Function Binding

A bind function wraps a function in a closure, storing a reference to the context argument in the containing scope.

This allows the bound function to run with a predetermined context.

Variable this

When a function is passed as a reference, it loses its base object. When the unbound function is called, the this value is the global object.

How Binding Works

By storing a reference to the desired object in a closure, this argument can be bound.

In it's simplest form, bind looks like:-

Function.prototype.bind = function(context) {
  var fun = this;
  return function(){
    return fun.apply(context, arguments);
  };
};

Why Binding is Useful

Binding is often necessary when passing function references. For example:-

var updater = {
  fetch : function() {
    alert(this.time++);
  },
  time : 0
};
// setTimeout(updater.fetch, 500);
setTimeout(updater.fetch.bind(updater), 500);

The commented-out call to setTimeout would result in a call to updater.fetch with the global object for the this argument. this.time would be undefined, and this.time++ would result in NaN.

A bind function that does only binding accomplishes a trivial task. In most cases, a closure can just be used where binding is needed.

Binding in the Wild

Most JavaScript libraries handle binding internally. These libraries also include a partial apply for their bind function.

Partial Apply

Partial application is setting parameter values of a function call before it is called. A partial apply function usually looks like:-

/** 
 * Return a function that prepends the 
 * arguments to partial to this call and 
 * appends any additional arguments.
 */
Function.prototype.partial = function() {
  var fun = this,
      preArgs = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments);
  return function() {
    fun.apply(null, preArgs.concat.apply(preArgs, arguments));
  };
};

This allows us to program in a dynamic, functional, less OO way. For example:

function setStyle(style, prop, value) {
  return style[prop] = value;
}

// Create a setBgColor function from 
// partial application of setStyle.
var setBgColor = setStyle.partial(document.body.style, "background");

// Change the body's background color.
setBgColor("red");
setBgColor("#0f0");

Disadvantage

Partial application requires an extra function call, plus a call to concat for the extra arguments.

Partial application can make debugging trickier, since there is an extra layer of indirection to the real method.

Bind + partial apply can be used to force the this argument of a prototype method to always be the of the instance. This is inefficient and often leads to messy, tangled function decomposition. Libraries that bind every method do so out of ignorance of the language, and are best avoided.

EcmaScript New Language Feature

The forthcoming version of EcmaScript (now called EcmaScript Harmony) will include Function.prototype.bind(context). A native bind should outperform any other bind function.

This was something Peter brought up for EcmaScript 4, but appears to be making way into the revised EcmaScript Harmony.

Mark Miller wrote out a "self-hosted" version of EcmaScript's proposed Function.prototype.bind. It is:-

Function.prototype.bind = function(self, var_args) {
   var thisFunc = this;
   var leftArgs = Array.slice(arguments, 1);
  return function(var_args) {
    var args = leftArgs.concat(Array.slice(arguments, 0));
    return thisFunc.apply(self, args);
  };
};  

After looking at the ES Harmony proposal, and looking at a few versions of bind functions, I decided to write a better one that does exactly what the ES Harmony's bind does, but with greater efficiency than the current libraries offer, and whose, length property was 1.

Although unnecessary, this is a welcome addition to the language. A native bind will outperform any user-defined bind function and will result in fewer closures.

The Rundown

Before I give a critique and rundown, I have a test.

Library Comparison Test

1. Garrett's Bind

   This bind was, by far, the most efficient in tests #1, and #4, and nearly ties Base 2 in test #2 (Base 2 was about .5 ms faster) . This function requires no additional code or functions.

2. Base2 bind

   Second performance-wise.

   Requires only a top level _slice function (trivial), and performs a strategy for extra arguments.

3. Dojo's hitch

   Dojo was fast with pure bind, but slower with partial apply.

   This function requires many other functions and has an additional complication of accepting strings and arguments of different order.

4. Ext-js Function.prototype.createDelegate

   Performance was slow. This function requires no importing of external functions.

5. Mark Miller's bind

   Requires no external dependencies. While it gets a 10 for simplicity and aesthetics, this function was not as fast, and for pure bind (no partial apply) was not nearly as fast as it should be.

6. Prototype's Function.prototype.bind

   Performance was fair. Requires several extra functions + browser detection. The function is used very heavily internally.

7. Mootools Function.prototype.bind

   Performance times were poor and the results for two tests were wrong. were wrong.

   The entire mootools.js is required for the bind function. The library adds a $family property, and makes other changes to Array.prototype.

8. YUI 3 bind

   Performance time was fair. The results for test#2 are wrong because the call's arguments are prepended, not appended. This is by design.

   Having the call's arguments prepended is an unusual design decision. It might seem unintuitive, and confuse developers who are used to the more common version, as seen in Prototype, Base2, and the official EcmaScript proposal.

   The amount of code YUI's bind depends on is staggering.

Pass the Parmeźan

Many of the libraries have long chains of function calls. A bind function does not need and should not require the inclusion of several other functions.

Prototype JS requires the $A function, which requires Prototype.Browser to determine which $A function. Browser detection has absolutely no place in Function binding. ($A also calls toArray conditionally, but that will not happen in this case.)

Dojo is almost as bad. Dojo's hitch function has the arguments in reverse order and requires dojo.global, dojo._hitchArgs, dojo._toArray, and dojo.isString.

Mootools has very strewn code. The broken bind function required an additional 108 lines of Mootools.

YUI is the most grandiose. Function YUI.bind(f, o) is found in "oop.js". File oop.js requires over 120k of "prerequisite" files in yui.js and yui-base.js, coming to a total of over 160k. Just for bind. YUI 3 seems to suffer from over-engineering and BUFD, which is typical in waterfall shops.

YUI's 'array' module did not seem to load or evaluate properly, so code from the yui-base file was copy-pasted.

Worth Using?

The best bind functions are fast, do not require other library functions, and are fairly simple.

But is a Bind Function Necessary?

No. Binding can be achieved with an inline closure where it is needed and partial application is not necessary.

Here is example 1, without using bind.

var updater = {
  fetch : function() {
    alert(this.time++);
  },
  time : 0
};
setTimeout(function() { updater.fetch(); }, 500);

A native Function.prototype.bind will allow for cleaner binding, without the need for creating a closure. As native code, it will be faster and more reliable. Function.prototype.bind is not necessary, but is a welcome addition to the language.

Why All the Fuss?

Being aware of what libraries do and identifying and learning from the mistakes of libraries helps developers avoid such mistakes by learning what the library does. Developers do not need the burden of large, tangled, and often buggy library dependencies.

Look at The Code

What the library's bind function does and how the library uses that function internally is a step to take in assessing the library's quality.

A developer can make a more responsible and professional choice by avoiding a library that makes heavy use of a slow-spaghetti bind function.

My Version

The following function is the fastest bind function for pure bind (no partial apply). It is more than three times as fast as Base2, the second fastest bind function tested here.

Here is my version of the bind function.

/**
 * @param {Object} context the 'this' value to be used.
 * @param {arguments} [1..n] optional arguments that are
 * prepended to returned function's call.
 * @return {Function} a function that applies the original
 * function with 'context' as the thisArg.
 */
Function.prototype.bind = function(context){
  var fn = this, 
      ap, concat, args,
      isPartial = arguments.length > 1;
  // Strategy 1: just bind, not a partialApply
  if(!isPartial) {
    return function() {
        if(arguments.length !== 0) {
          return fn.apply(context, arguments);
        } else {
          return fn.call(context); // faster in Firefox.
        }
      };
    } else {
    // Strategy 2: partialApply
    ap = Array.prototype,
    args = ap.slice.call(arguments, 1);
    concat = ap.concat;
    return function() {
      return fn.apply(context, 
        arguments.length === 0 ? args : 
        concat.apply(args, arguments));
    };
  }
};

This function was not included in APE because it was not needed. This function may be used by libraries who wish to continue using a bind function with the benefit of faster performance.

Technorati Tags: JavaScript ECMAScript 4

Most libraries try provide some functionality for finding an element's position, but fail in all but the simplest cases.

I created a test page to demonstrate the libraries' results of finding an element's position and the time it takes for them to succeed or fail.

Test Page

Compare JavaScript Libraries

Demos are Not Unit Tests

These two demos don't cover all of the complexities in finding an element's position. I didn't even touch tables. There are also complications with padding and border on HTML root element. Unfortunately, IE8b1 doesn't support CSS on the HTML root element (connect id 354453), so it can't be tested.

APE guards against all of the other problems by having a test suite that tests this function with combinations of these cases.

Technorati Tags: APE JavaScript

I was prompted to do a code review on PrototypeJS. Here is a partial review.

Ten Issues

• Modification of Host Object - Non standard, doesn't work the same in all browsers. Don't do it!
• Class.Methods.addMethods -
  • Don't rely on a Function's toString!
  • Don't introduce special behavior based on function Decompilation!
  • The mimicing of class based inheritance through closures to get $super to work requires a significantly augmented scope chain.
• The Dollar Function - Meaningless and extremely inefficient
• Element.Methods.visible - misnamed, non-reflective, and buggy/unreliable!
• More Modifications to Host objects
• Object.extend - Don't forget the JScript DontEnum bug!
• $A - Relying on object's toString -
• readAttribute - Don't rely on Function Decompilation
• Ajax.Request - Add an Underscore?
• Broken unescaping of HTML Strings
• Unnecessary use of with statement
• Enumerable.include - Strict Equality or 2n with Loose Equality
• getDimensions - Don't Expect clientWidth to be non-zero in IE
• cumulativeOffset - doesn't account for borders, scroll offsets, or magic BODY.

Okay, so it's more than 10, and could be even more, but I have to stop somewhere!

Modification of Host Object

A Host object is an object provided by the Host environment, e.g. document, event, an element.

PrototypeJS relies on modifying Host objects as a part of its core approach. There are several problems with this approach.

• There is no requirement in the EcmaScript specification that requires Host objects to be modifiable (although they usually are).
• There is no requirement in the EcmaScript specification that the Host environment expose for its Host objects a constructor with an associated prototype.
• There is no requirement in the EcmaScript specification that objects expose a __proto__ property.
• There is no guarantee by any standard that there will be a __proto__ property present for an Element or what value, if any, it will hold.

The fact that Mozilla exposes the prototypes of Element, et c is useful in that it allows developers to provide quick patches for new or broken features that lack proper support. However, this feature can't be reliably used for websites that are expected to run in multiple browsers.

Class.Methods.addMethods

Class.Methods.addMethods relies on the approach of calling toString on a function, expecting to get back the source code, as it originally appeared.

if(value.argumentNames().first() == "$super")

A few significant problems:

• Function.prototype.toString is not required to return the source code of the function

  Function.prototype.toString is guaranteed only to return an implementation-dependent representation of the function as a FunctionDeclaration [or FunctionExpression] (spec errata, has been fixed). (§15.3.4.2).

  Opera mobile follows the spec but takes the liberty of not returning the source code of the function.

• Even if relying on the name of a function's formal parameter were guaranteed, doing so would make implementation code fragile because it would be impossible for a human (or compressor) to rename it (YUI Compressor bug).

  Object.extend(Function.prototype, {
    argumentNames: function() {
      var names = this.toString().match(/^[\s\(]*function[^(]*\((.*?)\)/)[1].split(",").invoke("strip");
      return names.length == 1 && !names[0] ? [] : names;
    },
  

Providing a toString that returns helpful debugging info for objects is generally good advice.

However, the return value of a function's toString cannot be expected to be anything other than a string value. It should not be relied on. Unfortunately argumentNames will choke on a Function object that has a custom toString. This problem will happen in every browser.

Example: Programmer-defined toString Causes Problem with Object.extend

function WidgetFactory(){}
WidgetFactory.toString = function(){ return"[WidgetFactory constructor]"; };

If argumentNames() is called on WidgetFactory, the first call to match() will return null. Then, when split() is called, a TypeError will be thrown.

It would be less error-prone for PrototypeJS to use:

    var names = Function.prototype.toString.call(someFunction);
    

This avoids the mistake of relying on the function instance's toString, however, the approach still has two significant problems:

1. relies on the source code and named formal parameters of the function on which it is called (problem 1).
2. Function.prototype.toString is still not required to return the source code of the function Function.prototype.toString is guaranteed to return an implementation-dependent representation of the function as a FunctionDeclaration [or FunctionExpression] (spec errata). (§15.3.4.2), and in fact, Opera mobile follows the spec correctly, but takes the liberty of not returning the source code of the function.

Relying on Function Objects' toString

Do Not Rely on Return Values from Function Objects' toString!

In general, toString should not be parsed or relied upon for data formats. toString is useful for debugging. In October 2007, I pointed out how Dojo and jQuery made this mistake. Hallvord has been writing against relying on Function Decompilation for well over a year, as it resulted in problems in PrototypeJS and jQuery running in Opera Mobile.

The Dollar Function

PrototypeJS is built on the approach of modifying Host objects. This is the cornerstone of the library's problems. The library will try to modify the built-in prototype of an XPConnect wrapped prototype if it assumes the browser can do that. Otherwise, it will add properties to the element itself.

The primary accessor to these modified Host objects is through that dollar function.

Law of Demeter

Each unit should have only limited knowledge about other units: only units "closely" related to the current unit. (LoD).

I'll come back to explain how Prototype.js' modifications to Host objects violate LoD, and the problems associated with that.

What Does $ Do?

• $ does not have a clearly defined meaning as to what the function actually does.
• The dollar sign is intended to be reserved for machine-generated code.

PrototypeJS $ function gets an element or array of elements. Calling $ results in a bare minimum of three function calls: $, isString, and Element.extend and a maximum of over 135 function calls.

function $(element) { 
  if (arguments.length > 1) { 
    for (var i = 0, elements = [], length = arguments.length; i < length; i++) 
      elements.push($(arguments[i])); 
    return elements; 
  } 
  if (Object.isString(element)) 
    element = document.getElementById(element); 
  return Element.extend(element); 
} 

Call Stack of $ (best case)

$ -> isString
  -> document.getElementById
  -> Element.extend

Count of Functions from $ (best case)

$................................+1 
 +--isString.....................+1
 +--document.getElementById.....(+1) (when isString(element) is true) 
 +--Element.extend...............+1 
    ~--Prototype.K||(anonymous)...0 (alias, second time, only. Prototype.K only if SpecificElementExtensions)
Sub-total_________________________3 (4 when isString(element) is true).

Calling $(document) then $(document), there will be many function calls the first time, and never any fewer than three calls the second time.

Element.extend = (function() {
  if (Prototype.BrowserFeatures.SpecificElementExtensions)
    return Prototype.K;

  var Methods = { }, ByTag = Element.Methods.ByTag;
  Object.extend(function(element) { 
      if (!element || element._extendedByPrototype || 
          element.nodeType != 1 || element == window) return element; 
      var methods = Object.clone(Methods), 
        tagName = element.tagName, property, value; 
      // extend methods for specific tags 
      if (ByTag[tagName]) Object.extend(methods, ByTag[tagName]); 
      for (property in methods) { 
        value = methods[property]; 
        if (Object.isFunction(value) && !(property in element)) 
          element[property] = value.methodize(); 
      } 
       element._extendedByPrototype = Prototype.emptyFunction; 
      return element; 
  }, {
    refresh: function() {
      // extend methods for all tags (Safari doesn't need this)
      if (!Prototype.BrowserFeatures.ElementExtensions) {
        Object.extend(Methods, Element.Methods);
        Object.extend(Methods, Element.Methods.Simulated);
      }
    }

  extend.refresh();
  return extend;
})();

Element.extend, first call

However, during the first call to $(document), there is a check to Prototype.BrowserFeatures.SpecificElementExtensions. This is done because when SpecificElementExtensions is true, then the Library attempts to add the properties to DOM interface prototypes, e.g. HTMLHeadingElement.prototype. This happens elsewhere in the code, only when a __proto__ property returns a truthy value on created elements. If this feature is supported, the author has makes modifications to the DOM object interfaces, e.g. "HTML" + element.tagName + "Element", et c, but only when the userAgent does not match /Apple.*Mobile.*Safari/. (He makes said modifications elsewhere in the code, Element.addMethods -> findDOMClass).

Element.extend's closure calls Object.extend (needs review) to add the refresh() method to element.extend (rather than perform a simple assignment). The closure then calls extend.refresh() before returning the method extend, which gets assigned to Element.extend.

+ Element.extend's closure -> Object.extend -> extend.refresh -> Object.extend...3
                                      Object.extend...1
subtotal:_____________________________________________9

calls: 5, Depth: 3 These calls are done when the file is loaded. They don't affect performance of $.

After extend has been assigned to Element.extend, it is invoked. Element.extend calls Object.clone, which calls Object.extend, then ByTag, Object.extend, n calls to isFunction, n calls to methodize, where n is the number of properties of methods. The element is then "methodized", which adds Ajax, et c to a FORM element.

$ -> isString..........................................(2)
     document.getElementById...........................(+1) (when isString(element) is true)
     Element.extend ->  Object.clone -> Object.extend..(2)
                        ByTag -> Object.extend.........(2) (depends on tagName).
                        isFunction.....................(n = Size(methods) = 64 + 8)
                        methodize......................(n = Size(methods) = 64 + 8)
Total:_________________________________________________151

Calling $("sp-searchtext") results in 151 function calls the first time it is called. Non-form elements will have 133 calls the first time.

This happens for every object that is got by dollar function for browsers that don't support modifying DOM prototypes.

It considerably more complex and inefficient the first time around, when SpecificElementExtensions is false:

Object.extend(Methods, Element.Methods);
Object.extend(Methods, Element.Methods.Simulated);

Where is $ Used Internally?

All of the Element.methods of PrototypeJS functions (the ones that got "methodized" in dollar, use the dollar function, as well, adding extra overhead of a function call.

This allows each of Element.methods to be used as a static method. This also adds considerable extra cost, though, to each call.

Element.Methods = {
// (GS) visibility is not display!
  visible: function(element) {
// (GS) style properties do not reflect element state.
// The value 'inherit' is not considered.
    return $(element).style.display != 'none';
  },

Element.Methods.visible does not deal with CSS visibility, but instead returns the style.display != 'none'. The display property does not reflect the currentStyle or computed style. Also, the CSS display property can have the value inherit.

Other Element.Methods functions that use the dollar function are more expensive. For example:

// (GS) Avoid this long chains of calls. Hard to debug.
// (GS) calling Element.extend on each element is expensive, 
// up to 1600+ function calls for a FORM with 10 elements in IE.

  descendants: function(element) {
    return $A($(element).getElementsByTagName('*')).each(Element.extend);
  },

...

var Enumerable = {
  each: function(iterator, context) {
    var index = 0;
    iterator = iterator.bind(context);
    try {
      this._each(function(value) {
        iterator(value, index++);
      });
    } catch (e) {
      if (e != $break) throw e;
    }
    return this;
  },

...


Object.extend(Array.prototype, {
  _each: function(iterator) {
    for (var i = 0, length = this.length; i < length; i++)
      iterator(this[i]);
  },

Considering a FORM with 10 input elements and nothing else, there will be:

Element.descendants...................1
    $A-->Array........................2
     +--$.............................151
        +--getElementsByTagName('*')..1
     each.............................1 x 10 (ten INPUT elements)
      +--bind.........................1 x 10 
      +--_each........................151 x 10 (151 methods, ten INPUT elements)
TOTAL.................................1685

One thousand, six hundred, and eighty-five function calls.

The call to isFunction in Element.extend might be something that could be refactored:

value = methods[property];
Object.isFunction(value)

Variable methods is a collection of functions. Calling Object.isFunction(value) should always return true here and this is something that the author can have control over because he owns methods (Law of Demeter).

Always Use Dollar

When using PrototypeJS, it is uncertain what properties will be present on an Element. This is because PrototypeJS may have already modified that element or its associated prototype. This dilemma of ambiguity can be avoided by the PrototypeJS user always using the dollar function and depending on PrototypeJS.

$("adiv").parentNode.show(), will have unexpected results, and will result in error in IE, if the parentNode has not been previously modified via Element.extend()

$($('adiv').parentNode), will result in no less than seven function calls, and that is only after $('adiv') has been called and $($('adiv').parentNode) has been called.

More Modifications to Host Objects

I'm going to back up a little bit and look at details I skipped over, the modification Host objects.

LoD Recap

If the implementation's internal code undergoes change, or if other browsers provide similar properties with slightly different implementation then the code that relies on assumptions of implementation-specific details based on those properties (col.__proto__) will fail. Implementations have been known to change, in this regard (bug 390411)

function findDOMClass(tagName) {
    var klass;
    var trans = {
      "OPTGROUP": "OptGroup", "TEXTAREA": "TextArea", "P": "Paragraph",
// (GS) et c...    
    };

    if (trans[tagName]) klass = 'HTML' + trans[tagName] + 'Element';

// (GS) Does not provide any feature detection about the object.
    if (window[klass]) return window[klass];
    klass = 'HTML' + tagName + 'Element';
    if (window[klass]) return window[klass];
    klass = 'HTML' + tagName.capitalize() + 'Element';
    if (window[klass]) return window[klass];

    window[klass] = { };

// (GS) Does not provide any feature detection about the object.
    window[klass].prototype = document.createElement(tagName).__proto__;
    return window[klass];
  }

  if (F.ElementExtensions) {
    copy(Element.Methods, HTMLElement.prototype);
    copy(Element.Methods.Simulated, HTMLElement.prototype, true);
  }

  if (F.SpecificElementExtensions) {
    for (var tag in Element.Methods.ByTag) {
      var klass = findDOMClass(tag);
      if (Object.isUndefined(klass)) continue;
      copy(T[tag], klass.prototype);
    }
  }

The findDOMClass assumes that the window will have an object based on tagName or that if this is not the case, then the element's __proto__ property will be readable.

There is no guarantee by any standard that there will be a __proto__ property present or what value it will hold, if any.

There is no guarantee by any standard of an HTMLTableRowElement on window, nor any guarantee of what modifying its prototype will have. The library makes broad assumptions and performs no capability tests.

Replace the Host Environment's Element?

Not satisfied by altering over certain Host environments' Element with its own properties, PrototypeJS seeks to create a constructor to replace those environments' Element with its own, copying over all enumerable properties from the Host's Element. In Firefox, this includes all of QueryInterface.

This creates the dilemma of having a debilitated Element. Where previously, in Firefox, Element was native code, and Element.prototype.TEXT_NODE had the value 3, now, Element is a PrototypeJS constructor function and Element.prototype.TEXT_NODE is undefined.

(function() {
  var element = this.Element;
  this.Element = function(tagName, attributes) {
    attributes = attributes || { };
    tagName = tagName.toLowerCase();
    var cache = Element.cache;
    if (Prototype.Browser.IE && attributes.name) {
      tagName = '<' + tagName + ' name="' + attributes.name + '">';
      delete attributes.name;
      return Element.writeAttribute(document.createElement(tagName), attributes);
    }
    if (!cache[tagName]) cache[tagName] = Element.extend(document.createElement(tagName));
    return Element.writeAttribute(cache[tagName].cloneNode(false), attributes);
  };
  Object.extend(this.Element, element || { });
}).call(window);

Element.cache = { };

Event.extend - Don't do It!

The same approach is used here

Event.extend = (function() {
  var methods = Object.keys(Event.Methods).inject({ }, function(m, name) {
    m[name] = Event.Methods[name].methodize();
    return m;
  });

  if (Prototype.Browser.IE) {
    Object.extend(methods, {
      stopPropagation: function() { this.cancelBubble = true },
      preventDefault:  function() { this.returnValue = false },
      inspect: function() { return "[object Event]" }
    });

    return function(event) {
      if (!event) return false;
      if (event._extendedByPrototype) return event;

      event._extendedByPrototype = Prototype.emptyFunction;
      var pointer = Event.pointer(event);
      Object.extend(event, {
        target: event.srcElement,
        relatedTarget: Event.relatedTarget(event),
        pageX:  pointer.x,
        pageY:  pointer.y
      });
      return Object.extend(event, methods);
    };

  } else {
  // (GS) Event.prototype is not guaranteed to be available in 
  // any browser.
    Event.prototype = Event.prototype || document.createEvent("HTMLEvents").__proto__;
    Object.extend(Event.prototype, methods);
    return Prototype.K;
  }
})();

Object.extend - Doesn't Account for JScript DontEnum Bug

Object.extend = function(destination, source) {
  for (var property in source)
// (GS) Does not account for JScript DontEnum bug.
    destination[property] = source[property];
  return destination;
};

In IE, the keys of objects are skipped without properly checking the DontEnum flag. The skipped properties include the useful and often overridden toString and valueOf. Special and careful considerations should be made to address this problem.

$A - Don't Rely on The Return Value of An Object's toString

if (Prototype.Browser.WebKit) {
  $A = function(iterable) {
    if (!iterable) return [];
// (GS) Do not on the return value of an object's toString.
    if (!(Object.isFunction(iterable) && iterable == '[object NodeList]') &&
        iterable.toArray) return iterable.toArray();
    var length = iterable.length || 0, results = new Array(length);
    while (length--) results[length] = iterable[length];
    return results;
  };
}

A toString() with the return value of "[object NodeList]" implies nothing else about the object it was called on.

The readAttribute function, branched for Internet Explorer.

Example

Example page: http://www.apple.com/itunes/

javascript:alert($(document.body).readAttribute("onload"))

Will result in partial string representation of a serialized function. The string begins with ")".

_getEv: function(element, attribute) {
// (GS) Do not rely on function decompilation.
  var attribute = element.getAttribute(attribute);
// (GS) Do not prevent yourself from renaming a function.
// (GS) Broken - slice starts at wrong position.
  return attribute ? attribute.toString().slice(23, -2) : null;
},

Function readAttribute calls getAttribute on the element. In Internet Explorer, calling getAttribute always reflects the property with the same name. In this case the property has the value of the function object, loadShortcuts.

It isn't clear why the substring of 23 should be taken from the function's source code. The approach of relying on the toString of an object defined elsewhere in the code makes it hard to rename that function.

Ajax.Request - Add an Underscore?

  request: function(url) {
    this.url = url;
    this.method = this.options.method;
    var params = Object.clone(this.options.parameters);

    if (!['get', 'post'].include(this.method)) {
      // simulate other verbs over post
      params['_method'] = this.method;
      this.method = 'post';
    }

    this.parameters = params;

    if (params = Object.toQueryString(params)) {
      // when GET, append parameters to URL
      if (this.method == 'get')
        this.url += (this.url.include('?') ? '&' : '?') + params;

// (GS) All browsers support properly-formatted URIs.
// (GS) Do not add extra "_" parameter for some browsers.
      else if (/Konqueror|Safari|KHTML/.test(navigator.userAgent))
        params += '&_=';
    }

Broken Unescaping of HTML Strings

PrototypeJS adds escapeHTML and unescapeHTML to String.prototype. The problem with this code was discussed quite some time ago on comp.lang.javascript.

if (Prototype.Browser.WebKit || Prototype.Browser.IE) Object.extend(String.prototype, {
  escapeHTML: function() {
    return this.replace(/&/g,'&amp;').replace(/</g,'&lt;').replace(/>/g,'&gt;');
  },
  unescapeHTML: function() {
    return this.replace(/&amp;/g,'&').replace(/&lt;/g,'<').replace(/&gt;/g,'>');
  }
});

// (GS) Do not use with for simple property assignment
with (String.prototype.escapeHTML) div.appendChild(text);

The problem is that the escape character for entities is &. This will have the result in browsers identifying as Webkit or MSIE of:-

    "&amp;lt;".unescapeHTML() to "<" 

The with statement is not needed to provide a more compact approach:

"".escapeHTML.div.appendChild("".escapeHTML.text);

Enumerable.include - Two Loops? Strict Equality, or Loose Equality?

Enumerable.include. This function returns true if the Enumerable contains the object.

  include: function(object) {

    // (GS) Call the indexOf method on the object.
    if (Object.isFunction(this.indexOf))
      if (this.indexOf(object) != -1) return true;
    // (GS) If not found, search again.
    var found = false;
    this.each(function(value) {
    // (GS) Should use strict equality, === 
      if (value == object) {
        found = true;
        throw $break;
      }
    });
    return found;
  },

Enumerable.include first calls this.indexOf(), and if that returns false, the collection is searched using a similar algorithm to Array.prototype.indexOf, except not using strict equality. This tactic results in the collection being looped over twice. Function each calls a function for each iteration. If non-strict equality is desired, then the strict equality check that can result by calling this.indexOf should be omitted.

A plausible solution would be return this.indexOf(object), and include a strict === check if indexOf were not a function.

getDimensions - clientWidth != offsetWidth, And Don't Expect clientWidth to be non-zero in IE

  getDimensions: function(element) {
    element = $(element);
    var display = $(element).getStyle('display');
    if (display != 'none' && display != null) // Safari bug
      return {width: element.offsetWidth, height: element.offsetHeight};

    // All *Width and *Height properties give 0 on elements with display none,
    // so enable the element temporarily
    var els = element.style;
    var originalVisibility = els.visibility;
    var originalPosition = els.position;
    var originalDisplay = els.display;
    els.visibility = 'hidden';
    els.position = 'absolute';
    els.display = 'block';
    var originalWidth = element.clientWidth;
    var originalHeight = element.clientHeight;
    els.display = originalDisplay;
    els.position = originalPosition;
    els.visibility = originalVisibility;
// (GS) use offsetWidth/Height.
    return {width: originalWidth, height: originalHeight};
  },

This method has the unique quality of being one of the only methods in PrototypeJS to have a code comment.

The code tries to get the offsetWidth and offsetHeight of the Element. If the element is not displayed, then these properties will be 0, and in that case, the function will display the element temporarily, then calculate its clientWidth - not the offsetWidth before immediately hiding it. This function can be expected to provide inconsistent results when the element's CSS display is changing. What's worse: Unless the element has a CSS width, the clientWidth will be 0 in IE.

Calculating Offsets

Finding an Element's position is hard.

Calculating the position of an element requires adding the offsetTop/Left of offsetParents, border offsets, and scroll offsets of parentNodes.

A BODY with margin, position and/or border can affect the offsetTop/Left differently, depending on the browser. This is a harmful effect propagated by the CSSOM Views standard.

cumulativeOffset

PrototypeJS misses both points and just adds offsetTop/Left.

  cumulativeOffset: function(element) {
    var valueT = 0, valueL = 0;
    do {
      valueT += element.offsetTop  || 0;
      valueL += element.offsetLeft || 0;
      element = element.offsetParent;
    } while (element);
    // (GS) Don't call a function that returns an 
    // Array with top and left properties.
    // Better just return an Array or an Object.
    return Element._returnOffset(valueL, valueT);
  },

The seriousness of the problem is apparent when precision is crucial and off by a pixel or more would be failure, (e.g. make element to overlap another element exactly, activate a drop zone).

The bug also exists in positionedOffset and affects every function that uses either function, including within, scrollTo, and all the functions that call those functions, such as others found in Scriptaculous (dragdrop.js, effects.js).

Conclusion

A few core parts of PrototypeJS exhibiting some serious bugs. There are many more issues, such as Hash, but this entry is already getting excessively long.

PrototypeJS is designed in a non-standard way around the modification of host objects. The code that exists is complicated and not very efficient. I cannot recommend using this library for anything.

Technorati Tags: JavaScript Code Review Prototype Prototype.js

I came across a blog post yesterday that had a lot of misinformation. The post had received several comments and trackbacks thanking and commending the author for his "helpful" post. At first I was mad. "How can these people give this guy credit for misinformation," I thought. I wrote up a comment correcting on various points, intending to publish it on the author's blog.

Thankfully, my comment could not be posted due to some problem with the weblog. I am thankful of this because I ended up thinking about the problem on a greater depth.

I decided to respond here, providing a review below. I was more bothered by the phenomenon of people eager to learn misinformation. The more I thought about that phenomenon, the more I realized that it's not the author's fault, it's just the way things are. I discovered a part of the web that I want to change.

The expert, in this case, is Alex Russell, of Dojo fame, as Ajaxian likes to call it. It doesn't really matter who it is. In fact, it could have been me several years ago, when my JavaScript knowlegde was not as strong. I have written some really awful javascript that fortunately did not become famous.

My initial technical responses to the blog entry, which I have cut and snipped, are interspersed below. I have done my best to not take the author out of context and provide clear, relevant feedback. My real "response" starts below the proceeding technical response.

Technical Response

alex:

Everything in JavaScript is an Object. Even functions

Not true.

Fact: There are primitive values, too: undefined, null, true, 3, and "foo" are all primitive values. Not objects.

alex:

Every object is always mutable

Fact: An EcmaScript object itself is always mutable, but property-setting will not be always successful and error-free.

1. Host objects do not need to implement setters for each property. For purpose of providing a relevant example to back up my claim:

   function fixEvent(e) {
     e=e||event;
     e.pageX = 1; // getEventPageX(e);
   }

   - will cause an error in Firefox. The pageX property actually needs a patch, because creating events, the pageX property doesn't get set correctly (bug 411031). So the argument "every object is always mutable" leads to developers doing things like writing a "fixEvent" function. It is not safe to do so.

2. Some properties are tagged ReadOnly. A String or Function object's length property, for example.

alex:

The dot operator is equivalent to de-referencing by hash (e.g., foo.bar === foo["bar"])

Fact: The two property access operators .<Identifier> and [<identifier-string>] perform identical operations.

alex:

The new keyword creates an object that class constructors run inside of, thereby imprinting them

False.

Fact: There are no class constructors. No classes in the current release of EcmaScript 262 r3.

The new operator (an operator) creates a new object in context of the function on which its called. Nothing gets imprinted.

alex:

Functions are always closures (combine w/ previous rule to create OOP)

If used very carefully, closures can be used to mimic some of the constructs found in OO languages. However, to say that closures "create OOP" is false and misleading.

alex:

The this keyword is relative to the execution context, not the declaration context

There is no "declaration context". You seem to have made this up as a way to describe the way you think JavaScript works.

alex:

The prototype property is mutable

Not informative.

Fact: A property is a reference.

If the property's value is a native EcmaScript object, then it will be mutable. It goes without saying that this is true even if the name of the property is prototype.

Considering a prototype property of a function, where the prototype's value is an EcmaScript object: {}, then it is mutable (as discussed above).

alex:

Jeremy: great clarifications. Thanks.

Jeremey provided a false statement with code that was confusing. Jeremey wrote:

y = new Foo();
assert(y.gimme() == 2);

But:

button.onclick = "alert(y.gimme())" will error rather than alerting "2", because in an event handler, "this" refers to the elm which sourced the event.

Fact: This is a perfectly valid assignment of a string value to an onclick property of a button object.

Jeremy's example of a button object with an onclick property assigned to a string value:-

button.onclick = "alert(y.gimme())"

- the string "alert(y.gimme())" is not eval'd.

(Continuing Jeremy's post)

because in an event handler, "this" refers to the elm which sourced the event.

Has relevant meaning in a script:-

// assign function to onclick.
button.onclick = y.gimme;

Definitely not in:

<body>
<script>

function Foo() {
this.x = 1;

this.gimme = function() {
return this.x + 1;
}
}

y = new Foo();
</script>

<button onclick="alert(y.gimme())">click me</button>

</body>

Result

When the button is clicked, the method gimme is called with y as the thisArg. The number is returned and displayed as a string in the alert box.

Thanking Jeremy for Jeremy's mistake and calling the mistake a clarification does not make Jeremy correct. It is not helpful to Jeremy or anyone else.

alex: (To Dethe):

My statement about objects (variables whose .constructor property in some way descends from Object) was correct.

Fact: No, it was not correct. Now you've made another misstatement.

Fact: (new function(){}) - is an object, not a variable. Its - constructor - property doesn't "descend" from Object, either.

Fact: var i = 0, len; - is an example of two variables that do not have a .constructor property.

Fact: The term "descend" has no meaning in context of describing a constructor property; it is fictitious terminology to describe the way you imagine JavaScript works.

(alex: To Dethe, continued):

Also, the hash deference is exactly equivalent. That there's no way to have a JS lexer handle an variable name with spaces in it in no way detracts from the equivalence, it just means that the dot operator has to follow the rules of thing that aren't string literals.

Fact: There is no "dot operator."

Fact: The fullstop, "." also has meaning in numbers, for example, 4.2.toString().

Fact: There are two property access operators: "." and "[]". There are many "things that are not string literals." The "." property access operator can be used only for valid identifiers.

I think you were using the term "de-reference" to try to describe getting a value. Now your using "deference". I'm not sure what to make of that.

The Real "Response"

My real "response" in the larger sense, is that I'm taking a stance. I'm going to try and change the web.

Think 2.0

A who's-who in web 2.0 is destructive to the web, in a way. The idea should win, not the individual. The popular libraries have spread ideas for web development across the web but they have also played a big part in the "whos-who" trend that I see.

What I see demonstrated in the blog entry that I replied to is a misunderstaning of JavaScript that received positive acknowledgement and review. The question is: Why? Is it because the entry is simple and clear?

Ask Why

If a "famed" individual can be commended for teaching JavaScript facts that are false and inaccurate, what does that say about what web developers value in the web? Where are we headed? I am hoping that this trend will reverse itself. The reversal of this trend starts by questioning things. I question things and you should, too.

Angry, Bitter, and Vile?

As much as I've pointed out bad parts of Dojo and Google (And jQuery and PrototypeJS and YUI), I probably sound like a bitter, angry person. In fact, there are people who would love to have you believe that I am nothing more than that. I've made my observations and shared them, even at the expense of sounding mean and bitter. I want the web to change, and in my next entry, I'll clearly explain the direction I want the web to turn.

Technorati Tags: JavaScript

There is a new feature on the GMail login page: Gmail: Latest News from the GMail Blog.

I first noticed this last month when the GMail login page was reacting very slowly. The page froze for about 6 seconds in Firefox. I noticed the missing content in the lower left corner of the page appear immediately before the page unfroze, allowing me to then enter in my login credentials.

The latest News from the GMail Blog update is:

A need for speed: the path to a faster loading sequence

Posted May 13, 2008

Great performance has always been an obsession at Google and it's something that we think about and work on everyday. We...

The GMail blog talks about how the GMail team worked to reduce the number of overall requests, make more of the requests cacheable by the browser, and reduce the overhead of each request.

HTML Source

The HTML source code of the GMail login page contradicts that with:

• three external script tags, loaded over a secure connection
• fourteen img tags
• twelve inline script tags,
• four inline style tags, inline style attributes.

One of the external script tags is duplicated, but with a different query string, so even though the response is the same DetectBrowser code, it is un-cacheable and downloaded twice (bug).

Two of the script tags (urchin.js, inline) use javascript to document.write more external script and image tags.

This is all beautifully wrapped up in a nested, automatic table layout (not fixed).

Biggest Bottleneck

Despite the resource problems, the News from the GMail Blog on the GMail login page appears to freeze Firefox for roughly 1-6 seconds, depending on latency and connection speed.

This feature is slow because the page isn't completely rendered until the external JSON is downloaded, then transformed to HTML, then rendered on the page.

Solution?

News from the GMail Blog should be included in the server response for the login page, as HTML (if it is to be included at all).

Blog entries about acheivements are useful when they are informative and specific. This:

To do this, we used a lot of different web development tools, like Httpwatch, WireShark, and Fiddler, plus our own performance measuring systems

Comes off as a bit self-aggrandizing; especially in contrast to the source code of the GMail login page.

Technorati Tags: Google

This article describes the generic concepts for creating and mixing design patterns. The basic principle for all design patterns is: Encapsulate the parts that vary.

The problem is finding a way to create a generic Factory that can be reused on various constructor functions for element Decorators. This article explains the problem and the process for finding the solution.

Decorator Factory Aspect

A Decorator Factory Aspect is a Factory method, added as an Aspect to a constructor of a Decorator.

Before I explain how to add a Factory to a constructor function for an element decorator, I should first define Decorator (also called a wrapper), Factory and Aspect.

Decorator Pattern

makes it possible to extend (decorate) the functionality of a class by adding a new decorator class that wraps the original class. (Wikipedia link)

Factory Pattern

The Factory pattern is a creational design pattern that encapsulates the processes of creating objects (Wikipedia link)

Aspect

introduces separation of concerns, specifically cross-cutting concerns, as an advance in modularization (Wikipedia link)

Decorator Examples

Decorator is very common in JavaScript. For example: YAHOO.util.Element decorates an element, jQuery decorates an array of elements.

Factory Example

The Factory gets or creates a decorated element. The id of the wrapper is the same as the id of the element. This is the part I want to make reusable:

/**
 * @constructor
 * @param {String} id - the id of the element and widget. 
 */
function ElementWrapper(id, x) {
  this.id = id;
  this.x = x;
}

// Factory. 
// TODO: How can I make this generic/reusable?
ElementWrapper.instances = {};
ElementWrapper.getById = function(id, x) {
  if(this.instances.hasOwnProperty(id)) return this.instances[id];
  return this.instances[id] = new this(id, x);
};

ElementWrapper.prototype = { 
  show : function() { 
    document.getElementById(this.id).style.visibility = "visible";
  }
};

Benefits

Solves the problem of creating only one decorator per element id.

By calling getElementById, the decorator can avoid some of the problems with changing node references with innerHTML (though state changes must still be managed manually).

Problem: DRY

Don't Repeat Yourself

Every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous, authoritative representation within a system.

It is cumbersome and error-prone to write out a Factory each time. Since this is an idiom I use a lot, it makes sense to make it reusable.

I want to have a generic getById method that can be reused and will return an instance of the constructor that it is called on. I want to be able to pass extra arguments to that constructor (varargs).

Encapsulate the Parts That Vary

What varies?

The id parameter variable of getById does not change; it will always be present in any generic Factory. The parts of the Factory that vary are: The additional zero or more arguments (varargs, this case, x), and the context, or thisArg.

Resolving the context arg is easy.

If I can solve passing varargs to a constructor in a generic context, it will be possible to create a generic Factory Aspect.

Function newApply

This has been solved in APE core. The source code for APE.newApply:

/** 
 * @param {Function} fun constructor to be invoked.
 * @param {Array} args arguments to pass to the constructor.
 * Instantiates a constructor and uses apply().
 */
newApply : function(fun, args) {
    if(arguments.length === 0) return;
    var f = arguments.callee, i;

    f.prototype = fun.prototype; // Add prototype.
    f.prototype.constructor = fun;

    i = new f;
    fun.apply(i, args);  // Apply the original constructor.
    return i;
}

What's it Good For?

Now I can create the generic getById function I wanted. This function can be added as an aspect to any constructor function. Factory Aspect APE.getById is a part of APE core.

getById : function(id) {
    if(!this.hasOwnProperty("instances")) this.instances = {};
    return this.instances[id] || (this.instances[id] = APE.newApply(this, arguments));       
},

Using the Generic getById

This getById method can be used with ElementWrapper (above) or any other constructor that acts as a Decorator to an element and accepts the element's id as its first argument.

Slider = function(id, dir) { /* ... */ };

// Factory. 
Slider.getById = APE.getById;

Then I can use:

Slider.getById( "weight", 1 );

Subsequent calls to:

Slider.getById( "weight" );

— will return the same Slider instance.

More Examples

I have used this approach for many parts of APE, including Calendar, Draggable, and Slider. It is most useful for building widgets.

Reusable Concept

Another closely related technique is Decorator that accepts an element instead of an element's id. This is covered by APE.getByNode.

Source Code

APE.js

Reflection

In most patterns, encapsulating the parts that vary entails creating an class. However, in JavaScript, this particular pattern was simple to implement by using just two functions (APE.getById and APE.newApply) and leveraging the dynamic nature of JavaScript.

Forward to ES4

ES4 has had some proposals for something called a splat operator.

fun(...argsOrArray); 
new fun(...argsOrArray);

This proposal will allow passing varargs to a constructor or a function call.

It is unclear how the splat operator, if accepted into the language, will work with functions which expect typed arguments, in strict mode.

Links

Orthogonality and the DRY Principle, A Conversation with Andy Hunt and Dave Thomas, Part II by Bill Venners March 10, 2003

Technorati Tags: JavaScript Design Patterns APE

Programming is not "wizardry." I am not a "JavaScript Ninja" or an "Ajax Guru."

What, no Sword?

Programming is a scientific discipline. It requires zero mystical powers (although I have been known to "disappear" before long meetings). Programming is hard work. If you want a guru, go climb a mountain (results not guaranteed).

More Yellow Flags

I sometimes get job descriptions and do interviews that can put me off. "JavaScript Ninja" is one flag.

"We want someone who can Hit the Ground Running and Work Independently," is another more subtle flag.

This usually means they want someone to work alone, not with the team.

They Don't Want what's Good for Them

Projects where the team doesn't want to deal with the "details" (actual problem-solving "work"), can sometimes lead to hiring a contractor to "just get it done." (offload tasks) This can be harmful.

If carried out, this can lead to the team not understanding the code as well. It can also make it very difficult for the contractor to get his job done.

"Hiring a guru" can be like deciding to use a library (Prototype JS, jQuery, et c) as a Golden Hammer. There are no magic solutions.

Not surprisingly, the desire for a "JavaScript Ninja" often goes hand-in-hand with a request for one of these libraries.

Teamwork and Ownership

The reality is that the more successful projects have better cooperation and communication. Hiring a "guru" or "wizard" contractor is usually carried out for the worst reasons ("we're behind"), and with the worst process ("let's have the contractor own this part"). Hiring new people takes time. Even a contractor. It also takes time integrating the new person, explaining the problem space, tried solutions, project status, and workflow. So hiring a contractor to "catch up" isn't generally a good idea.

Having code in the project that is owned by the contractor gets the company in technical debt. It accomplishes this by leaving the company with code that they do not understand.

Having the contractor sit and work apart from the team often makes it much harder for the contractor to do a proper job.

Change

When [x_new_feature] is introduced, it might require change to the existing code. If it's a new feature, then it often means that the requirements changed in some way. Often the existing code is not designed to accommodate the new change (normal). If the contractor is asked to build [x_new_feature], and he is working alone, well, then he either has to step outside his role and change existing code (can get him fired) or the new feature will get built in a hackish way around the other non-changing code that is owned by the team.

It is beneficial for the company employees to understand as much of the company code as possible. A contractor should be working with the team, trying to understand their problem with them, collaboratively, and helping them to find solutions to the problems.

Hire a Ninja?

I am very cautious of anyone who presents himself as a "ninja" or a "guru". Posting an ad for "JavaScript Guru Wanted," is asking for someone who is both overconfident and underqualified, and that is disastrous combination of characteristics in a potential newhire.

Pair programming, metaphor/ubiquitous language, daily standups should include the contractor. With complicated applications, TDD and Pair can be practiced in a way that can significantly benefit the successful outcome of the project and collective understanding of the code. Even with a contractor.

Let the contractor know how your team works and how he's expected to fit in. This will help avoid misunderstandings and can help your team find the right contractor for the job.

Technorati Tags: Best Practices

Frustrated with every other JavaScript framework, I have decided to write something better.

Points

• Minimal Framework, mainly used for AOP and OOP functionality
• All code is tested using YUI Test (TDD)
• AOP Event System with asynchronous error handling
• Namespacing
• Modularity, Cohesion, Packaging
• No browser detection
• JSDoc

Here it is: APE JavaScript Library

Testing

By using a test driven approach, I was able to avoid problems that I found in other libraries.

APE Core

The core of APE is so small that the overhead of adding APE to a project is significantly less than that of other libraries.

I generally don't like a lot of the libraries that use a "GOD" object approach. These objects can be recognized by being undefinable by more than a few words. The approach is quite popular and annoys me to no end. How do you describe the dojo object, for example?

The APE object itself is defined in APE.js, providing only the most basic things that a framework would need: 1) Object creational features, and 2) a core namespace. Although some might argue that a library core needs more than that.

The APE object is only 3k minified and less than 1k gzipped. The size is not the point. The point is that APE is not a kitchen-sink, or God object.

Help Wanted

You can join, too! Here's what APE needs:

New Features

There is much more that can be added. For example, some ADT's: Resizable (croppers, windows), FormSerializer.

SVN and Bugzilla

I still need to add hosted SVN to the directories and install bugzilla.

Performance Tests

I've always been big on performance, and not just for JavaScript but all areas of life, and I am very competitive in nature.

APE needs benchmarks to compare with other libraries. This will provide useful analysis for other library authors who aspire to have code that is as performant as that in APE.

Anyone interested in joining this project contact dhtmlkitchen - at - gmail - dot - com.

Technorati Tags: JavaScript Testing APE

Slides from JS Meetup's "Testing JavaScript"

| View | Upload your own

Technorati Tags: JavaScript Unit Testing Extreme Programming APE

One issue that comes up when writing scripts is addressing upper and lower case tag names.

Problem

An XHTML document served with the content type application/xhtml+xml will have all lower case tag names in the DOM. The exact same page served with the content type text/html will have all upper case tag names.

This can affect the way we script our pages by requiring us to clutter up the script with calls to toLowerCase().

Example

function getCoords(el) {
  for( var parent = el.parentNode; parent && parent !== container; 
                                         parent = parent.parentNode) { 
    if( parent.tagName.toLowerCase() == "table" ) {
      var pcs = getComputedStyle(parent, "");
    }
  }
}

It's easy enough to call el.tagName.toLowerCase() but when this is done repeatedly in a loop, it can slow things down.

Solution

One way to avoid that issue is to define a run time constant. This would be done in a closure over the function that was calling toLowerCase()

(function(){ 

var TABLE = /^h/.test(document.documentElement.tagName) ? "table" : "TABLE";

function getCoords(el) {
  for( var parent = el.parentNode; parent && parent !== container; 
                                         parent = parent.parentNode) { 
    if( parent.tagName == TABLE ) {
      var pcs = getComputedStyle(parent, "");
    }
  }
}
})();

Scope

Function getCoords() can see TABLE, but nothing outside of that closure can see getCoords.

Function getCoords must then be exported by assigning it to a property of a globally accessible object (using the Module Pattern or Exporting Pattern).

Conclusion

Having a constant can help to speed up the loop by avoiding the property lookup and an extra function call to toLowerCase().

Having one constant value reduces the number of strings being created and garbage collected. Since an active garbage collector can also hurt performance, a constant value avoids this hit.

Finally, the result can be compressed using a compression tool, resulting in TABLE being converted in to a one letter symbol.

Technorati Tags: JavaScript Best Practices

The JavaScript Gurus at google have developed a neat feature for Googlecode. It verifies the form for you, to make sure you're data is OK. If their script thinks you've correctly filled out the form, the submit button gets enabled.

This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've seen in a long time...

See that Create Project button up there?

It's disabled, isn't it? Yes, it is. And if you're using Webkit, it will stay disabled.

User Experience and Usability

There is JavaScript code in Google's "create project" page that enables the button. Since it doesn't work in Webkit, the website is unusable.

Surprised?

It's nothing to be surprised about. The new GMail is just as buggy in Safari as the old one was; sometimes the message gets only half-sent (truncation). Google Groups does the same thing; sends half a message sometimes (embarrassingly horrible code there). Groups' "search this group" feature doesn't work in any browser if you have language pref (link). Groups also has the same problem with the button becoming disabled when it is clicked, which doesn't work so well on a wifi remote connection if you got disconnectet. It really is a piece of garbage.

A Reputation to Live up to

Arrogantly bolstered by aggressive financial growth, the Google Empire churns out one poorly engineered software project after another. Each project gaining massive recognition, as it bears the Google brand name. Like Microsoft, they're accepted as de facto in the industry; (1) Like Microsoft, they aggressively hire engineers, acquire competitors, et c. (2)

(1) Got an iPhone? I bet it came with Google's lame mobile search instead of the better Yahoo Mobile search.

(2) Google docs and spreadsheets, an acquisition, is developed and maintained by recent grads and contractors. No surprise that even after nearly 4 years it's still almost completely unusable.

Source Code

The inline <script> tag for Google Code contains the relevant button-enabling code. No type attribute on the script tag, missing var keyword for most of the variables (which are all top level). The obvious point is the accessibility issue: Users who don't have a browser Google supports are blocked.

<script>
 _exposeExistingLabelFields('edit');
 var submit = document.getElementById('submit');
 submit.disabled='disabled';
 var projectname = document.getElementById('projectname');
 var licensekey = document.getElementById('license_key');
 var summary = document.getElementById('summary');
 var description = document.getElementById('description');
 var cg = document.getElementById('cg');
 projectname.focus();
 var solelyDigits = /^[-0-9]+$/
 var hasUppercase = /[A-Z]/
 var projectRE = /^[a-z0-9][-a-z0-9]*$/
 function checkprojectname() {
 name = projectname.value;
 feedback = document.getElementById('projectnamefeedback');
 submit.disabled='disabled';
 feedback.style.color = 'red';
 if (name == '') {
 feedback.innerHTML = '';
 } else if (hasUppercase.test(name)) {
 feedback.innerHTML = 'Must be all lowercase';
 } else if (solelyDigits.test(name)) {
 feedback.innerHTML = 'Must include a lowercase letter';
 } else if (!projectRE.test(name)) {
 feedback.innerHTML = 'Invalid project name';
 } else if (name.length > 50) {
 feedback.innerHTML = 'Project name is too long';
 } else {
 feedback.innerHTML = '';
 feedback.style.color = '';
 
 checksubmit()
 }
 }
 function checksubmit() {
 submit.disabled='disabled';
 if (projectname.value.length > 0 &&
 licensekey.value.length > 1 && 
 summary.value.length > 3 && 
 description.value.length > 3 && 
 (cg == undefined || cg.value.length > 1)) {
 submit.disabled='';
 }
 }
 checkprojectname();
</script>

Looking at the Mess

Notice the: submit.disabled='disabled';, well that's pretty odd. I can guess what the author was trying to do. The browser might do a boolean conversion on the 'disabled', to get a value of true, but that is not guaranteed. I'm guessing there's code somewhere else that says submit.disabled = "" or submit.removeAttibute("disabled")

I love how they embed all the localized error messages in a series if else of checkprojectname function. A fine example of Google's standard of quality.

What I Think of Google's Code

Garbage. I wouldn't care so much if their god damned page worked.

Technorati Tags: Google

DHTML Kitchen was down.

My web host upgraded CPanel. They did not tell me, but they did. In so doing, the permissions on my database got changed, so my blog software could not access my MySQL database. The blog software threw an error, which crashed Tomcat. Tomcat could not be restarted, because when the app loaded, the blog software would try to read from the database, which would cause another crash, bringing Tomcat right down again.

Glad it's back up and running now.

An Event Notification System is an object that manages notification of events to multiple callbacks. The Event Notification System uses an Event Registry to store the callbacks as bound methods. When the event fires, the callbacks are invoked.

Event Registry

An Event Registry is a store of bound methods. An Event Registry is used by an Event Notification System. The Event Notification System is tightly coupled with the Event Registry. Sometimes it is referred to as the Registry. In reality, the Registry is just a data structure and the Event Notification System is a behavioral object.

Almost Every JavaScript library has an Event Registry, or at least some way of dealing with event notification.

For example:

// YUI:
YAHOO.util.Event.addListener( link, "click", linkClickHandler, thisArg );

// Prototype: (not a registry, but the old 'addEvent' function renamed).
Event.observe( link, "click", linkClickHandler ); 

// Dojo:
dojo.connect( link, "onclick", window, "linkClickHandler" );

They're all different in how they work.

The Event Registry is useful for a few reasons.

• It allows multiple callbacks to be assigned to a function call.
• Provides a usable alternative to attachEvent. Internet Explorer 7 and below has attachEvent/detachEvent. The callback function for attachEvent executes in global context (this is window), not the object it was attached to.

A good Event Registry solves these problems. A good Event Registry also allows for context resolution with an optional thisArg. A good Event Registry also allows custom events to be registered using the same interface.

A poorly designed Event Registry concerns itself with things related to native events (DOMContentLoaded, keyPress, et c). A poorly designed Event Registry does not pass an event object to the callback (perhaps trying to use eval to pass varargs).

Error Handling in an Event Notification System

Callback Errors Should not Break the Registry

A good Event Registry does not allow any callback to break the registry.

One common problem in most Event Notification Systems (such as Dojo, Mochikit, YUI, and jQuery) is that they allow the callback to break the System. If a callback fails, it prevents subsequent callbacks from firing. A callback should not be given the ability to break the Registry.

Here's how to break a Registry that doesn't consider errors:

var passed = false;
addCallback( link, "click", function(){ setTimeout(checkTitle, 500); } );
addCallback( link, "click", function(){ throw Error('bad'); } );
addCallback( link, "click", function(){ passed = true; } );

function checkTitle(){ 
    if(!passed) 
        alert("registry broken: second callback did not fire.");
    else 
        alert('passed');
}

Callbacks sometimes throw Errors. It is important for the Event Registry to consider this and take the responsibility to handle these errors properly. If an error occurs in a callback, it should not break the Registry.

It should be guaranteed that all callbacks fire, even when earlier callbacks throw errors. This is a natural expectation; it's exactly how DOM Events work:

DOM Events Test

(function(){
var s = document.getElementById('r-test');

var el = document.getElementById("registry-dom-event-button");
if(!window.hasDocumentListeners) {
    el.addEventListener( "click", setUpCheck, false );
    el.addEventListener("click", throwError, false );
    // setTitle must fire.
    el.addEventListener( "click", setTitle, false ); 

    window.hasDocumentListeners = true;
}
function setUpCheck(){ setTimeout(checkTitle, 500); }
function throwError(){ document.title = ""; throw Error('bad'); }
function setTitle(){ document.title += 'ok'; }
function checkTitle(ev) {
    if(document.title != "ok") {
        alert("DOM Events broken: setTitle did not fire. " + document.title );
    }
    else {
        alert("passed");
    }
}
})();

Result and Analysis

There should be 1 error and an alert passed. This indicates that after the error happened, the setTitle callback successfully fired.

This example assumes:

• Callbacks fire in the order in which they were registered.
• The bad error in the first callback does not stop subsequent callbacks from firing.
• The button supports the EventTarget interface (not in IE7).
• The button supports onfocus (not in safari bug 16331).

Proper Callback Error-Handling

Throwing the error in a separate thread allows the callstack to continue without breaking. Any errors that are thrown are thrown in the correct order in the callstack. The Event Publisher's fire function would have something like this:

try {
// If an error occurs, continue the event fire,
// but still throw the error.
  callback.call( thisArg, ev );
}
catch( ex ) {
  setTimeout("throw ex;", 1); 
}

The one subtle issue is that setTimeout uses global scope, like the Function constructor, not like eval, which runs in the calling context's scope.

A closure must be used to preserve the ex variable.

try {
// If an error occurs, continue the event fire,
// but still throw the error.
  callback.call( thisArg, ev );
}
catch( ex ) {
  setTimeout(function(){ throw ex; }, 1); 
}

Event Registry Test

The remaining problem with the above code is that the error condition is untestable. Writing a test suite forced me to realize this and I changed the design.

try {
if(csi[0].call(csi[1], e) == false)
  preventDefault = true; // continue main callstack and return false afterwards.
}
catch(ex) {
  APE.deferError(ex);
}

Where APE.deferError is defined:

deferError : function(error) {		
  setTimeout(function deferError(){throw error;},1);
}

I have included the source code for my own Event Registry, along with this test, which shows how I managed to test APE.deferError.

Performance?

Wrapping each callback call in a try catch might seem to be bad for performance. I tried it with mousemove event on my drag code, dragging multiple drag objects at a time (example), and it seemed fast enough; I did not notice performance problems in any browser. There is most likely some performance overhead using this approach, but I did not find a need to write a benchmark.

Packaging and API Design

The Event Notification System is a low level component with no external dependencies.

Being a low level component, the Event Notification System should be maximally stable (no efferent couplings), and maximally abstract. In this case, the Event Notification system is maximally abstract because it can't be subclassed or used independently.

Stable Dependencies Principle

Depend in the direction of stability

Stable Abstractions Principle

A package should be as abstract as it is stable.

Reuse Equivalence Principle

The Granule of Reuse is the Granule of Release.

The Event Notification System is a low level component with no external dependencies. It is intentionally packaged as a single, tested unit. It amplifies the essential (event notification) and eliminates the irrelevant.

Creating special cases for handling DOM events (keyCode, et c), would reduce abstraction. These special cases are perfectly valid, but do not belong in the Registry. Special case needs can either be hard-coded into end-implementation code (using feature/capability detection) or, if the special-case logic is complex, programmed into an object that performs a task (such as an Adapter object).

An example of an Adapter object would be a Content Load Adapter or a KeyEvent Adapter (key events are highly inconsistent across platforms). Such objects would be slightly higher-level and, having at least one dependency, would be less stable (though this is not a bad thing).

Department Store JavaScript

[insert_popular_library_name_here] usually include more code than any one application could possibly use in an attempt to cover the needs of every application.

Libraries that add more functionality into one module than is usually needed, or create modules that are not cohesive do so in spite of commonly known software package design concepts. The one-stop library approach is appealing because it allows developers to "stop cobbling bits of javascript."

Performance (Again)

Load Time Performance problems can be acheived by creating custom javascript builds on the server. Hand-rolled "combination" files or utils files are fine for web sites with fewer pages. Sites that don't require 200k+ of additional javascript should not include such functionality.

Technorati Tags: JavaScript Best Practices Design Patterns APE

There have been many, many, articles and discussions that eschew browser detection, yet it continues.

Despite all of this information, browser detection can be seen in most of the popular JavaScript libraries including Prototype, YUI, Dojo, jQuery, and is present in applications such as the newly refactored GMail:

For a better Gmail experience, use a fully supported browser.

Browser detection is bad for many reasons:

1. Browsers change.
2. The User Agent string does not represent the browser reliably.
3. Even if it did, the browser doesn't represent feature support (See #1).

Browser detection is unrelated to the problem it is trying to solve.

Browser detection makes code hard to maintain. It accomplishes this by requiring that the next version of [insert_browser_name] will also have to be tested and special-cased in the code.

Alternative: Feature Detection

For example, does the browser support opacity? This can easily be determined:

if("opacity"in el.style) { }

Support of opacity has nothing to do with whether that browser actually is an IE version, nor is the reverse true: IE does not imply support (or lack of support) for opacity.

Detection for feature support does not suffer from maintenance problems when Internet Explorer decides to support opacity. Capability detection takes feature detection one step further.

Once the code has been properly designed and tested, it should not be a problem to maintain.

I have learned this the hard way and have tried to remove browser detection from my drag code, though evidence of my mistake is still present. I had to refactor my drag code in specific cases where it checked for browsers identifying with an Opera User Agent string (removed checks to ua.opera). My code still contains one conditional branch that needs to be refactored, As is, the script works in all of the modern browsers (this is subject to change).

With browser detection, the internal quality of the code suffers, even if the code works. This is because it introduces a dynamic aspect that must be maintained as the browsers change. Implementation Matters.

ToBoolean

Be careful when testing for values of properties. Some values may evaluate to false in a boolean context.

// Error-prone, scrollTop may be 0, which would evaluate to false
if (document.body.scrollTop) {
    // statements that work with scrollTop property
}

The new GMail

New code should definitely not rely on browser detection

GMail, which was recently redesigned, still uses browser detection and also punishes users with the performance hit of a misused HTTP redirect (HTTP/1.x 302 Moved Temporarily), or, if GMail finds your browser's User Agent header unsuitable, it two HTTP redirects.

In fact, when developing for mobile phones, I have found Chris Penderick's UserAgent switcher useful. Unfortunately, this confuses GMail, messing up the rendering and even encoding of messages.

GMail seems to be predominantly developed with a windows-centric mentality. This is evidenced by the lack of support for Command + S to save in Mac, and the Safari and Opera bugs witnessed in earlier versions of GMail.

Google Groups

Google Groups also relies on faulty browser detection to block certain features.

Google Groups Browser Error, in a Draggable, Floating DHTML Pane

This feature is not supported in your browser. Download a copy of Firefox or Internet Explorer to upload your picture.

I find it ironic that my browser can be assumed to support the draggable, floating pane, and not suitable for uploading a picture. The floating pane is draggable from anywhere inside it, so it is impossible for a user who gets the error to select the error message text.

Acknowledgements

Google deserves proper recognition for providing a clear example of why browser detection is a bad practice.

Contrasting Example

For proof that an effective Ajax application can be developed without browser detection, have a look at Google Reader.

Browser Detection is mostly a bad idea.

In the meantime, I'm looking for a decent mail application that runs in the browser. Both Yahoo mail and GMail fall short of my expectations.

Technorati Tags: Best Practices Browsers Google

In Opera 9.2 getComputedStyle(el, '').getPropertyValue returns the margin value for top/left values when the top/left values aren't set. In Safari the returned values are 'auto' in this case.

Example

testcase showing bug in Opera and Safari

Workaround

The way to avoid the problem is to explicitly add top and left values to the stylesheet:

#Test {
  top: 0;
  left: 0;
}

Then getComputedStyle will return correct values for top/left (0px) in Opera 9 and Safari.

pixelXXX

A convenient alternative would be a currentStyle.pixelLeft. Only Opera and IE support currentStyle and only Opera supports currentStyle.pixelLeft. (IE supports style.pixelLeft; this only reads from the style attribute)

Mozilla does not support pixelXXX properties at all, though Opera, IE, and Safari 3 all do.

Technorati Tags: Opera getComputedStyle Safari