1
0
Fork 0
Commit Graph

29 Commits (b4fe08292f56773f28b8c6984d6a4cffc2586e96)

Author SHA1 Message Date
Mike Gerwitz e67c14e8c3
Added support for static proxy methods
When the static keyword is provided, the proxy will use the static accessor
method to look up the requested member.
2012-05-03 14:13:47 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz d84b86b21b
Added `proxy' keyword support
The concept of proxy methods will become an important, core concept in ease.js
that will provide strong benefits for creating decorators and proxies, removing
boilerplate code and providing useful metadata to the system. Consider the
following example:

  Class( 'Foo',
  {
      // ...

      'public performOperation': function( bar )
      {
          this._doSomethingWith( bar );
          return this;
      },
  } );

  Class( 'FooDecorator',
  {
      'private _foo': null,

      // ...

      'public performOperation': function( bar )
      {
          return this._foo.performOperation( bar );
      },
  } );

In the above example, `FooDecorator` is a decorator for `Foo`. Assume that the
`getValueOf()` method is undecorated and simply needs to be proxied to its
component --- an instance of `Foo`. (It is not uncommon that a decorator, proxy,
or related class will alter certain functionality while leaving much of it
unchanged.) In order to do so, we can use this generic, boilerplate code

  return this.obj.func.apply( this.obj, arguments );

which would need to be repeated again and again for *each method that needs to
be proxied*. We also have another problem --- `Foo.getValueOf()` returns
*itself*, which `FooDecorator` *also* returns.  This breaks encapsulation, so we
instead need to return ourself:

  'public performOperation': function( bar )
  {
      this._foo.performOperation( bar );
      return this;
  },

Our boilerplate code then becomes:

  var ret = this.obj.func.apply( this.obj, arguments );
  return ( ret === this.obj )
      ? this
      : ret;

Alternatively, we could use the `proxy' keyword:

  Class( 'FooDecorator2',
  {
      'private _foo': null,

      // ...

      'public proxy performOperation': '_foo',
  } );

`FooDecorator2.getValueOf()` and `FooDecorator.getValueOf()` both perform the
exact same task --- proxy the entire call to another object and return its
result, unless the result is the component, in which case the decorator itself
is returned.

Proxies, as of this commit, accomplish the following:
  - All arguments are forwarded to the destination
  - The return value is forwarded to the caller
    - If the destination returns a reference to itself, it will be replaced with
      a reference to the caller's context (`this`).
  - If the call is expected to fail, either because the destination is not an
    object or because the requested method is not a function, a useful error
    will be immediately thrown (rather than the potentially cryptic one that
    would otherwise result, requiring analysis of the stack trace).

N.B. As of this commit, static proxies do not yet function properly.
2012-05-03 09:49:22 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz cdbcada4d2 Copyright year update 2011-12-23 00:09:11 -05:00
Mike Gerwitz d1b1d2691a Fixed initial warnings provided by Closure Compiler
Getting ready for release means that we need to rest assured that everything is
operating as it should. Tests do an excellent job at aiding in this, but they
cannot cover everything. For example, a simple missing comma in a variable
declaration list could have terrible, global consequences.
2011-12-10 11:18:41 -05:00
Mike Gerwitz e0254f6441 Removed invalid @package tags
Not a valid tag in jsdoc
2011-12-06 20:19:31 -05:00
Mike Gerwitz 94419742c0 Resolved IE8 test failures
- Additional checks for its buggy defineProperty(), etc implementation
2011-11-18 08:57:37 -05:00
Mike Gerwitz 1fa92d44a1 [#25] Added Getter/Setter validator call tests for MemberBuilder 2011-11-05 09:40:58 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz cb6c4af763 [#25] Refactored common MemberBuilder validator call assertion logic into a common module 2011-11-05 08:52:19 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz e809c10dfe [#25] Added MemberBuilder/PropTest for validator call 2011-11-04 23:08:41 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz fda002d252 [#25] Added tests to ensure proper data is passed to validateMethod() 2011-11-03 23:20:45 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz 4e2af2333d [#25] Now injecting MemberBuilderValidator into MemberBuilder 2011-11-02 23:28:23 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz de78a472f0 [#25] MemberBuilder/MethodTest - removed unnecessary test 2011-11-02 19:12:15 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz 3c676de55d [#25] Combined buildGetter() and buildSetter()
This helped to get rid of some unnecessary duplicate code and should also help
to improve performance slightly for getter/setter definitions.
2011-10-29 08:25:51 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz ad0343fb9b [#25] Moved getter/setter validation logic into MemberBuilderValidator
- Tests have not yet been moved
2011-10-28 00:08:22 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz 05df0b485c [#25] Moved single access modifier getter/setter test to VisibilityTest 2011-10-27 20:46:30 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz f19a62e733 [#25] Moved public default getter/setter test to new location 2011-10-27 20:43:56 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz 5959956a27 [#25] this => _self replacements in MemberBuilder/VisibilityTest 2011-10-27 19:52:43 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz 11020a9d2a [#25] Minor typo fix in MemberBuilder/VisibilityTest 2011-10-27 19:51:28 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz 1ba160e51c [#25] Added getter/setter vis test to MemberBuilder/VisibilityTest 2011-10-27 19:50:13 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz ce7853965e [#25] Combined separate property and method vis test 2011-10-27 19:28:36 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz 6d1cc06c27 [#25] Finished refactoring MemberBuilder/MethodTest and removed inc-member_builder-common (no longer needed)
Finally feels like things are starting to come together.

It's rather interesting looking back. Each time I begin writing a piece of
software, I think to myself, "This is the best way to do it." Well, generally.
Perhaps the implementation could have been better, but I may not have had the
time. However, the general concept remains.

Each time I look back months later and find that I disagree with certain
decisions. I find certain implementations to be messy or poorly constructed. Or
perhaps I was just being lazy to begin with. Whatever the case, it is
comforting. It shows that one is continuing to learn and evolve.

Now, in the case of ease.js, we're working with a number of different factors in
regards to my perception of prior code quality. Primarily, I'm looking at a
basic implementation (in this case, I'm referring to test cases) that served as
a foundation that could be later evolved. I didn't have the time to devote to a
stronger solution. However, since the project has evolved so far past my
original expectations, a more sophisticated solution is needed in order to
simplify the overall design. That is what happened here.

Of course, we're also looking at a year's worth of additional, intimate
experience with a language.

Regardless of the reason, I love to see software evolve. Especially my own. It's
as if I'm watching my child grow. From that, I can get a great deal of
satisfaction.

One shouldn't expect perfection. But one should certainly aim for it.
2011-10-26 23:39:03 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz 88cff48599 [#25] Moved remaining tests in test-member_builder into MemberBuilder/VisibilityTest 2011-10-26 22:12:28 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz e90699c805 [#25] Added test to MemberBuilder/Visibility test to ensure members will be declared public by default (if no access modifier is given) 2011-10-25 23:47:06 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz f4b8eb3589 [#25] Added test in MemberBuilder/VisibilityTest to ensure multiple access modifiers are not used 2011-10-25 23:30:57 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz 9b629b8b61 [#25] Removed tests from MemberBuilder/MethodTest that have been refactored into MemberBuilderValidator/MethodTest 2011-10-23 00:06:22 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz aeff796332 [#25] [#25] Added member builder tests for private and protected members 2011-10-21 16:04:24 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz f7700f93e5 [#25] Refactored MemberBuilder/VisibilityTest basic tests into reusable functions for upcoming tests in other access levels 2011-10-21 12:10:49 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz bb9eb16fd3 [#25] Began adding MemberBuilder/VisibilityTest to test MemberBuilder directly
As mentioned in a prior commit blog-like entry, many of the tests evolved into more of an integration or system-level type of test. Let's get away from that.
2011-10-21 12:09:00 -04:00
Mike Gerwitz c1207eb3d5 Moved MemberBuilder-MethodTest into MemberBuilder subdir
- Altered combine script to support subdirs (note that the dir names aren't included in the combined file)
2011-10-20 23:40:30 -04:00