning a value to an Identifier that is not declared in any
containing scope results in the creation of a new property of the global
object, the practical equivalent to the runtime creation of a global
variable. And there is only one property of the global object created
the first time - me = this; - is executed, subsequent executions of the
statement do not create the value they just assign that one property of
the global object a new value.
setTimeout("me.test();",1000); ^^^^^^^^^^
The string arguments to - setTimeout - are evaluated after the timeout
has expired. The - me - identifier will be resolved at that time, to
whichever was the last value assigned to the - me - property of the
global object.

Having - setTimeout - delay for one second will give all three object
creation statements time to complete and the - me - property of the
global object will have the value of the - this - reference in the last
object created. When the three setTimouts happen - me - is the object
with the - type - of 'c' and its test method will be called 3 times,
incrementing the - num - property of that single object only.
}
Foo.prototype.test = function() {
this.num++;
alert(this.type + "+" + this.num);
}

f1 = new Foo("a");
f2 = new Foo("b");
f3 = new Foo("c");
These three statements will be over in milliseconds so they have all
executed prior to the first evaluation/execution of a - setTimeout -
string argument.

Another aspect I can't resolve is why the alert of this.type
is "c" each time. I guess the issues are being caused by
the setTimeout.
The issue is being caused by trying to use one global property to refer
to many object instances. That was never going to work.
What's happening and what's a better way
to do this?


The 'this' shown here is trivial and pointless, so the best way of doing
it is to delete the code and forget about it. The 'this' that is your
real problem context is probably a candidate for three or four possible
approaches the base of which can only be determined by knowing what the
real 'this' actually is.

Richard.
Mar 5 '06 #2

P: n/a
Foo = function(type) {
this.num = 0;
this.type = type
this.trigger();
}
Foo.prototype.trigger = function() {
me = this;

^^
Assigning a value to an Identifier that is not declared in any
containing scope results in the creation of a new property of the global
object,


What's happening and what's a better way
to do this?


The 'this' shown here is trivial and pointless, so the best way of doing
it is to delete the code and forget about it. The 'this' that is your
real problem context is probably a candidate for three or four possible
approaches the base of which can only be determined by knowing what the
real 'this' actually is.


Thanks for the clear explanation.

My new problem is, what the appropriate way a method be called from
within another method after a defined period of time?

Andrew Poulos
Mar 5 '06 #3

P: n/a
Andrew Poulos wrote:
<snip>
The 'this' shown here is trivial and pointless, so the best
way of doing it is to delete the code and forget about it.
The 'this' that is your real problem context is probably a
candidate for three or four possible approaches the base of
which can only be determined by knowing what the real 'this'
actually is.


Thanks for the clear explanation.

My new problem is, what the appropriate way a method be called
from within another method after a defined period of time?


There are very few situations in javascript where a single 'best' or
'appropriate' way of doing anything can be determined. What should be
done usually depends a great deal on why you want to do something, and
the context in which you want to do it. You are the only person in a
position to provide that information and if you won't you probably won't
get good advice on what to do. At best you may get the first broadly
functional approach that someone chooses to suggest, but that may do you
as much harm as good in the long run.

Richard.
Mar 6 '06 #4

P: n/a
Andrew Poulos wrote:
Foo = function(type) {
this.num = 0;
this.type = type
this.trigger();
}
Foo.prototype.trigger = function() {
me = this;


^^
Assigning a value to an Identifier that is not declared in any
containing scope results in the creation of a new property of the global
object,

What's happening and what's a better way
to do this?

The 'this' shown here is trivial and pointless, so the best way of doing
it is to delete the code and forget about it. The 'this' that is your
real problem context is probably a candidate for three or four possible
approaches the base of which can only be determined by knowing what the
real 'this' actually is.

Thanks for the clear explanation.

My new problem is, what the appropriate way a method be called from
within another method after a defined period of time?


The 'best' approach will be determined by what you are trying to do.
Start by calling it the same way you would from a totally separate function.

Given your Foo constructor:

var Foo = function(type) {
this.num = 0;
this.type = type
}

Add a 'trigger' method to the prototype that uses setTimeout to alert
the value of 'type':

Foo.prototype.trigger = function() {
setTimeout('alert("' + this.type + '");',1000);
}
'type' is evaluated when the setTimeout object is created, not when
setTimeout runs. Another way is to use a closure:

Foo.prototype.trigger = function(type) {
type = this.type;
setTimeout(function(){ alert(type); }, 1000);
}
Test it:

var f1 = new Foo('a');
var f2 = new Foo('b');
var f3 = new Foo('c');

// Call trigger() out of order
f2.trigger(); // Shows 'b'
f1.trigger(); // Shows 'a'
f3.trigger(); // Shows 'c'

f1.type = 'zz';
f1.trigger(); // Shows 'zz'
My question here is: it seems that a new function object is created each
time the trigger() method is called, is that correct? As a result, each
instance has a local 'type' variable that is given the value of the
'type' property of the object that called it (i.e. this.type).

Otherwise all calls to trigger() would show the last value that type was
set to (i.e. zz since all the code finishes before the first alert appears).

What is also happening is that a closure is formed by the setTimeout
objects having a reference to the 'type' property of the trigger
functions that called them. That may cause memory problems in IE -
though it may require quite a few calls to be significant.
Incidentally, the use of 'type' may be confusing as many DOM objects
have a type property also. You may want to make it 'objType' or
something more meaningful.

--
Rob
Mar 6 '06 #5

P: n/a
RobG wrote:
<snip>
Foo.prototype.trigger = function(type) {
type = this.type;
setTimeout(function(){ alert(type); }, 1000);
}
If - setTimeout - executes a second later can you be certain that the -
type - property of the object still has the same value as the - type -
local variable of the outer function, and will that matter? This is why
you see such as - var self = this; -, so that the inner function could
use - self.type - and read the actual value of the pertinent object
instance property at the time of its execution.

There is also the question of how often - trigger - will be called. If
it is once then creating a new closure within the trigger function on
each execution would not matter. If - trigger - was going to be used
repeatedly it may be better to only create one closure-forming inner
function instance, i.e.:-

function Foo(type) {
var self = this;
this.num = 0;
this.type = type;
this.trigger = function(){
alert(self.type);
};
}

Test it:

var f1 = new Foo('a');
var f2 = new Foo('b');
var f3 = new Foo('c');

// Call trigger() out of order
f2.trigger(); // Shows 'b'
f1.trigger(); // Shows 'a'
f3.trigger(); // Shows 'c'

f1.type = 'zz';
f1.trigger(); // Shows 'zz'
My question here is: it seems that a new function object
is created each time the trigger() method is called, is
that correct?
Yes it is. ECMA 262 makes provision for function objects to be 'joined'
when it not possible to distinguish between them but that cannot be true
here as each new function object has a distinct scope chain assigned to
its internal [[Scope]] property (each contains a unique
Activation/Variable object from its outer function's execution context).
There in also no evidence that any ECMAScript implementations take
advantage of the specification's provision for joining function objects.
As a result, each instance has a local 'type' variable
that is given the value of the 'type' property of the
object that called it (i.e. this.type).
In effect, each instance has a unique Activation/Variable object on its
scope chain and that object has a property named 'type' that corresponds
with the outer function's local variable and holds the value of that
variable.
Otherwise all calls to trigger() would show the last value
that type was set to (i.e. zz since all the code finishes
before the first alert appears).

What is also happening is that a closure is formed by the
setTimeout objects having a reference to the 'type' property
of the trigger functions that called them.
As the - type - property is a primitive value there is no sense in which
new function can have a reference to it. The object referred to by each
function instance is the Activation/Variable object.
That may cause memory problems in IE -
though it may require quite a few calls to be
significant.


No it won't. The memory leak problem is caused by circular references
(not closures as such) between javascript objects and DOM nodes
(effectively ActiveX and COM objects). There are no DOM nodes involved
here.

Richard.
Mar 6 '06 #6

P: n/a
Richard Cornford wrote:
RobG wrote:
<snip>
Foo.prototype.trigger = function(type) {
type = this.type;
setTimeout(function(){ alert(type); }, 1000);
}


If - setTimeout - executes a second later can you be certain that the -
type - property of the object still has the same value as the - type -
local variable of the outer function, and will that matter? This is why
you see such as - var self = this; -, so that the inner function could
use - self.type - and read the actual value of the pertinent object
instance property at the time of its execution.

There is also the question of how often - trigger - will be called. If
it is once then creating a new closure within the trigger function on
each execution would not matter. If - trigger - was going to be used
repeatedly it may be better to only create one closure-forming inner
function instance, i.e.:-

function Foo(type) {
var self = this;
this.num = 0;
this.type = type;
this.trigger = function(){
alert(self.type);
};
}
Test it:

var f1 = new Foo('a');
var f2 = new Foo('b');
var f3 = new Foo('c');

// Call trigger() out of order
f2.trigger(); // Shows 'b'
f1.trigger(); // Shows 'a'
f3.trigger(); // Shows 'c'

f1.type = 'zz';
f1.trigger(); // Shows 'zz'
My question here is: it seems that a new function object
is created each time the trigger() method is called, is
that correct?


Yes it is. ECMA 262 makes provision for function objects to be 'joined'
when it not possible to distinguish between them but that cannot be true
here as each new function object has a distinct scope chain assigned to
its internal [[Scope]] property (each contains a unique
Activation/Variable object from its outer function's execution context).
There in also no evidence that any ECMAScript implementations take
advantage of the specification's provision for joining function objects.
As a result, each instance has a local 'type' variable
that is given the value of the 'type' property of the
object that called it (i.e. this.type).


In effect, each instance has a unique Activation/Variable object on its
scope chain and that object has a property named 'type' that corresponds
with the outer function's local variable and holds the value of that
variable.
Otherwise all calls to trigger() would show the last value
that type was set to (i.e. zz since all the code finishes
before the first alert appears).

What is also happening is that a closure is formed by the
setTimeout objects having a reference to the 'type' property
of the trigger functions that called them.


As the - type - property is a primitive value there is no sense in which
new function can have a reference to it. The object referred to by each
function instance is the Activation/Variable object.
That may cause memory problems in IE -
though it may require quite a few calls to be
significant.


No it won't. The memory leak problem is caused by circular references
(not closures as such) between javascript objects and DOM nodes
(effectively ActiveX and COM objects). There are no DOM nodes involved
here.


Thanks for all the advice (and to RobG).

I can't tell you precisely what I want to do because my client
themselves do not know precisely. Basically there are one or more images
on which "transformations" - combinations of transparency, position,
source, size... - get (non constant) periodically applied. Some of the
transformations are, for me anyway, relatively complex and so are
themselves separate methods.

On an image I need to apply a series of transformations (randomising the
delay, length of time to apply, and the actual transformation). So I saw
it as, once the initial image has loaded, as "jumping from
transformation method to transformation method.

There'll be more than one image but less than 12 images to work on.

Though, for the time being, I don't think I need any more help as I have
been given a lot to work with already by you (plural).

Andrew Poulos
Mar 6 '06 #7

P: n/a
VK

Andrew Poulos wrote:
With the following code I can't understand why this.num keeps
incrementing each time I create a new instance of Foo. For each instance
I'm expecting this.num to alert as 1 but keeps incrementing.

Foo = function(type) {
this.num = 0;
this.type = type
this.trigger();
}
Foo.prototype.trigger = function() {
me = this;
setTimeout("me.test();",1000);
}
Foo.prototype.test = function() {
this.num++;
alert(this.type + "+" + this.num);
}

f1 = new Foo("a");
f2 = new Foo("b");
f3 = new Foo("c");

Another aspect I can't resolve is why the alert of this.type is "c" each
time. I guess the issues are being caused by the setTimeout. What's
happening and what's a better way to do this?


I don't think you will be ever able to reach what you want in the way
you want. window.setTimeout has been implemented waaay in JavaScript
1.0 then no one even thought about constructors, prototypes and stuff.
He runs with this==window and no amount of braces around can change it.
Any attempts to stick some other "this" are going away like water off a
duck's back. So if I'm reading your intentions right:

{
{
{
... and somewhere deep in the instance curlies
setTimeout running for an instance method
...

then NOOP - you cannot do it.

There were some extensive discussion back in 90's (not here), and since
nothing dramatically changed since then, you may stick to this
solution.
You can try to transform setTimeout default into its strength. If it's
guranteed to run in the global scope, so give him a reference in a
window property - you can be sure that it will pick it up.

A sample can be found at
<http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/archives/threads.html> and the
code posted at the end of this message - though I'm affraid newsreader
may jam everything.

This sample is a kind of overkill, because I created it while testing
script engine "thread capacity" plus some dynamic styling discrepancies
between browsers. Nevertheless the idea is clear (I hope :-)

1) You give an OID (Object ID) to each instance.
2) On thread start you add new property to the current window where the
key is instance OID and value is instance reference.
3) On thread stop you remove this property.
4) setTimeout is happy to use window[oid].method. setTimeout is happy -
you are happy :-)

P.S. If you are affraid that it's some kind of "concept profanation"
;-) then let me assure you that it's pretty close to what happens in
"big languages". There an instance also gets an OID and then roaming
with it like a transit passenger in the LA International, showing his
ID on each corner. Just in "big languages" it's all done nicely on the
lower level.

// Code from
<http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/archives/threads.html>

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Frameset//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/frameset.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>window.setTimeout</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<script type="text/javascript">

function Timer(out) {
// Instance class name:
this.$name = 'Timer';
// Instance OID (Object ID):
this.$oid = this.$name + (new Date()).getTime();
Timer.$table[this.$oid] = this;
// Output (DOM element):
this.$out = out || null;
// Timer ID:
this.$tid = null;
// Minutes counter:
this.$min = 0;
// Seconds counter:
this.$sec = 0;
// Static methods (shared between instances):
this.start = Timer.$start;
this.$tick = Timer.$tick;
this.stop = Timer.$stop;
this.toString = Timer.toString;
}

Timer.$table = new Object();

Timer.$start = function() {
// Start timer instance:
if (this.$tid == null) {
var oid = this.$oid;
var cmd = 'self[\''+oid+'\'].$tick(\''+oid+'\')';
self[oid] = this;
this.$tid = window.setTimeout(cmd,1000);
return this.$oid;
}
}

Timer.$tick = function(oid) {
// OnTimer instance call:
with (self[oid]) {
$sec++;
if ($sec >= 60) {
$min++;
$sec = 0;
}
if ($out != null) {
$out.innerHTML = this.toString($min,$sec);
}
var cmd = 'self[\''+oid+'\'].$tick(\''+oid+'\')';
$tid = window.setTimeout(cmd,1000);
}
}

Timer.$stop = function() {
// Stop timer instance:
if (this.$tid != null) {
window.clearTimeout(this.$tid);
self[this.$oid] = null;
this.$tid = null;
}
}

Timer.toString = function(m,s) {
var t = '';
if (arguments.length < 2) {
t = 'function';
}
else {
t = (m < 10)? '0'+m : m;
t+= ':';
t+= (s < 10)? '0'+s : s;
}
return t;
}

Timer.bDown = function(e) {
// Visual change of pseudo-button on mousedown:
var evt = e || event;
if (evt) {
var trg = evt.target || evt.srcElement;
trg.style.borderStyle = 'inset';
}
}

Timer.bUp = function(e) {
// Visual change of pseudo-button on mouseup:
var evt = e || event;
if (evt) {
var trg = evt.target || evt.srcElement;
trg.style.borderStyle = 'outset';
}
}

Timer.action = function(e) {
// Display current instance data and options:
var evt = e || event;
if (evt) {
var trg = evt.target || evt.srcElement;
var oid = trg.title;
var tmp = Timer.$table[oid];
var msg = 'Instance OID: ' + oid +'\n\n';
var val = tmp.toString(tmp.$min,tmp.$sec);
if (self[oid]) {
msg+= 'Currently running\n';
msg+= 'Last value: ' + val + '\n';
msg+= 'Press Cancel to stop, press OK to keep running';
if (window.confirm(msg)) {
tmp.stop();
tmp.$out.style.color = '#CCCCCC';
}
}
else {
msg+= 'Currently idle\n';
msg+= 'Last value: ' + val + '\n';
msg+= 'Press OK to run, press Cancel to keep idle';
if (window.confirm(msg)) {
tmp.start();
tmp.$out.style.color = '';
}
}
}
}

function createTimerBox(i) {
var t = document.createElement('VAR');
t.className = 'timer';
var d = document.createElement('SPAN');
d.innerHTML = '00:00';
var b = document.createElement('B');
b.innerHTML = '?';
b.title = (new Timer(d)).start();
b.tabIndex = ++i;
b.onmousedown = Timer.bDown;
b.onmouseup = Timer.bUp;
b.onclick = Timer.action;
b.onkeypress = Timer.action;
t.appendChild(d);
t.appendChild(b);
return t;
}

function setup(i) {
if (i < 50) {
Graphics.appendChild(createTimerBox(i));
window.setTimeout('setup('+(++i)+')',100);
}
}

function init() {
// If IE then Graphics is already referenced,
// otherwise create a global reference:
if ('undefined' == typeof Graphics) {
Graphics = document.getElementById('Graphics');
}
// Fill the screen and start the mess:
window.setTimeout('setup(0)',100);
}

window.onload = init;
</script>

<style type="text/css">
body {
font: 1em Verdana, sans-serif;
color: #000000;
background-color: #F5F5F5;
margin: 20px 20px;
padding: 0px 0px}

var.timer {
display: -moz-inline-box;
display: inline-block;
position: relative;
left: 0px;
top: 0px;
margin: 5px 5px;
padding: 5px 5px;
border: medium outset;
background-color: #CCCCCC;
font-size: 0.8em;
font-style: normal;
font-weight: bold;
cursor: default}

var.timer span {
display: -moz-inline-box;
display: inline-block;
position: relative;
left: 0px;
top: opx;
margin: 5px 5px;
padding: 5px 10px;
border: medium inset;
color: #CCFF66;
background-color: #006600}

var.timer b {
display: -moz-inline-box;
display: inline-block;
position: relative;
left: 0px;
top: 0px;
margin: 5px 5px;
padding: 5px 10px;
border: medium outset;
cursor: hand;
cursor: pointer}

#Graphics {
position: relative;
left: 0px;
top: 0px
height: auto;
width: 100%;
margin: 0px 0px;
padding: 0px 0px}
</style>
</head>

<body>
<h1>Thread capacity test</h1>
<div id="Graphics"></div>
</body>
</html>

Mar 6 '06 #8

P: n/a
VK
Heh... I decided to check if the stuff is still alive and found a bug:

....
msg+= 'Press Cancel to stop, press OK to keep running';
if (window.confirm(msg)) {
....

replace to:

....
msg+= 'Press Cancel to stop, press OK to keep running';
if (!window.confirm(msg)) {
....

Otherwise the action doesn't correspond to the chosen option. It's
strange it did not bother me year ago (? :-)

Mar 6 '06 #9

P: n/a
VK wrote:
Andrew Poulos wrote:
With the following code I can't understand why this.num keeps
incrementing each time I create a new instance of Foo. For each instance
I'm expecting this.num to alert as 1 but keeps incrementing.

Foo = function(type) {
this.num = 0;
this.type = type
this.trigger();
}
Foo.prototype.trigger = function() {
me = this;
setTimeout("me.test();",1000);
}
Foo.prototype.test = function() {
this.num++;
alert(this.type + "+" + this.num);
}

f1 = new Foo("a");
f2 = new Foo("b");
f3 = new Foo("c");

Another aspect I can't resolve is why the alert of this.type is "c" each
time. I guess the issues are being caused by the setTimeout. What's
happening and what's a better way to do this?


I don't think you will be ever able to reach what you want in the way
you want. window.setTimeout has been implemented waaay in JavaScript
1.0 then no one even thought about constructors, prototypes and stuff.
[code]


Utter nonsense, as usual.
PointedEars
Mar 6 '06 #10

P: n/a
VK

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Utter nonsense, as usual.


Utter Thomas, as usual.

Mar 6 '06 #11

P: n/a
VK wrote:
Andrew Poulos wrote:
With the following code I can't understand why
this.num keeps incrementing each time I create a
new instance of Foo. ...
<snip> I don't think you will be ever able to reach what you
want in the way you want. window.setTimeout has been
implemented waaay in JavaScript 1.0 then no one even
thought about constructors, prototypes and stuff.
He runs with this==window and no amount of braces around
can change it. Any attempts to stick some other "this"
are going away like water off a duck's back. So if I'm
reading your intentions right:

{
{
{
... and somewhere deep in the instance curlies
setTimeout running for an instance method
...

then NOOP - you cannot do it.

There were some extensive discussion back in 90's (not
here), and since nothing dramatically changed since then,
At least two things have changed over the history of - setTimeout -; the
number of implementations that allow a function reference to be passed
as the first argument to - setTimeout - has increased, to the point
where the facility's availability would be the norm, and it has been
observed that the language's preponderance for automatic type-conversion
provides a mechanism for supporting implementations where - setTimeout -
only recognises an initial string argument while only directly working
with function references arguments.

The practical result of which is that systems designed to employ the
manipulation of string arguments for - setTimeout - have tended to be
relegated to situations where strings have more significance than would
be normal in modern browser scripts, such as when using -
document.write - to insert HTML elements who's event handlers want to
call particular instance methods.
you may stick to this solution.
Of available methods it would be the worst choice in most circumstances,
so you may well choose to stick to it as choosing the worst option of
any available in any circumstances does appear to be your habit.
You can try to transform setTimeout default into its strength.
If it's guranteed to run in the global scope, so give him a
reference in a window property - you can be sure that it will
pick it up.

A sample can be found at
<http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/archives/threads.html>
and the code posted at the end of this message - though I'm
affraid newsreader may jam everything.
Most people are capable of learning to control their posting software
and ensuring that the code they post is acceptably presented.
This sample is a kind of overkill, because I created it
while testing script engine "thread capacity" plus some
dynamic styling discrepancies between browsers. Nevertheless
the idea is clear (I hope :-)
It is certainly clear that the idea was not well understood by the
implementer of the example.
1) You give an OID (Object ID) to each instance.
2) On thread start you add new property to the current
window where the key is instance OID and value is instance
reference.
Any runtime stuffing of named properties into the global namespace
should be enough to flag a notion as misconceived, machine generated
Identifiers would be the worst candidates for that role as it would be
less than clear what the offending property names would be at the point
of insertion and so difficult to see what naming collisions would be
risked in the process.
3) On thread stop you remove this property.
That seems unnecessary as the inherent assumption that there will be no
naming collisions with other aspects of the system (while itself
reckless) implies that the identifier will not otherwise be used.
4) setTimeout is happy to use window[oid].method.
But not any more happy than it would be with -
MyObject.instances[instanceIndex].method(); - and risking no namespace
collisions.
setTimeout is happy - you are happy :-)
Being happy with a bad design where a much superior design is only a
stone's throw away is a characteristic of a poor script author, and
symptomatic of an inadequate thought process backup-up with superficial
testing.

<snip> function Timer(out) {
// Instance class name:
this.$name = 'Timer';
// Instance OID (Object ID):
this.$oid = this.$name + (new Date()).getTime();
It is known that the resolution of output from Date objects is rarely
better than 10 milliseconds. This means that if two objects are
instantiated within the 10 milliseconds over which the output of - (new
Date()).getTime() - does not change they will be given the same - $oid -
value, and then if they have activity scheduled with - setTimeout - that
overlaps at all the results will be chaotic.

That is chaotic behaviour, but only when three variable 'ifs' are
satisfied. This is the sort of scripting that follows from an inadequate
thought process and is not revealed in superficial testing.

The first variable 'if' is related to the number of objects
instantiated. The way in which the code is actually used in anger will
influence its susceptibility to the inadequacies in its design. Only
insatiate a single object and no problem will ever become apparent.

The second variable 'if' is time related. Code testing on a relatively
slow machine may guarantee that no two instances are created within the
critical interval, but that same code may reliably fail when exposed to
a significantly faster computer. A testing issue that becomes a
maintenance issue when you consider that computer hardware has
demonstrated a strong tendency to become faster over time. So while two
instances may never be created within the critical interval on current
computers the odds have got to be good that at some future point
hardware will become fast enough to expose the script's designed-in
susceptibility.

The third variable 'if' is again related to how the code is used. If two
instances that have been given identical IDs never attempt to schedule
activity in a way that overlaps no issue will be exposed.

So we have a design issue that has a predictable capacity for chaotic
outcomes that will vary in its manifestations depending on how the code
is actually used, the exact nature (mostly speed) of the hardware it
executes on, and vary with the precise timing of the commencement of
execution of the code. That anyone would be satisfied (or even "happy")
with this situation reveals a failure to understand the code as written
or a reckless disregard, where a non-joined-up thought process ends at a
superficial 'working' and no further consideration is given to the code
at all.
Timer.$table[this.$oid] = this;
And yet just another couple of steps in the though process an you could
have created an issue-free implementation, and that line was the clue to
how it might be done.

The first step was not made because you are willing to disregard decades
of 'bast practice' advice (probably because it has too many 'academic'
associations, being explicitly taught in all formal programming
education) and effectively dynamically add global variables. Any genuine
programmer would have rejected that idea on principle and looked for a
way of uniquely referencing object instances that stayed out of the
global namespace.

A property of the object's constructor that was an Array or an object
would satisfy that requirement if used as a storage object for object
instances. You have created that object, and used it to store such
references, but failed to follow through to the point of realising that
it makes adding properties to the window object unnecessary, and so
avoids all issues that may result from that particular bad practice.
Instead of:-

var cmd = 'self[\''+oid+'\'].$tick(\''+oid+'\')';
$tid = window.setTimeout(cmd,1000);

-:-

var cmd = ' Timer.$table[\''+oid+'\'].$tick(\''+oid+'\')';
$tid = window.setTimeout(cmd,1000);

- would globally reference the particular object instance with the same
reliability as the former, but without even involving global namespace
issues, let alone risking manifestations of them.

Of course that is still subject to the issues arising from the poor
choice of - oid - value creation method. That issue follows from the
superficial though process surrounding the realisation of the need for
uniqueness in the IDs assigned to the objects. Timers provide a
uniqueness within a single machine (assuming that the machine's clock is
not perversely re-set) but with a limited resolution. That is an
adequate sort of uniqueness for tasks like discouraging machine-local
HTTP resource caching as the life of the cache is longer than the life
of the executing program, and the HTTP request/response process is
unlikely to take less time than the resolution of the timer (though
faster hardware _and_ internet connections could still make the timer
resolution an issue in the future).

The unique identification of an object instance in browser scripts does
not need to be nearly that unique as navigating away from the current
page is all that is necessary to invalidate any existing object
instances. A unique identifier for an object instance does not need to
be more unique than being unique to the specific instance of the
execution of the script. For which a simple sequence is sufficient,
i.e:-

var uniqueNum = (function(){
var num = 0;
return (function(){
return ++num;
});
})();

- and calls to - uniqueNum() - will return a sequence of
999999999999999934469 unique integers (and then break down). Quite
sufficient for use as script-execution unique identifiers (as browser
scripts would not be expected to run for long enough to get anywhere
near the point when that sequence ends).

However, IDs unique to the instance for the execution of the script are
also more than is necessarily (especially if they are not going to be
used in the global namespace). It is only necessary that the ID be
unique within the 'class' of the object instances. Hence the common
practice of using an array as the instance storage object and its -
length - property as ID of the object instance. E.G:-

function MyObject(){
MyObject.insts[(this.oid = MyObject.insts.length)] = this;
...
}

MyObject.insts = [];

MyObject.prototype.setTimer = function(){
setTimeout(('MyObject.insts['+this.oid+'].doSomething();'), 40);
};

MyObject.prototype.doSomething = function(){
...
};

And now all the issues are gone. No two object instances will have the
same ID during a single execution of the script, ever, and there is not
even a chance of a global namespace collision.

The design process doesn't have to be carried that much further to go
from the superficially 'working' to the reliable.
// Output (DOM element):
this.$out = out || null;
// Timer ID:
this.$tid = null;
Constant values assigned to each object instance are more effectively
created as properties of the constructor's prototype, as then all
instances are defaulted to the same value implicitly.
// Minutes counter:
this.$min = 0;
Ditto.
// Seconds counter:
this.$sec = 0;
Ditto.
// Static methods (shared between instances):
"Static" methods are method 'of the class'. These are instance methods.
You can tell that they are instance methods because they use the -
this - keyword to refer to the object instance, and would not work if
executed in any way other than as a method of the object instance.
this.start = Timer.$start;
Again, it is more efficient to create public instance methods as
properties of the constructor's prototype and have then inherited by
each object instance implicitly. It also makes for much clearer code as
the reader does not have to reconcile all (or worse, and in this case, a
sub-set of) the methods assigned to properties of the constructor as
object instance methods.
this.$tick = Timer.$tick;
Ditto.
this.stop = Timer.$stop;
Ditto.
this.toString = Timer.toString;
Ditto.
}

Timer.$table = new Object();

Timer.$start = function() {
// Start timer instance:
if (this.$tid == null) {
var oid = this.$oid;
var cmd = 'self[\''+oid+'\'].$tick(\''+oid+'\')';
Notice that the - $tick - method is to be executed as a method of the
object instance by the setTimeout call, and if it were not that method
would not execute as expected
self[oid] = this;
As - Timer.$table[this.$oid] - will resolve as a reference to the object
instance form any context where 'Table' has not been locally declared
(and it hasn't anywhere here in practice, and would not be expected to
be in principle as the initial capital letter is usually used to
highlight a 'class' constructor) there is no reason to be adding a
reference to - this - as a property of the window object.
this.$tid = window.setTimeout(cmd,1000);
return this.$oid;
}
}

Timer.$tick = function(oid) {
// OnTimer instance call:
with (self[oid]) {
As this function is executed as a method of an object instance (and must
be or it will behave in an implementation dependent way) there is no
need to refer to that object instance with - window[oid], and indeed no
need to pass the - oid - parameter at all. Using - with(this){ - would
be sufficient, if pointless as all the object properties can be
reference through the - this - keyword itself, and the result would be
muck clearer code.
$sec++;
if ($sec >= 60) {
$min++;
$sec = 0;
}
if ($out != null) {
$out.innerHTML = this.toString($min,$sec);
You ca see here that the function must be executed as a method of the
object instance as otherwise the - this - keyword would refer to the
global object, which may or may not have a - toString - method, and if
it does it will not do what is expected with the arguments provided.
}
var cmd = 'self[\''+oid+'\'].$tick(\''+oid+'\')';
$tid = window.setTimeout(cmd,1000);
}
}

Timer.$stop = function() {
// Stop timer instance:
if (this.$tid != null) {
window.clearTimeout(this.$tid);
self[this.$oid] = null;
Having realised that there is no need for a global reference to the
object instance the effort of creating one, and subsequently nulling it
can be entirely avoided. There was never any good reason for nulling it
anyway as no code here acts conditionally based upon its existence.
this.$tid = null;
}
}

Timer.toString = function(m,s) {
var t = '';
if (arguments.length < 2) {
t = 'function';
}
else {
t = (m < 10)? '0'+m : m;
t+= ':';
t+= (s < 10)? '0'+s : s;
}
return t;
}
Given that the last week has shown you suffering from misinterpreting
you own code where the omission of a statement-terminating semicolon
radically altered the meaning of the code in a way that was beyond your
conception, it would be a good idea for you to adopt the practice of
explicitly terminating statements with semicolons, including the
function expression assigning ExpressionStatements here. While you don't
know the rules for automatic semicolon insertion you cannot understand
when semicolons may be safely omitted.
Timer.bDown = function(e) {
And this is where defining object instance methods as properties of the
constructor shows its folly, as these methods are 'of the class'. The
reader has to perceive that distinction for themselves instead of having
it made for them in the code as written. So the runtime overheads in not
employing the constructor's prototype is compounded by an ongoing
maintenance burden that would be completely avoidable.
// Visual change of pseudo-button on mousedown:
var evt = e || event;
if (evt) {
var trg = evt.target || evt.srcElement;
trg.style.borderStyle = 'inset';
}
} <snip>

These functions are all assigned to intrinsic event handling properties
of the created DOM elements. As such the - this - keyword will reliably
refer to the constructed element when they are executed, making the use
of - evt.target || evt.srcElement - to acquire a reference to that
element redundant, and potentially problem-causing as an event
intercepted during bubbling will not necessarily have the correct
element as its target or srcElement.
Timer.action = function(e) {
// Display current instance data and options:
var evt = e || event;
if (evt) {
var trg = evt.target || evt.srcElement;
var oid = trg.title;
So - trg.title - may not have the expected value.
var tmp = Timer.$table[oid];
And so - Timer.$table[oid]; - may not return a valid instance reference.
var msg = 'Instance OID: ' + oid +'\n\n';
var val = tmp.toString(tmp.$min,tmp.$sec);


And if - tmp - is not a valid instance reference the code will likely
error-out here.

Learning the basics of javascript, which includes knowing how to
determine the predictable value of the - this - keyword depending on the
way in which a function is executed (instead of throwing up you hands in
horror and declaring - this - to be incontinent) combined with a more
joined-up thought process would significantly improve the code you
write. Which currently, as has been pointed out many times before,
usually represents the worst possible implementation of the worst
approach available. The code here is no exception.

Richard.
Mar 13 '06 #12

P: n/a
JRS: In article <dv*******************@news.demon.co.uk>, dated Mon, 13
Mar 2006 06:06:41 remote, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Richard
Cornford <Ri*****@litotes.demon.co.uk> posted :

It is known that the resolution of output from Date objects is rarely
better than 10 milliseconds.
To clarify : the resolution of Date Objects is by specification one
millisecond. But new Date() gets a value from the OS, and it is
that which is often 10 ms or 50/60 ms.

<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-dates.htm#Ress> gives results for
various browsers. However, only the result for Win98/IE4 was measured
by me ...

var uniqueNum = (function(){
var num = 0;
return (function(){
return ++num;
});
})();

- and calls to - uniqueNum() - will return a sequence of
999999999999999934469 unique integers (and then break down).


9007199254740992 ??? (2^53) - Actually, with num++ you'd get one
more?

--
John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
Mar 13 '06 #13

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.