Supertypes that extend constructors may now be extended by traits without
completely blowing up. Good feature.
* lib/Trait.js (__tconstruct): Add function.
(createVirtProxy): Use it.
* test/Trait/ClassExtendTest.js: Add test.
We can call this a bugfix...it's more of a neglected feature that's
otherwise completely inconsistent with the rest of the system. :)
* lib/Trait.js (createNamedTrait): Support base.
(_createStaging) [extend]: Support base.
* test/Trait/NamedTest.js: Add test.
See test cases for more information. This was a pretty unfortunate and
nasty bug that I discovered while working on a project that uses easejs; it
wasn't something that was found previously because this support was only
added relatively recently, and this problem does not exist if an interface
is used.
* lib/Trait.js (bindSuperCtx): Add function.
(tctor): Use it.
* test/Trait/ScopeTest.js: Add calling context tests.
It's fun when you're about to make a release and find that ES3 fallback
tests are failing. That's also what happens when you decide not to run
the combined tests until the last minute, because they usually don't fail.
Traits can now override methods of their class supertypes. Previously, in
order to override a method of some class `C` by mixing in some trait `T`,
both had to implement a common interface. This had two notable downsides:
1. A trait that was only compatible with details of `C` could only work
with `C#M` if it implemented an interface `I` that declared `I#M`.
This required the author of `C` to create interfaces where they would
otherwise not be necessary.
2. As a corollary of #1---since methods of interfaces must be public, it
was not possible for `T` to override any protected method of `C`; this
meant that `C` would have to declare such methods public, which may
break encapsulation or expose unnecessary concerns to the outside
world.
Until documentation is available---hopefully in the near future---the test
cases provide detailed documentation of the behavior. Stackable traits work
as you would expect:
```javascript
var C = Class(
{
'virtual foo': function()
{
return 'C';
},
} );
var T1 = Trait.extend( C,
{
'virtual abstract override foo': function()
{
return 'T1' + this.__super();
},
} );
var T2 = Trait.extend( C,
{
'virtual abstract override foo': function()
{
return 'T2' + this.__super();
},
} );
C.use( T1 )
.use( T1 )
.use( T2 )
.use( T2 )
.foo();
// result: "T2T2T1T1C"
```
If the `override` keyword is used without `abstract`, then the super method
is statically bound to the supertype, rather than being resolved at runtime:
```javascript
var C = Class(
{
'virtual foo': function()
{
return 'C';
},
} );
var T1 = Trait.extend( C,
{
'virtual abstract override foo': function()
{
return 'T1' + this.__super();
},
} );
var T2 = Trait.extend( C,
{
// static override
'virtual override foo': function()
{
return 'T2' + this.__super();
},
} );
C.use( T1 )
.use( T1 )
.use( T2 )
.use( T2 )
.foo();
// result: "T2C"
```
This latter form should be discouraged in most circumstances (as it prevents
stackable traits), but the behavior is consistent with the rest of the
system.
Happy hacking.
This is a bugfix; the bug was introduced in v0.2.3.
Notably, this caused problems in IE<=8 for non-argument traits. The problem
is that `fund.apply( x, undefined )` is not valid in ES3---we must apply an
empty array (or argument list) instead.
See test cases for rationale.
I'm not satisfied with this implementation, but the current state of ease.js
makes this kind of thing awkward. Will revisit at some point.
This is an important feature to permit trait reuse without excessive
subtyping---composition over inheritance. For example, consider that you
have a `HttpPlainAuth` trait that adds authentication support to some
transport layer. Without parameterized traits, you have two options:
1. Expose setters for credentials
2. Trait closure
3. Extend the trait (not yet supported)
The first option seems like a simple solution:
```javascript
Transport.use( HttpPlainAuth )()
.setUser( 'username', 'password' )
.send( ... );
```
But we are now in the unfortunate situation that our initialization
procedure has changed. This, for one, means that authentication logic must
be added to anything that instantiates classes that mix in `HttpPlainAuth`.
We'll explore that in more detail momentarily.
More concerning with this first method is that, not only have we prohibited
immutability, but we have also made our code reliant on *invocation order*;
`setUser` must be called before `send`. What if we have other traits mixed
in that have similar conventions? Normally, this is the type of problem that
would be solved with a builder, but would we want every configurable trait
to return a new `Transport` instance? All that on top of littering the
API---what a mess!
The second option is to store configuration data outside of the Trait acting
as a closure:
```javascript
var _user, _pass;
function setCredentials( user, pass ) { _user = user; _pass = pass; }
Trait( 'HttpPlainAuth', { /* use _user and _pass */ } )
```
There are a number of problems with this; the most apparent is that, in this
case, the variables `_user` and `_pass` act in place of static fields---all
instances will share that data, and if the data is modified, it will affect
all instances; you are therefore relying on external state, and mutability
is forced upon you. You are also left with an awkward `setCredentials` call
that is disjoint from `HttpPlainAuth`.
The other notable issue arises if you did want to support instance-specific
credentials. You would have to use ease.js' internal identifiers (which is
undocumented and subject to change in future versions), and would likely
accumulate garbage data as mixin instances are deallocated, since ECMAScript
does not have destructor support.
To recover from memory leaks, you could instead create a trait generator:
```javascript
function createHttpPlainAuth( user, pass )
{
return Trait( { /* ... */ } );
}
```
This uses the same closure concept, but generates new traits at runtime.
This has various implications depending on your engine, and may thwart
future ease.js optimization attempts.
The third (which will be supported in the near future) is prohibitive: we'll
add many unnecessary traits that are a nightmare to develop and maintain.
Parameterized traits are similar in spirit to option three, but without
creating new traits each call: traits now support being passed configuration
data at the time of mixin that will be passed to every new instance:
```javascript
Transport.use( HttpPlainAuth( user, pass ) )()
.send( ... );
```
Notice now how the authentication configuration is isolated to the actual
mixin, *prior to* instantiation; the caller performing instantiation need
not be aware of this mixin, and so the construction logic can remain wholly
generic for all `Transport` types.
It further allows for a convenient means of providing useful, reusable
exports:
```javascript
module.exports = {
ServerFooAuth: HttpPlainAuth( userfoo, passfoo ),
ServerBarAuth: HttpPlainAuth( userbar, passbar ),
ServerFooTransport: Transport.use( module.exports.ServerFooAuth ),
// ...
};
var module = require( 'foo' );
// dynamic auth
Transport.use( foo.ServerFooAuth )().send( ... );
// or predefined classes
module.ServerFooTransport().send( ... );
```
Note that, in all of the above cases, the initialization logic is
unchanged---the caller does not need to be aware of any authentication
mechanism, nor should the caller care of its existence.
So how do you create parameterized traits? You need only define a `__mixin`
method:
Trait( 'HttpPlainAuth', { __mixin: function( user, pass ) { ... } } );
The method `__mixin` will be invoked upon instantiation of the class into
which a particular configuration of `HttpPlainAuth` is mixed into; it was
named differently from `__construct` to make clear that (a) traits cannot be
instantiated and (b) the constructor cannot be overridden by traits.
A configured parameterized trait is said to be an *argument trait*; each
argument trait's configuration is discrete, as was demonstrated by
`ServerFooAuth` and `ServerBarAuth` above. Once a parameterized trait is
configured, its arguments are stored within the argument trait and those
arguments are passed, by reference, to `__mixin`. Since any mixed in trait
can have its own `__mixin` method, this permits traits to have their own
initialization logic without the need for awkward overrides or explicit
method calls.
Temporary method removed and symbol now provided directly to the trait ctor;
this is needed to retrieve the protected visibility object; there is
currently no API for doing so, and there may never be (providing an API for
such a thing seems questionable).
Of course, if we eventually want to decouple the trait implementation from
ClassBuilder (which would be a good idea), we'll have to figure out
something.
Note that this patch temporarily breaks encapsulation via
ClassBuilder.___$$privsym$$ to expose necessary internal details to Trait;
this will be resolved.
During its initial development, no environments (e.g. Node.js, Chromium,
Firefox) supported strict mode; this has since changed, and node has a
--use-strict option, which is used in the test runner to ensure conformance.
This fixes a bug that causesd virtual definitions with parameters on classes
that a trait is mixed into to fail, and prevented proper param length
validations in the reverse case.
See test case description for a less confusing description.
This allows separation of concerns and makes the type system extensible. If
the type does not implement the necessary API, it falls back to using
instanceof.
I feel like I originally did this because older versions of node didn't like
relative paths (unless maybe the cwd wasn't in NODE_PATH). Regardless, it works
now, and this is cleaner.
Further, I noticed that __dirname didn't seem to be working properly with
browserify. While GNU ease.js does not make use of it (ease.js uses its own
scripts), other projects may.
These will be supported in future versions; this is not something that I
want to rush, nor is it something I want to hold up the first GNU release;
it is likely to be a much lesser-used feature.
The concept of stacked traits already existed in previous commits, but until
now, mixins could not be stacked without some ugly errors. This also allows
mixins to be stacked atop of themselves, duplicating their effect. This
would naturally have limited use, but it's there.
This differs slightly from Scala. For example, consider this ease.js mixin:
C.use( T ).use( T )()
This is perfectly valid---it has the effect of stacking T twice. In reality,
ease.js is doing this:
- C' = C.use( T );
- new C'.use( T );
That is, it each call to `use' creates another class with T mixed in.
Scala, on the other hand, complains in this situation:
new C with T with T
will produce an error stating that "trait T is inherited twice". You can
work around this, however, by doing this:
class Ca extends T
new Ca with T
In fact, this is precisely what ease.js is doing, as mentioned above; the
"use.use" syntax is merely shorthand for this:
new C.use( T ).extend( {} ).use( T )
Just keep that in mind.
More information on this implementation and the rationale behind it will
appear in the manual. See future commits.
(Note the TODOs; return values aren't quite right here, but that will be
handled in the next commit.)
This just saves some time and memory in the event that the trait is never
actually used, which may be the case in libraries or dynamically loaded
modules.
As described in <https://savannah.gnu.org/task/index.php#comment3>.
The benefit of this approach over definition object merging is primarily
simplicitly---we're re-using much of the existing system. We may provide
more tight integration eventually for performance reasons (this is a
proof-of-concept), but this is an interesting start.
This also allows us to study and reason about traits by building off of
existing knowledge of composition; the documentation will make mention of
this to explain design considerations and issues of tight coupling
introduced by mixing in of traits.
Note the incomplete tests. These are very important, but the current state
at least demonstrates conceptually how this will work (and is even useful in
its current state, albeit dangerous and far from ready for production).
This is a rough concept showing how traits will be used at definition time
by classes (note that this does not yet address how they will be ``mixed
in'' at the time of instantiation).
Mike Gerwitz
Mike Gerwitz