In Functional Mixins, we discussed mixing functionality into JavaScript classes. The act of mixing functionality in changes the class. This approach maps well to idioms from other languages, such as Ruby’s modules. It also helps us decompose classes into smaller entities with focused responsibilities that can be shared between classes as necessary.

That being said, mutation has its drawbacks as well. People say, “it’s hard to reason about code that mutates data,” and when it comes to modifying classes, they are right.

Classes are often global to an entire program. Experience has shown that changing a class in one place can break the functionality of an entirely different part of the program that expects the class to remain unmodified.

Of course, if the modifications are only made as part of building the class in the first place, these concerns really do not apply. But what if we wish to modify a class that was made somewhere else? What if we wish to make modifications in just one place?

extension

Let’s revisit our ridiculously trivial Todo class:

class Todo { constructor ( name ) { this . name = name || ' Untitled ' ; this . done = false ; } do () { this . done = true ; return this ; } undo () { this . done = false ; return this ; } }

Now let us presume that this class is used throughout our application for various purposes. In one section of the code, we want Todo items that are also coloured. As we saw previously, we can accomplish that with a simple mixin like this:

const Coloured = { setColourRGB ({ r , g , b }) { this . colourCode = { r , g , b }; return this ; }, getColourRGB () { return this . colourCode ; } }; Object . assign ( Todo . prototype , Coloured );

While this works just fine for all of the Todos we create in this part of the program, we may accidentally break Todo instances used elsewhere. What we really want is a ColoredTodo in one part of the program, and Todo everywhere else.

The extends keyword solves that problem in the trivial case:

class ColouredTodo extends Todo { setColourRGB ({ r , g , b }) { this . colourCode = { r , g , b }; return this ; } getColourRGB () { return this . colourCode ; } }

A ColouredTodo is just like a Todo , but with added colour.

sharing is caring

One oft-repeated drawback of using extension is that it is difficult to share the “colour” functionality with other classes. Extension forms a strict tree. Another drawback is that the functionality can only be tested in concert with Todo , whereas it is trivial to independently test a well-crafted mixin.

Our problem is that with extension, our colour functionality is coupled to the Todo class. With a mixin, it isn’t. But with a mixin, our Todo class ended up coupled to Coloured . With extension, it wasn’t.

What we want is to decouple Todo from Coloured with extension, and to decouple Coloured from ColouredTodo with a mixin:

class ColouredTodo extends Todo {} const Coloured = { setColourRGB ({ r , g , b }) { this . colourCode = { r , g , b }; return this ; }, getColourRGB () { return this . colourCode ; } }; Object . assign ( ColouredTodo . prototype , Coloured );

We can write a simple function to encapsulate this pattern:

function ComposeWithClass ( clazz , ... mixins ) { const subclazz = class extends clazz {}; for ( let mixin of mixins ) { Object . assign ( subclazz . prototype , mixin ); } return subclazz ; } const ColouredTodo = ComposeWithClass ( Todo , Coloured );

The ComposeWithClass function returns a new class without modifying its arguments. In other words, it’s composing behaviour with a class, not mixing behaviour into a class.

enhance

We can enhance ComposeWithClass to address some of the issues we noticed with mutating mixins, such as making methods non-enumerable:

const shared = Symbol ( " shared " ); function ComposeWithClass ( clazz , ... mixins ) { const subclazz = class extends clazz {}; for ( let mixin of mixins ) { const instanceKeys = Reflect . ownKeys ( mixin ) . filter ( key => key !== shared && key !== Symbol . hasInstance ); const sharedBehaviour = mixin [ shared ] || {}; const sharedKeys = Reflect . ownKeys ( sharedBehaviour ); for ( let property of instanceKeys ) Object . defineProperty ( subclazz . prototype , property , { value : mixin [ property ] }); for ( let property of sharedKeys ) Object . defineProperty ( subclazz , property , { value : sharedBehaviour [ property ], enumerable : sharedBehaviour . propertyIsEnumerable ( property ) }); } return subclazz ; } ComposeWithClass . shared = shared ;

Written like this, it’s up to individual behaviours to sort out instanceof :

const isaColoured = Symbol (); const Coloured = { setColourRGB ({ r , g , b }) { this . colourCode = { r , g , b }; return this ; }, getColourRGB () { return this . colourCode ; }, [ isaColoured ]: true , [ Symbol . hasInstance ] ( instance ) { return instance [ isaColoured ]; } };

And that’s something we can encapsulate, if we wish:

function HasInstances ( behaviour ) { const typeTag = Symbol (); return Object . assign ({}, behaviour , { [ typeTag ]: true , [ Symbol . hasInstance ] ( instance ) { return instance [ typeTag ]; } }) }

the complete composition

class Todo { constructor ( name ) { this . name = name || ' Untitled ' ; this . done = false ; } do () { this . done = true ; return this ; } undo () { this . done = false ; return this ; } } const Coloured = HasInstances ({ setColourRGB ({ r , g , b }) { this . colourCode = { r , g , b }; return this ; }, getColourRGB () { return this . colourCode ; } }); const ColouredTodo = ComposeWithClass ( Todo , Coloured );

summary

A “purely functional” approach to composing functionality is appropriate when we wish to compose behaviour with classes, but do not wish to mutate a class that is used elsewhere. One approach is to extend the class into a subclass, and mix behaviour into the newly created subclass.

(discuss on hacker news)

more reading:

notes: