This question has some comments with a low opinion of the very notion of reconstructing the objects. The commenters either couldn't or wouldn't explain why they thought it was a bad idea, but since asking I have come the to same conclusion. Here's why.
If you think about MVVM, the purpose of having a model and a view-model is to separate behaviour from data. This is kind of funny, because the point of object-orientation is to combine them. But in a distributed world, the data has to be shipped around. If your code and data are all munged together then you have to either invent MVVM or keep de- and re-constructing objects.
The code to de- and re-construct objects is a testing and maintenance time-sink you don't need, and introduces two failure modes. Don't do it. Have a method-less class to hold the state and a stateless class that operates on the method-less class. This is the essence of MVVM, and really nothing more than application of Memento pattern.
Memento (283) Without violating encapsulation, capture and externalize an object's internal state so that the object can be restored to this state later.
Design Patterns, Gamma et al, 1995
The data of my view models is passed back and forth between client JS and server Web APIs as JSON.
It is well understood that JSON.stringify(object) serialises only members that have a non-null value that is not a Function. Thus, JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(someObject)) will remove all the methods from the object.
My current implementation has each graph node implemented as a Typescript class with Serialise and Deserialise methods. JQuery.ajax calls a Web API and implicitly parses the resultant JSON into a DAG of object definitions, each of which has a Type property indicating which type of class it was prior to serialisation. I have a map of constructors indexed by name and the appropriate constructor is retrieved and the data passed as the constructor parameter.
Depending on type there may be children; if so things proceed recursively down the graph.
I have been wondering whether, rather than copy all the property values, I couldn't just assign an appropriate prototype. Bring the mountain to Mahomed, you might say. This would eliminate quite a bit of clutter in my codebase.
As I write it occurs to me that I could use $.extend, but I'm progressively weeding jQuery out of my codebase so this would be a retrograde step.
It has been observed in comments that assigning the prototype means the constructor is never called. This is irrelevant. The object state is already set up, all that is required is to make the methods available.
I recently built object with methods which content could be serialized and then reconstructed.
I simply added an argument which could take a JSON object and assign it to itself.
Example using plain object:
function myObject() {
this.valueA = 1;
this.valueB = 2;
this.valueC = 3;
this.add = function() {
return this.valueA + this.valueB + this.valueC;
};
}
var o = new myObject();
console.log(o.add());
console.log(JSON.stringify(o));If you serialized this you would get:
{"valueA":1,"valueB":2,"valueC":3}
Now, to reconstruct this you can add a Object.assign() to the object like this taking the argument and merge it with self:
function myObject(json) {
this.valueA = 0;
this.valueB = 0;
this.valueC = 0;
this.add = function() {
return this.value1 + this.value2 + this.value3;
};
Object.assign(this, json); // will merge argument with itself
}
If we now pass the parsed JSON object as argument it will merge itself with the object recreating what you had:
var json = JSON.parse('{"valueA":1,"valueB":2,"valueC":3}')
function myObject(json) {
this.valueA = 0;
this.valueB = 0;
this.valueC = 0;
this.add = function() {
return this.valueA + this.valueB + this.valueC;
};
Object.assign(this, json); // will merge argument with itself
}
var o = new myObject(json); // reconstruct using original data
console.log(o.add());If you now have children via array you simply repeat the process recursively down the chain.
(A bonus is that you can also pass options this way).