Non-Singleton Services in AngularJS - service

AngularJS clearly states in its documentation that Services are Singletons:
AngularJS services are singletons
Counterintuitively, module.factory also returns a Singleton instance.
Given that there are plenty of use-cases for non-singleton services, what is the best way to implement the factory method to return instances of a Service, so that each time an ExampleService dependency is declared, it is satisfied by a different instance of ExampleService?

I'm not entirely sure what use case you are trying to satisfy. But it is possible to have a factory return instances of an object. You should be able to modify this to suit your needs.
var ExampleApplication = angular.module('ExampleApplication', []);
ExampleApplication.factory('InstancedService', function(){
function Instance(name, type){
this.name = name;
this.type = type;
}
return {
Instance: Instance
}
});
ExampleApplication.controller('InstanceController', function($scope, InstancedService){
var instanceA = new InstancedService.Instance('A','string'),
instanceB = new InstancedService.Instance('B','object');
console.log(angular.equals(instanceA, instanceB));
});
JsFiddle
Updated
Consider the following request for non-singleton services. In which Brian Ford notes:
The idea that all services are singletons does not stop you from
writing singleton factories that can instantiate new objects.
and his example of returning instances from factories:
myApp.factory('myService', function () {
var MyThing = function () {};
MyThing.prototype.foo = function () {};
return {
getInstance: function () {
return new MyThing();
}
};
});
I would also argue his example is superior due to the fact that you do not have to use the new keyword in your controller. It is encapsulated within the getInstance method of the service.

I don't think we should ever have a factory return a newable function as this begins to break down dependency injection and the library will behave awkwardly, especially for third parties. In short, I am not sure there are any legitimate use cases for non-singleton sevices.
A better way to accomplish the same thing is to use the factory as an API to return a collection of objects with getter and setter methods attached to them. Here is some pseudo-code showing how using that kind of service might work:
.controller( 'MainCtrl', function ( $scope, widgetService ) {
$scope.onSearchFormSubmission = function () {
widgetService.findById( $scope.searchById ).then(function ( widget ) {
// this is a returned object, complete with all the getter/setters
$scope.widget = widget;
});
};
$scope.onWidgetSave = function () {
// this method persists the widget object
$scope.widget.$save();
};
});
This is just pseudo-code for looking up a widget by ID and then being able to save changes made to the record.
Here's some pseudo-code for the service:
.factory( 'widgetService', function ( $http ) {
function Widget( json ) {
angular.extend( this, json );
}
Widget.prototype = {
$save: function () {
// TODO: strip irrelevant fields
var scrubbedObject = //...
return $http.put( '/widgets/'+this.id, scrubbedObject );
}
};
function getWidgetById ( id ) {
return $http( '/widgets/'+id ).then(function ( json ) {
return new Widget( json );
});
}
// the public widget API
return {
// ...
findById: getWidgetById
// ...
};
});
Though not included in this example, these kinds of flexible services could also easily manage state.
I don't have time right now, but if it will be helpful I can put together a simple Plunker later to demonstrate.

Another way is to copy service object with angular.extend().
app.factory('Person', function(){
return {
greet: function() { return "Hello, I'm " + this.name; },
copy: function(name) { return angular.extend({name: name}, this); }
};
});
and then, for example, in your controller
app.controller('MainCtrl', function ($scope, Person) {
michael = Person.copy('Michael');
peter = Person.copy('Peter');
michael.greet(); // Hello I'm Michael
peter.greet(); // Hello I'm Peter
});
Here is a plunk.

I know this post has already been answered but I still think there would be some legitimate scenarios that you need to have non-singleton service. Let's say there are some reusable business logic which can be shared between several controllers. In this scenario the best place to put the logic would be a service, but what if we need to keep some state in our reusable logic? Then we need non-singleton service so can be shared across different controllers in app. This is how I would implement these services:
angular.module('app', [])
.factory('nonSingletonService', function(){
var instance = function (name, type){
this.name = name;
this.type = type;
return this;
}
return instance;
})
.controller('myController', ['$scope', 'nonSingletonService', function($scope, nonSingletonService){
var instanceA = new nonSingletonService('A','string');
var instanceB = new nonSingletonService('B','object');
console.log(angular.equals(instanceA, instanceB));
}]);

Here's my example of a non singleton service, It's from a ORM im working on. In the example I show a Base Model (ModelFactory) which I want services('users','documents') to inherit and potential extend.
In my ORM ModelFactory injects other services to provide extra functionality(query,persistence,schema mapping) which is sandboxed using the module system.
In the example both user and document service have the same functionality but have their own independent scopes.
/*
A class which which we want to have multiple instances of,
it has two attrs schema, and classname
*/
var ModelFactory;
ModelFactory = function($injector) {
this.schema = {};
this.className = "";
};
Model.prototype.klass = function() {
return {
className: this.className,
schema: this.schema
};
};
Model.prototype.register = function(className, schema) {
this.className = className;
this.schema = schema;
};
angular.module('model', []).factory('ModelFactory', [
'$injector', function($injector) {
return function() {
return $injector.instantiate(ModelFactory);
};
}
]);
/*
Creating multiple instances of ModelFactory
*/
angular.module('models', []).service('userService', [
'ModelFactory', function(modelFactory) {
var instance;
instance = new modelFactory();
instance.register("User", {
name: 'String',
username: 'String',
password: 'String',
email: 'String'
});
return instance;
}
]).service('documentService', [
'ModelFactory', function(modelFactory) {
var instance;
instance = new modelFactory();
instance.register("Document", {
name: 'String',
format: 'String',
fileSize: 'String'
});
return instance;
}
]);
/*
Example Usage
*/
angular.module('controllers', []).controller('exampleController', [
'$scope', 'userService', 'documentService', function($scope, userService, documentService) {
userService.klass();
/*
returns
{
className: "User"
schema: {
name : 'String'
username : 'String'
password: 'String'
email: 'String'
}
}
*/
return documentService.klass();
/*
returns
{
className: "User"
schema: {
name : 'String'
format : 'String'
formatileSize: 'String'
}
}
*/
}
]);

angular only gives a singleton service/factory option.
one way around it is to have a factory service that will build a new instance for you inside your controller or other consumer instances.
the only thing that is injected is the class that creates new instances.
this is a good place to inject other dependencies or to initialize your new object to the specification of the user (adding services or config)
namespace admin.factories {
'use strict';
export interface IModelFactory {
build($log: ng.ILogService, connection: string, collection: string, service: admin.services.ICollectionService): IModel;
}
class ModelFactory implements IModelFactory {
// any injection of services can happen here on the factory constructor...
// I didnt implement a constructor but you can have it contain a $log for example and save the injection from the build funtion.
build($log: ng.ILogService, connection: string, collection: string, service: admin.services.ICollectionService): IModel {
return new Model($log, connection, collection, service);
}
}
export interface IModel {
// query(connection: string, collection: string): ng.IPromise<any>;
}
class Model implements IModel {
constructor(
private $log: ng.ILogService,
private connection: string,
private collection: string,
service: admin.services.ICollectionService) {
};
}
angular.module('admin')
.service('admin.services.ModelFactory', ModelFactory);
}
then in your consumer instance you need the factory service and call the build method on the factory to get a new instance when you need it
class CollectionController {
public model: admin.factories.IModel;
static $inject = ['$log', '$routeParams', 'admin.services.Collection', 'admin.services.ModelFactory'];
constructor(
private $log: ng.ILogService,
$routeParams: ICollectionParams,
private service: admin.services.ICollectionService,
factory: admin.factories.IModelFactory) {
this.connection = $routeParams.connection;
this.collection = $routeParams.collection;
this.model = factory.build(this.$log, this.connection, this.collection, this.service);
}
}
you can see it provides opperatiunity to inject some specific services that are not available in the factory step.
you can always have injection happen on the factory instance to be used by all Model instances.
Note I had to strip off some code so I might made some context errors...
if you need a code sample that works let me know.
I believe that NG2 will have the option to inject a new instance of your service in the right place in your DOM so you dont need to build your own factory implementation. will have to wait and see :)

I believe there is good reason to create a new instance of an object within a service. We should keep an open mind as well rather than just say we ought never do such a thing, but the singleton was made that way for a reason. Controllers are created and destroyed often within the lifecycle of the app, but the services must be persistent.
I can think of a use case where you have a work flow of some kind, like accepting a payment and you have multiple properties set, but must now change their payment type because the customer's credit card failed and they need to provide a different form of payment. Of course, this does have a lot to do with the way you create your app. You could reset all properties for the payment object, or you could create a new instance of an object within the service. But, you would not want a new instance of the service, nor would you want to refresh the page.
I believe a solution is providing an object within the service that you can create a new instance of and set. But, just to be clear, the single instance of the service is important because a controller may be created and destroyed many times, but the services need persistence. What you are looking for may not be a direct method within Angular, but an object pattern that you can manage inside your service.
As an example, I have a made a reset button. (This is not tested, its really just a quick idea of a use case for creating a new object within a service.
app.controller("PaymentController", ['$scope','PaymentService',function($scope, PaymentService) {
$scope.utility = {
reset: PaymentService.payment.reset()
};
}]);
app.factory("PaymentService", ['$http', function ($http) {
var paymentURL = "https://www.paymentserviceprovider.com/servicename/token/"
function PaymentObject(){
// this.user = new User();
/** Credit Card*/
// this.paymentMethod = "";
//...
}
var payment = {
options: ["Cash", "Check", "Existing Credit Card", "New Credit Card"],
paymentMethod: new PaymentObject(),
getService: function(success, fail){
var request = $http({
method: "get",
url: paymentURL
}
);
return ( request.then(success, fail) );
}
//...
}
return {
payment: {
reset: function(){
payment.paymentMethod = new PaymentObject();
},
request: function(success, fail){
return payment.getService(success, fail)
}
}
}
}]);

Here's another approach to the problem that I was quite satisfied with, specifically when used in combination with Closure Compiler with advanced optimizations enabled:
var MyFactory = function(arg1, arg2) {
this.arg1 = arg1;
this.arg2 = arg2;
};
MyFactory.prototype.foo = function() {
console.log(this.arg1, this.arg2);
// You have static access to other injected services/factories.
console.log(MyFactory.OtherService1.foo());
console.log(MyFactory.OtherService2.foo());
};
MyFactory.factory = function(OtherService1, OtherService2) {
MyFactory.OtherService1_ = OtherService1;
MyFactory.OtherService2_ = OtherService2;
return MyFactory;
};
MyFactory.create = function(arg1, arg2) {
return new MyFactory(arg1, arg2);
};
// Using MyFactory.
MyCtrl = function(MyFactory) {
var instance = MyFactory.create('bar1', 'bar2');
instance.foo();
// Outputs "bar1", "bar2" to console, plus whatever static services do.
};
angular.module('app', [])
.factory('MyFactory', MyFactory)
.controller('MyCtrl', MyCtrl);

Related

How to Register custom handelbars helper in assemble 0.17.1

In my assemblefile.js I try to register a custom helper. The helper itself does work since i have it in use in a grunt project with assemble.
assemble: {
options: {
helpers: ['./src/helper/custom-helper.js' ]
}
}
In assemble 0.17.1 I tried it like this but it doesn´t work. Does anyone know how to do this?
app.helpers('./src/helper/custom-helper.js');
custom-helper.js:
module.exports.register = function (Handlebars, options, params) {
Handlebars.registerHelper('section', function(name, options) {
if (!this.sections) {
this.sections = {};
}
this.sections[name] = options.fn(this);
return null;;
});
};
assemble is built on top of the templates module now, so you can use the .helper and .helpers methods for registering helpers with assemble, which will register them with Handlebars. This link has more information on registering the helpers.
Since the templates api is used, you don't have to wrap the helpers with the .register method in your example. You can just export the helper function, then name it when registering with assemble like this:
// custom-helper.js
module.exports = function(name, options) {
if (!this.sections) {
this.sections = {};
}
this.sections[name] = options.fn(this);
return null;
};
// register with assemble
var app = assemble();
app.helper('section', require('./custom-helper.js'));
You may also export an object with helpers and register them all at once using the .helpers method:
// my-helpers.js
module.exports = {
foo: function(str) { return 'FOO: ' + str; },
bar: function(str) { return 'BAR: ' + str; },
baz: function(str) { return 'BAZ: ' + str; }
};
// register with assemble
var app = assemble();
app.helpers(require('./my-helpers.js'));
When registering the object with the .helpers method, the property keys are used for the helper names

How to use node-simple-schema reactively?

Given that there is not much examples about this, I am following the docs as best as I can, but the validation is not reactive.
I declare a schema :
import { Tracker } from 'meteor/tracker';
import SimpleSchema from 'simpl-schema';
export const modelSchema = new SimpleSchema({
foo: {
type: String,
custom() {
setTimeout(() => {
this.addValidationErrors([{ name: 'foo', type: 'notUnique' }]);
}, 100); // simulate async
return false;
}
}
}, {
tracker: Tracker
});
then I use this schema in my component :
export default class InventoryItemForm extends TrackerReact(Component) {
constructor(props) {
super(props);
this.validation = modelSchema.newContext();
this.state = {
isValid: this.validation.isValid()
};
}
...
render() {
...
const errors = this.validation._validationErrors;
return (
...
)
}
}
So, whenever I try to validate foo, the asynchronous' custom function is called, and the proper addValidationErrors function is called, but the component is never re-rendered when this.validation.isValid() is supposed to be false.
What am I missing?
There are actually two errors in your code. Firstly this.addValidationErrors cannot be used asynchronously inside custom validation, as it does not refer to the correct validation context. Secondly, TrackerReact only registers reactive data sources (such as .isValid) inside the render function, so it's not sufficient to only access _validationErrors in it. Thus to get it working you need to use a named validation context, and call isValid in the render function (or some other function called by it) like this:
in the validation
custom() {
setTimeout(() => {
modelSchema.namedContext().addValidationErrors([
{ name: 'foo', type: 'notUnique' }
]);
}, 100);
}
the component
export default class InventoryItemForm extends TrackerReact(Component) {
constructor(props) {
super(props);
this.validation = modelSchema.namedContext();
}
render() {
let errors = [];
if (!this.validation.isValid()) {
errors = this.validation._validationErrors;
}
return (
...
)
}
}
See more about asynchronous validation here.

Exporting classes with a constructor vs. no constructor

Using Angular2 with typescript. Ran into this question about constructors and classes I couldn't find an answer to.
So I was trying to figure out the difference between these two pieces of code. Not sure if one is better to use in practice. Thanks
export class ONE {
id: number;
name: string;
}
and
export class TWO {
constructor(
public id: number,
public name: string,
) { }
}
None. Well apart from the parameter initialization of course.
You can easily check that by looking at the generated code.
var ONE = (function () {
function ONE() {
}
return ONE;
}());
var TWO = (function () {
function TWO(id, name) {
this.id = id;
this.name = name;
}
return TWO;
}());
You can easily check that in the TypeScript playground.

Debugging Ember-cli-mirage when routes are not being called

I have successfully created one route in ember-cli-mirage, but am having trouble loading the related data.
The API should be returning JSON API compliant data.
I'm not really sure if there are any good methods or not for debugging mirage's request interception. Here is my config.js
export default function() {
this.urlPrefix = 'https://myserver/';
this.namespace = 'api/v1';
this.get('/machines', function(db, request) {
return {
data: db.machines.map(attrs => (
{
type: 'machines',
id: attrs.id,
attributes: attrs
}
))
};
});
this.get('/machines/:id', function(db, request){
let id = request.params.id;
debugger;
return {
data: {
type: 'machines',
id: id,
attributes: db.machines.find(id),
relationships:{
"service-orders": db["service-orders"].where({machineId: id})
}
}
};
});
this.get('/machines/:machine_id/service-orders', function(db, request){
debugger; // this never gets caught
});
}
Most of this is working fine (I think). I can create machines and service orders in the factory and see the db object being updated. However, where my application would normally make a call to the api for service-orders: //myserver/machines/:machine_id/service-orders, the request is not caught and nothing goes out to the API
EDIT:
This is the route that my Ember app is using for /machines/:machine_id/service-orders:
export default Ember.Route.extend(MachineFunctionalRouteMixin, {
model: function() {
var machine = this.modelFor('machines.show');
var serviceOrders = machine.get('serviceOrders');
return serviceOrders;
},
setupController: function(controller, model) {
this._super(controller, model);
}
});
And the model for machines/show:
export default Ember.Route.extend({
model: function(params) {
var machine = this.store.find('machine', params.machine_id);
return machine;
},
setupController: function(controller, model) {
this._super(controller, model);
var machinesController = this.controllerFor('machines');
machinesController.set('attrs.currentMachine', model);
}
});
Intuitively, I would think that machine.get('serviceOrders'); would make a call to the API that would be intercepted and handled by Mirage. Which does not seem to be the case

Mootools Class - Calling a function within a function

I'm learning Mootools classes at the moment and there's something that I can't seem to get my head around or find a decent example.
Basically, I need to be able to call a function within a different function of the same class; example below:
var Bob = new Class({
initialize: function () {
this.message = 'Hello';
},
someOther: function() {
this.message2 = 'Bob';
},
getMessage: function() {
return this.someOther();
},
});
window.addEvent('domready', function() {
var map = new Bob;
alert(map.getMessage());
});
From this code, I would have thought that the alert would produce 'Bob' which has been set in the function 'someOther' but it's outputting a undefined message.
Can anyone help or point out where I'm going wrong?
Thanks in advance,
er not quite.
someOther has no return value in itself, it's a setter. you invoke it and it will set this.message2 into the class but it returns nothing. methods should return this (the instance, so making it chainable) or a value, when a getter.
anyway, you can make it set the property and return it like so:
var Bob = new Class({
initialize: function() {
this.message = 'Hello';
},
someOther: function() {
return this.message2 = 'Bob'; //bad
},
getMessage: function() {
return this.someOther(); // why
},
});
window.addEvent('domready', function() {
var map = new Bob;
alert(map.getMessage());
alert(map.message2); // bob
});
though, semantically, you want to have 1 getter. .getMessage should just return this.message - you can write a different method that calls someOther and returns it.
have a look at this pattern for a getter/setter in a class context I wrote the other day:
http://fragged.org/using-overloadsetter-overloadgetter-to-make-flexible-functions-in-mootools_1451.html
etc etc. for more help, look at the keetology blogs or davidwalsh.name - or the mootorial - plenty of examples of class use and structure.
most key ones are listed here: https://stackoverflow.com/tags/mootools/info