To make a JavaScript class with a public method I'd do something like:
function Restaurant() {}
Restaurant.prototype.buy_food = function(){
// something here
}
Restaurant.prototype.use_restroom = function(){
// something here
}
That way users of my class can:
var restaurant = new Restaurant();
restaurant.buy_food();
restaurant.use_restroom();
How do I create a private method that can be called by the buy_food and use_restroom methods but not externally by users of the class?
In other words, I want my method implementation to be able to do:
Restaurant.prototype.use_restroom = function() {
this.private_stuff();
}
But this shouldn't work:
var r = new Restaurant();
r.private_stuff();
How do I define private_stuff as a private method so both of these hold true?
I've read Doug Crockford's writeup a few times but it doesn't seem like "private" methods can be called by public methods and "privileged" methods can be called externally.
This question is related to
javascript
oop
private-methods
What about this?
var Restaurant = (function() {
var _id = 0;
var privateVars = [];
function Restaurant(name) {
this.id = ++_id;
this.name = name;
privateVars[this.id] = {
cooked: []
};
}
Restaurant.prototype.cook = function (food) {
privateVars[this.id].cooked.push(food);
}
return Restaurant;
})();
Private variable lookup is impossible outside of the scope of the immediate function. There is no duplication of functions, saving memory.
The downside is that the lookup of private variables is clunky privateVars[this.id].cooked is ridiculous to type. There is also an extra "id" variable.
You can do this now with es10 private methods. You just need to add a # before the method name.
class ClassWithPrivateMethod {
#privateMethod() {
return 'hello world';
}
getPrivateMessage() {
return #privateMethod();
}
}
In general I added the private Object _ temporarily to the object. You have to open the privacy exlipcitly in the "Power-constructor" for the method. If you call the method from the prototype, you will be able to overwrite the prototype-method
Make a public method accessible in the "Power-constructor": (ctx is the object context)
ctx.test = GD.Fabric.open('test', GD.Test.prototype, ctx, _); // is a private object
Now I have this openPrivacy:
GD.Fabric.openPrivacy = function(func, clss, ctx, _) {
return function() {
ctx._ = _;
var res = clss[func].apply(ctx, arguments);
ctx._ = null;
return res;
};
};
Take any of the solutions that follow Crockford's private or priviledged pattern. For example:
function Foo(x) {
var y = 5;
var bar = function() {
return y * x;
};
this.public = function(z) {
return bar() + x * z;
};
}
In any case where the attacker has no "execute" right on the JS context he has no way of accessing any "public" or "private" fields or methods. In case the attacker does have that access he can execute this one-liner:
eval("Foo = " + Foo.toString().replace(
/{/, "{ this.eval = function(code) { return eval(code); }; "
));
Note that the above code is generic to all constructor-type-privacy. It will fail with some of the solutions here but it should be clear that pretty much all of the closure based solutions can be broken like this with different replace() parameters.
After this is executed any object created with new Foo() is going to have an eval method which can be called to return or change values or methods defined in the constructor's closure, e.g.:
f = new Foo(99);
f.eval("x");
f.eval("y");
f.eval("x = 8");
The only problem I can see with this that it won't work for cases where there is only one instance and it's created on load. But then there is no reason to actually define a prototype and in that case the attacker can simply recreate the object instead of the constructor as long as he has a way of passing the same parameters (e.g. they are constant or calculated from available values).
In my opinion, this pretty much makes Crockford's solution useless. Since the "privacy" is easily broken the downsides of his solution (reduced readability & maintainability, decreased performance, increased memory) makes the "no privacy" prototype based method the better choice.
I do usually use leading underscores to mark __private and _protected methods and fields (Perl style), but the idea of having privacy in JavaScript just shows how it's a misunderstood language.
Therefore I disagree with Crockford except for his first sentence.
So how do you get real privacy in JS? Put everything that is required to be private on the server side and use JS to do AJAX calls.
Class({
Namespace:ABC,
Name:"ClassL2",
Bases:[ABC.ClassTop],
Private:{
m_var:2
},
Protected:{
proval:2,
fight:Property(function(){
this.m_var--;
console.log("ClassL2::fight (m_var)" +this.m_var);
},[Property.Type.Virtual])
},
Public:{
Fight:function(){
console.log("ClassL2::Fight (m_var)"+this.m_var);
this.fight();
}
}
});
An ugly solution but it works:
function Class(cb) {
const self = {};
const constructor = (fn) => {
func = fn;
};
const addPrivate = (fnName, obj) => {
self[fnName] = obj;
}
const addPublic = (fnName, obj) => {
this[fnName] = obj;
self[fnName] = obj;
func.prototype[fnName] = obj;
}
cb(constructor, addPrivate, addPublic, self);
return func;
}
const test = new Class((constructor, private, public, self) => {
constructor(function (test) {
console.log(test)
});
public('test', 'yay');
private('qwe', 'nay');
private('no', () => {
return 'hello'
})
public('asd', () => {
return 'this is public'
})
public('hello', () => {
return self.qwe + self.no() + self.asd()
})
})
const asd = new test('qweqwe');
console.log(asd.hello());You have to put a closure around your actual constructor-function, where you can define your private methods. To change data of the instances through these private methods, you have to give them "this" with them, either as an function argument or by calling this function with .apply(this) :
var Restaurant = (function(){
var private_buy_food = function(that){
that.data.soldFood = true;
}
var private_take_a_shit = function(){
this.data.isdirty = true;
}
// New Closure
function restaurant()
{
this.data = {
isdirty : false,
soldFood: false,
};
}
restaurant.prototype.buy_food = function()
{
private_buy_food(this);
}
restaurant.prototype.use_restroom = function()
{
private_take_a_shit.call(this);
}
return restaurant;
})()
// TEST:
var McDonalds = new Restaurant();
McDonalds.buy_food();
McDonalds.use_restroom();
console.log(McDonalds);
console.log(McDonalds.__proto__);
I have created a new tool to allow you to have true private methods on the prototype https://github.com/TremayneChrist/ProtectJS
Example:
var MyObject = (function () {
// Create the object
function MyObject() {}
// Add methods to the prototype
MyObject.prototype = {
// This is our public method
public: function () {
console.log('PUBLIC method has been called');
},
// This is our private method, using (_)
_private: function () {
console.log('PRIVATE method has been called');
}
}
return protect(MyObject);
})();
// Create an instance of the object
var mo = new MyObject();
// Call its methods
mo.public(); // Pass
mo._private(); // Fail
Here is the class which I created to understand what Douglas Crockford's has suggested in his site Private Members in JavaScript
function Employee(id, name) { //Constructor
//Public member variables
this.id = id;
this.name = name;
//Private member variables
var fName;
var lName;
var that = this;
//By convention, we create a private variable 'that'. This is used to
//make the object available to the private methods.
//Private function
function setFName(pfname) {
fName = pfname;
alert('setFName called');
}
//Privileged function
this.setLName = function (plName, pfname) {
lName = plName; //Has access to private variables
setFName(pfname); //Has access to private function
alert('setLName called ' + this.id); //Has access to member variables
}
//Another privileged member has access to both member variables and private variables
//Note access of this.dataOfBirth created by public member setDateOfBirth
this.toString = function () {
return 'toString called ' + this.id + ' ' + this.name + ' ' + fName + ' ' + lName + ' ' + this.dataOfBirth;
}
}
//Public function has access to member variable and can create on too but does not have access to private variable
Employee.prototype.setDateOfBirth = function (dob) {
alert('setDateOfBirth called ' + this.id);
this.dataOfBirth = dob; //Creates new public member note this is accessed by toString
//alert(fName); //Does not have access to private member
}
$(document).ready()
{
var employee = new Employee(5, 'Shyam'); //Create a new object and initialize it with constructor
employee.setLName('Bhaskar', 'Ram'); //Call privileged function
employee.setDateOfBirth('1/1/2000'); //Call public function
employee.id = 9; //Set up member value
//employee.setFName('Ram'); //can not call Private Privileged method
alert(employee.toString()); //See the changed object
}
I know it's a bit too late but how about this?
var obj = function(){
var pr = "private";
var prt = Object.getPrototypeOf(this);
if(!prt.hasOwnProperty("showPrivate")){
prt.showPrivate = function(){
console.log(pr);
}
}
}
var i = new obj();
i.showPrivate();
console.log(i.hasOwnProperty("pr"));
I conjured up this: EDIT: Actually, someone has linked to a identical solution. Duh!
var Car = function() {
}
Car.prototype = (function() {
var hotWire = function() {
// Private code *with* access to public properties through 'this'
alert( this.drive() ); // Alerts 'Vroom!'
}
return {
steal: function() {
hotWire.call( this ); // Call a private method
},
drive: function() {
return 'Vroom!';
}
};
})();
var getAwayVechile = new Car();
hotWire(); // Not allowed
getAwayVechile.hotWire(); // Not allowed
getAwayVechile.steal(); // Alerts 'Vroom!'
Private method names start with a hash # prefix and can be accessed only inside the class where it is defined.
class Restaurant {
// private method
#private_stuff() {
console.log("private stuff");
}
// public method
buy_food() {
this.#private_stuff();
}
};
const restaurant = new Restaurant();
restaurant.buy_food(); // "private stuff";
restaurant.private_stuff(); // Uncaught TypeError: restaurant.private_stuff is not a function
This is an experimental proposal. ECMAScript 2021 version is expected to be released in June 2021.
var TestClass = function( ) {
var privateProperty = 42;
function privateMethod( ) {
alert( "privateMethod, " + privateProperty );
}
this.public = {
constructor: TestClass,
publicProperty: 88,
publicMethod: function( ) {
alert( "publicMethod" );
privateMethod( );
}
};
};
TestClass.prototype = new TestClass( ).public;
var myTestClass = new TestClass( );
alert( myTestClass.publicProperty );
myTestClass.publicMethod( );
alert( myTestClass.privateMethod || "no privateMethod" );
Similar to georgebrock but a little less verbose (IMHO) Any problems with doing it this way? (I haven't seen it anywhere)
edit: I realised this is kinda useless since every independent instantiation has its own copy of the public methods, thus undermining the use of the prototype.
Here's what i enjoyed the most so far regarding private/public methods/members and instantiation in javascript:
here is the article: http://www.sefol.com/?p=1090
and here is the example:
var Person = (function () {
//Immediately returns an anonymous function which builds our modules
return function (name, location) {
alert("createPerson called with " + name);
var localPrivateVar = name;
var localPublicVar = "A public variable";
var localPublicFunction = function () {
alert("PUBLIC Func called, private var is :" + localPrivateVar)
};
var localPrivateFunction = function () {
alert("PRIVATE Func called ")
};
var setName = function (name) {
localPrivateVar = name;
}
return {
publicVar: localPublicVar,
location: location,
publicFunction: localPublicFunction,
setName: setName
}
}
})();
//Request a Person instance - should print "createPerson called with ben"
var x = Person("ben", "germany");
//Request a Person instance - should print "createPerson called with candide"
var y = Person("candide", "belgium");
//Prints "ben"
x.publicFunction();
//Prints "candide"
y.publicFunction();
//Now call a public function which sets the value of a private variable in the x instance
x.setName("Ben 2");
//Shouldn't have changed this : prints "candide"
y.publicFunction();
//Should have changed this : prints "Ben 2"
x.publicFunction();
Personally, I prefer the following pattern for creating classes in JavaScript :
var myClass = (function() {
// Private class properties go here
var blueprint = function() {
// Private instance properties go here
...
};
blueprint.prototype = {
// Public class properties go here
...
};
return {
// Public class properties go here
create : function() { return new blueprint(); }
...
};
})();
As you can see, it allows you to define both class properties and instance properties, each of which can be public and private.
var Restaurant = function() {
var totalfoodcount = 0; // Private class property
var totalrestroomcount = 0; // Private class property
var Restaurant = function(name){
var foodcount = 0; // Private instance property
var restroomcount = 0; // Private instance property
this.name = name
this.incrementFoodCount = function() {
foodcount++;
totalfoodcount++;
this.printStatus();
};
this.incrementRestroomCount = function() {
restroomcount++;
totalrestroomcount++;
this.printStatus();
};
this.getRestroomCount = function() {
return restroomcount;
},
this.getFoodCount = function() {
return foodcount;
}
};
Restaurant.prototype = {
name : '',
buy_food : function(){
this.incrementFoodCount();
},
use_restroom : function(){
this.incrementRestroomCount();
},
getTotalRestroomCount : function() {
return totalrestroomcount;
},
getTotalFoodCount : function() {
return totalfoodcount;
},
printStatus : function() {
document.body.innerHTML
+= '<h3>Buying food at '+this.name+'</h3>'
+ '<ul>'
+ '<li>Restroom count at ' + this.name + ' : '+ this.getRestroomCount() + '</li>'
+ '<li>Food count at ' + this.name + ' : ' + this.getFoodCount() + '</li>'
+ '<li>Total restroom count : '+ this.getTotalRestroomCount() + '</li>'
+ '<li>Total food count : '+ this.getTotalFoodCount() + '</li>'
+ '</ul>';
}
};
return { // Singleton public properties
create : function(name) {
return new Restaurant(name);
},
printStatus : function() {
document.body.innerHTML
+= '<hr />'
+ '<h3>Overview</h3>'
+ '<ul>'
+ '<li>Total restroom count : '+ Restaurant.prototype.getTotalRestroomCount() + '</li>'
+ '<li>Total food count : '+ Restaurant.prototype.getTotalFoodCount() + '</li>'
+ '</ul>'
+ '<hr />';
}
};
}();
var Wendys = Restaurant.create("Wendy's");
var McDonalds = Restaurant.create("McDonald's");
var KFC = Restaurant.create("KFC");
var BurgerKing = Restaurant.create("Burger King");
Restaurant.printStatus();
Wendys.buy_food();
Wendys.use_restroom();
KFC.use_restroom();
KFC.use_restroom();
Wendys.use_restroom();
McDonalds.buy_food();
BurgerKing.buy_food();
Restaurant.printStatus();
BurgerKing.buy_food();
Wendys.use_restroom();
McDonalds.buy_food();
KFC.buy_food();
Wendys.buy_food();
BurgerKing.buy_food();
McDonalds.buy_food();
Restaurant.printStatus();See also this Fiddle.
There are many answers on this question already, but nothing fitted my needs. So i came up with my own solution, I hope it is usefull for someone:
function calledPrivate(){
var stack = new Error().stack.toString().split("\n");
function getClass(line){
var i = line.indexOf(" ");
var i2 = line.indexOf(".");
return line.substring(i,i2);
}
return getClass(stack[2])==getClass(stack[3]);
}
class Obj{
privateMethode(){
if(calledPrivate()){
console.log("your code goes here");
}
}
publicMethode(){
this.privateMethode();
}
}
var obj = new Obj();
obj.publicMethode(); //logs "your code goes here"
obj.privateMethode(); //does nothing
As you can see this system works when using this type of classes in javascript. As far as I figured out none of the methods commented above did.
This is what I worked out:
Needs one class of sugar code that you can find here. Also supports protected, inheritance, virtual, static stuff...
;( function class_Restaurant( namespace )
{
'use strict';
if( namespace[ "Restaurant" ] ) return // protect against double inclusions
namespace.Restaurant = Restaurant
var Static = TidBits.OoJs.setupClass( namespace, "Restaurant" )
// constructor
//
function Restaurant()
{
this.toilets = 3
this.Private( private_stuff )
return this.Public( buy_food, use_restroom )
}
function private_stuff(){ console.log( "There are", this.toilets, "toilets available") }
function buy_food (){ return "food" }
function use_restroom (){ this.private_stuff() }
})( window )
var chinese = new Restaurant
console.log( chinese.buy_food() ); // output: food
console.log( chinese.use_restroom() ); // output: There are 3 toilets available
console.log( chinese.toilets ); // output: undefined
console.log( chinese.private_stuff() ); // output: undefined
// and throws: TypeError: Object #<Restaurant> has no method 'private_stuff'
The apotheosis of the Module Pattern: The Revealing Module Pattern
A neat little extension to a very robust pattern.
Old question but this is a rather simple task that can be solved properly with core JS... without the Class abstraction of ES6. In fact as far as i can tell, the Class abstraction do not even solve this problem.
We can do this job both with the good old constructor function or even better with Object.create(). Lets go with the constructor first. This will essentially be a similar solution to georgebrock's answer which is criticised because all restaurants created by the Restaurant constructor will have the same private methods. I will try to overcome that limitation.
function restaurantFactory(name,menu){
function Restaurant(name){
this.name = name;
}
function prototypeFactory(menu){
// This is a private function
function calculateBill(item){
return menu[item] || 0;
}
// This is the prototype to be
return { constructor: Restaurant
, askBill : function(...items){
var cost = items.reduce((total,item) => total + calculateBill(item) ,0)
return "Thank you for dining at " + this.name + ". Total is: " + cost + "\n"
}
, callWaiter : function(){
return "I have just called the waiter at " + this.name + "\n";
}
}
}
Restaurant.prototype = prototypeFactory(menu);
return new Restaurant(name,menu);
}
var menu = { water: 1
, coke : 2
, beer : 3
, beef : 15
, rice : 2
},
name = "Silver Scooop",
rest = restaurantFactory(name,menu);
console.log(rest.callWaiter());
console.log(rest.askBill("beer", "beef"));Now obviously we can not access menu from outside but we may easily rename the name property of a restaurant.
This can also be done with Object.create() in which case we skip the constructor function and simply do like var rest = Object.create(prototypeFactory(menu)) and add the name property to the rest object afterwards like rest.name = name.
If you want the full range of public and private functions with the ability for public functions to access private functions, layout code for an object like this:
function MyObject(arg1, arg2, ...) {
//constructor code using constructor arguments...
//create/access public variables as
// this.var1 = foo;
//private variables
var v1;
var v2;
//private functions
function privateOne() {
}
function privateTwon() {
}
//public functions
MyObject.prototype.publicOne = function () {
};
MyObject.prototype.publicTwo = function () {
};
}
JavaScript uses prototypes and does't have classes (or methods for that matter) like Object Oriented languages. A JavaScript developer need to think in JavaScript.
Wikipedia quote:
Unlike many object-oriented languages, there is no distinction between a function definition and a method definition. Rather, the distinction occurs during function calling; when a function is called as a method of an object, the function's local this keyword is bound to that object for that invocation.
Solution using a self invoking function and the call function to call the private "method" :
var MyObject = (function () {
// Constructor
function MyObject(foo) {
this._foo = foo;
}
function privateFun(prefix) {
return prefix + this._foo;
}
MyObject.prototype.publicFun = function () {
return privateFun.call(this, ">>");
}
return MyObject;
}());
var myObject = new MyObject("bar");
myObject.publicFun(); // Returns ">>bar"
myObject.privateFun(">>"); // ReferenceError: private is not defined
The call function allows us to call the private function with the appropriate context (this).
If you are using Node.js, you don't need the IIFE because you can take advantage of the module loading system:
function MyObject(foo) {
this._foo = foo;
}
function privateFun(prefix) {
return prefix + this._foo;
}
MyObject.prototype.publicFun = function () {
return privateFun.call(this, ">>");
}
module.exports= MyObject;
Load the file:
var MyObject = require("./MyObject");
var myObject = new MyObject("bar");
myObject.publicFun(); // Returns ">>bar"
myObject.privateFun(">>"); // ReferenceError: private is not defined
TC39 private methods and getter/setters for JavaScript classes proposal is stage 3. That means any time soon, JavaScript will implement private methods natively!
Note that JavaScript private class fields already exists in modern JavaScript versions.
Here is an example of how it is used:
class MyObject {
// Private field
#foo;
constructor(foo) {
this.#foo = foo;
}
#privateFun(prefix) {
return prefix + this.#foo;
}
publicFun() {
return this.#privateFun(">>");
}
}
You may need a JavaScript transpiler/compiler to run this code on old JavaScript engines.
PS: If you wonder why the # prefix, read this.
Warning: The bind operator TC39 proposition is near dead https://github.com/tc39/proposal-bind-operator/issues/53#issuecomment-374271822
The bind operator :: is an ECMAScript proposal and is implemented in Babel (stage 0).
export default class MyObject {
constructor (foo) {
this._foo = foo;
}
publicFun () {
return this::privateFun(">>");
}
}
function privateFun (prefix) {
return prefix + this._foo;
}
I think such questions come up again and again because of the lack of understanding of the closures. ?losures is most important thing in JS. Every JS programmer have to feel the essence of it.
1. First of all we need to make separate scope (closure).
function () {
}
2. In this area, we can do whatever we want. And no one will know about it.
function () {
var name,
secretSkills = {
pizza: function () { return new Pizza() },
sushi: function () { return new Sushi() }
}
function Restaurant(_name) {
name = _name
}
Restaurant.prototype.getFood = function (name) {
return name in secretSkills ? secretSkills[name]() : null
}
}
3. For the world to know about our restaurant class, we have to return it from the closure.
var Restaurant = (function () {
// Restaurant definition
return Restaurant
})()
4. At the end, we have:
var Restaurant = (function () {
var name,
secretSkills = {
pizza: function () { return new Pizza() },
sushi: function () { return new Sushi() }
}
function Restaurant(_name) {
name = _name
}
Restaurant.prototype.getFood = function (name) {
return name in secretSkills ? secretSkills[name]() : null
}
return Restaurant
})()
5. Also, this approach has potential for inheritance and templating
// Abstract class
function AbstractRestaurant(skills) {
var name
function Restaurant(_name) {
name = _name
}
Restaurant.prototype.getFood = function (name) {
return skills && name in skills ? skills[name]() : null
}
return Restaurant
}
// Concrete classes
SushiRestaurant = AbstractRestaurant({
sushi: function() { return new Sushi() }
})
PizzaRestaurant = AbstractRestaurant({
pizza: function() { return new Pizza() }
})
var r1 = new SushiRestaurant('Yo! Sushi'),
r2 = new PizzaRestaurant('Dominos Pizza')
r1.getFood('sushi')
r2.getFood('pizza')
I hope this helps someone better understand this subject
You can simulate private methods like this:
function Restaurant() {
}
Restaurant.prototype = (function() {
var private_stuff = function() {
// Private code here
};
return {
constructor:Restaurant,
use_restroom:function() {
private_stuff();
}
};
})();
var r = new Restaurant();
// This will work:
r.use_restroom();
// This will cause an error:
r.private_stuff();
More information on this technique here: http://webreflection.blogspot.com/2008/04/natural-javascript-private-methods.html
Don't be so verbose. It's Javascript. Use a Naming Convention.
After years of working in es6 classes, I recently started work on an es5 project (using requireJS which is already very verbose-looking). I've been over and over all the strategies mentioned here and it all basically boils down to use a naming convention:
private. Other developers entering Javascript will know this upfront. Therefore, a simple naming convention is more than sufficient. A simple naming convention of prefixing with an underscore solves the problem of both private properties and private methods. my-tooltip.js
define([
'tooltip'
],
function(
tooltip
){
function MyTooltip() {
// Later, if needed, we can remove the underscore on some
// of these (make public) and allow clients of our class
// to set them.
this._selector = "#my-tooltip"
this._template = 'Hello from inside my tooltip!';
this._initTooltip();
}
MyTooltip.prototype = {
constructor: MyTooltip,
_initTooltip: function () {
new tooltip.tooltip(this._selector, {
content: this._template,
closeOnClick: true,
closeButton: true
});
}
}
return {
init: function init() {
new MyTooltip(); // <-- Our constructor adds our tooltip to the DOM so not much we need to do after instantiation.
}
// You could instead return a new instantiation,
// if later you do more with this class.
/*
create: function create() {
return new MyTooltip();
}
*/
}
});
The module pattern is right in most cases. But if you have thousands of instances, classes save memory. If saving memory is a concern and your objects contain a small amount of private data, but have a lot of public functions, then you'll want all public functions to live in the .prototype to save memory.
This is what I came up with:
var MyClass = (function () {
var secret = {}; // You can only getPriv() if you know this
function MyClass() {
var that = this, priv = {
foo: 0 // ... and other private values
};
that.getPriv = function (proof) {
return (proof === secret) && priv;
};
}
MyClass.prototype.inc = function () {
var priv = this.getPriv(secret);
priv.foo += 1;
return priv.foo;
};
return MyClass;
}());
var x = new MyClass();
x.inc(); // 1
x.inc(); // 2
The object priv contains private properties. It is accessible through the public function getPriv(), but this function returns false unless you pass it the secret, and this is only known inside the main closure.
Private functions cannot access the public variables using module pattern
I prefer to store private data in an associated WeakMap. This allows you to keep your public methods on the prototype where they belong. This seems to be the most efficient way to handle this problem for large numbers of objects.
const data = new WeakMap();
function Foo(value) {
data.set(this, {value});
}
// public method accessing private value
Foo.prototype.accessValue = function() {
return data.get(this).value;
}
// private 'method' accessing private value
function accessValue(foo) {
return data.get(foo).value;
}
export {Foo};
In these situations when you have a public API, and you would like private and public methods/properties, I always use the Module Pattern. This pattern was made popular within the YUI library, and the details can be found here:
http://yuiblog.com/blog/2007/06/12/module-pattern/
It is really straightforward, and easy for other developers to comprehend. For a simple example:
var MYLIB = function() {
var aPrivateProperty = true;
var aPrivateMethod = function() {
// some code here...
};
return {
aPublicMethod : function() {
aPrivateMethod(); // okay
// some code here...
},
aPublicProperty : true
};
}();
MYLIB.aPrivateMethod() // not okay
MYLIB.aPublicMethod() // okay
Since everybody was posting here his own code, I'm gonna do that too...
I like Crockford because he introduced real object oriented patterns in Javascript. But he also came up with a new misunderstanding, the "that" one.
So why is he using "that = this"? It has nothing to do with private functions at all. It has to do with inner functions!
Because according to Crockford this is buggy code:
Function Foo( ) {
this.bar = 0;
var foobar=function( ) {
alert(this.bar);
}
}
So he suggested doing this:
Function Foo( ) {
this.bar = 0;
that = this;
var foobar=function( ) {
alert(that.bar);
}
}
So as I said, I'm quite sure that Crockford was wrong his explanation about that and this (but his code is certainly correct). Or was he just fooling the Javascript world, to know who is copying his code? I dunno...I'm no browser geek ;D
EDIT
Ah, that's what is all about: What does 'var that = this;' mean in JavaScript?
So Crockie was really wrong with his explanation....but right with his code, so he's still a great guy. :))
All of this closure will cost you. Make sure you test the speed implications especially in IE. You will find you are better off with a naming convention. There are still a lot of corporate web users out there that are forced to use IE6...
Wrap all code in Anonymous Function: Then , all functions will be private ,ONLY functions attached to window object :
(function(w,nameSpacePrivate){
w.Person=function(name){
this.name=name;
return this;
};
w.Person.prototype.profilePublic=function(){
return nameSpacePrivate.profile.call(this);
};
nameSpacePrivate.profile=function(){
return 'My name is '+this.name;
};
})(window,{});
Use this :
var abdennour=new Person('Abdennour');
abdennour.profilePublic();
Source: Stackoverflow.com