Events…

gistfile1.js

// This gist is based on eve (https://github.com/adobe-webplatform/eve), but really any event based API will do
// Idea is to recreate backbone-like model, but on events only

// Model here is a hash-map, but it shouldn’t be. You could implement any structure this way.

function model(id) {
    var modelid = ["model", id],
        name = function () {
            return modelid.concat.apply(modelid, arguments);
        };
    (function init() {
        var model = {};
        eve.on(name("set"), function (key, value) {
            var old = {};
            if (typeof key != "object") {
                var attr = {};
                attr[key] = value;
                key = attr;
            }
            for (var k in key) {
                old[k] = model[k];
                model[k] = key[k];
                eve(name("change", k), null, k, key[k], old[k]);
            }
            eve(name("update"), null, key, old);
        });
        eve.on(name("unset"), function (key) {
            var old = model[key];
            delete model[key];
            eve(name("deleted"), null, key);
            eve(name("update"));
        });
        eve.on(name("json"), function () {
            this(JSON.stringify(model));
        });
        eve.on(name("get"), function (key) {
            this(model[key]);
        });
        eve.on(name("has"), function (key) {
            this(key in model);
        });
        eve.on(name("death"), function () {
            eve.off(modelid);
        });
    }());
    // the following part is optional.
    // If id is known we could communicate with the model via events only
    return {
        id: function () {
            return id;
        },
        "set": function (key, value) {
            eve(name("set"), null, key, value);
        },
        "get": function (key) {
            var res;
            eve(name("get", key), function (value) {
                res = value;
            }, key);
            return res;
        },
        has: function (key) {
            var res;
            eve(name("has"), function (value) {
                res = value;
            }, key);
            return res;
        },
        unset: function (key) {
            eve(name("unset"), null, key);
        },
        toJSON: function () {
            var res;
            eve(name("json"), function (value) {
                res = value;
            });
            return res;
        },
        die: function () {
            eve(name("death"));
        },
        // as I mentioned, I don’t like these methods, but for the sake of it…
        listenTo: function (other, event, callback) {
            var id = other.id(),
                eventName = ["model", id].concat(event);
            eve.on(eventName, callback);
            eve.once(name("stopListening", id), function () {
                eve.off(eventName, callback);
            });
        },
        stopListening: function (other) {
            eve(["stopListening", other ? other.id() : "*"]);
        }
    };
}

eve.on("*", function () {
    console.debug(eve.nt());
});

var m1 = model(1),
    m2 = model(2);
m1.set({a: 1, b: 2});
m1.die();
m2.set({a: m1.get("a"), b: m1.get("b")});
m2.unset("b");
console.log(m1.toJSON());
console.log(m2.toJSON());

I am big proponent of global event space

so why are you attaching everything to a single eve object ? isn't that exactly the same as having all global events ?

return (function api() { this closure is pointless, not sure why is there, the returned object is fine as it is.

About the rest, first time I see this(invoked) which is IMO unexpected inside a listener … either is the object where the listener has been attached or the object used as listener through handleEvent so all this makes almost no sense to me after a quick read: it isn't DOM, it isn't node like EventEmitter … "what the hack is this and what is this trying to solve" would be my first counter question

1. This is what proponent means, I guess.
2. You’re right, this is leftover. I’ll remove it.
3. I just passed function as a context, could be a parameter, not a point. (I think this(invoked) is cute ;))
4. I am trying to show off my thoughts on purely event based API on example of recreating backbone model. Was trying to make it small. I think it simpler this way, but may be it’s just simpler for my corrupted mind. I reckon that decoupling is good, but may be I’ve gone too far?

Looks great but it may be hard for someone new to follow.

But it is freaking awesome

I disagree with making every instance method call cancellable by any code running in the page. In team development, this encourages spaghetti code where someone junior will cancel your events from unrelated code to achieve their goal. And so every method call you make on the model must be done with the understanding that it might be cancelled. This means you can't have any certainty that a few method calls in serial will do what you expect. has() after set() might return false. Your code becomes non-deterministic (when you look at just the local code).

@hitsthings: Isn’t it the same as being afraid that somebody will overwrite Model.prototype.has?

@DmitryBaranovskiy what do you want to do this? I don't get it, why do you need to recreate Backbone.Model api using events?

The main prop is possibility to communicate with the model using events only (if id is known)?

My original question was, “What do you think of API like this?”. Like 100% event based. To show the API I created purely hypothetical example. “Why?” is irrelevant. What pros and cons do you see?