Javascript recursive parent -> child -> parent -> child references, do I need to use an alternative? -

-

it's encountered on journey learning javascript , making application simultaneously.

var = function (parent) {     this.parent = parent; },     b = new object();  b.a = new a(b);

this simple piece of code produces rather interesting.

console.log(b.a.parent.a.parent.a);

http://i.imgur.com/g6fw6mz.png cause problems? because planning on using similar in application.

the reason use because need reference variable belonging parent.

it's same problem here. however, can't use closure here, since don't have outermost function!

a stripped down version of code follows:

var scratchpad = function (canvas) {     var ctx = canvas.getcontext('2d');     ctx.childmustaccessthis = 3;      ctx.brush = new brush(ctx);     return ctx; },     brush = function (parent) {         this.parent = parent;          // other vars     };  brush.prototype.getcontext = function () {     return this.parent.childmustaccesthis; }

i need making multiple of these scratchpads (modified context objects) respective brushes.

i'm not sure make out of this, seems harmless got feeling it's bad practice.

i've tried other things, such closure described in linked post. of course, didn't work since scratchpad function not return instead returns modified ctx object, closure variables garbage collected (right? they're gone @ least).

the rest of tries relied on wrong understandings of how javascript objects behave, aren't worth mentioning.

so, should this? keep right now? or have suggestions better way of handling this?

that's called circular reference.

modern garbage collectors (as opposed netscape 2.0) handle fine.

note older versions of ie cannot handle circular references between dom objects , pure js objects.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

c# - How Configure Devart dotConnect for SQLite Code First? -

-
can configure following sample code ? when run following code, error : no entity framework provider found ado.net provider invariant name 'devart.data.sqlite' setting in machine.config <system.data> <dbproviderfactories> <add name="dotconnect sqlite" invariant="devart.data.sqlite" description="devart dotconnect sqlite" type="devart.data.sqlite.sqliteproviderfactory, devart.data.sqlite, version=4.6.287.0, culture=neutral, publickeytoken=09af7300eec23701" /> </dbproviderfactories> </system.data> after add below block code in app.config <?xml version="1.0"?> <configuration>   <configsections> <!-- more information on entity framework configuration, visit http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=237468 --> <section name="entityframework" type="system.data.entity.internal.configfile.entityframeworksection, entit...
Read more

java - Copying object fields -

-
what best way of copying classes when need have 2 independent variables? have simple class: public class myclass { boolean = false; string b= "not empty"; } do need make method : assign(myclass data ) { a= data.a; b= data.b; } is there automatic method copy (duplicate) objects in java? do need make method : pretty close. instead of making method, should make constructor. such constructors called copy constructor , , create them this: myclass(myclass data) { = data.a; b = data.b; } and create copy of instance, use constructor this: myclass obj1 = new myclass(); myclass obj2 = new myclass(obj1); copy constructor can tedious : using copy constructor create deep-copy can tedious, when class has mutable fields. in case, assignment create copy of reference, , not object itself. have create copy of fields (if want deep copy). can go recursive. a better way create deep copy serialize , deserialize object. why not use clone()? ...
Read more

c++ - Clear the memory after returning a vector in a function -

-
i have function processes , stores lot of data in , returns results vector of class. amount of data stored in function tremendous , want clear storage memory of function after finished job. necessary (does function automatically clear memory) or should clear memory function? update: vector<customers> process(char* const *filename, vector<int> id) { vector<customers> list_of_customers; (perform actions) return list_of_customers; } variables defined locally within function automatically released @ end of function scope. destructors objects called, should free memory allocated objects (if objects coded correctly). example of such object std::vector . anything you've allocated new must have corresponding delete release storage. try avoid doing own allocation , use raii instead, i.e. containers or smart pointers.
Read more