Javascript 1.9.3 / ECMAScript 5 introduces Object.create, which Douglas Crockford amongst others has been advocating for a long time. How do I replace new in the code below with Object.create?
var UserA = function(nameParam) {
this.id = MY_GLOBAL.nextId();
this.name = nameParam;
}
UserA.prototype.sayHello = function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
var bob = new UserA('bob');
bob.sayHello();
(Assume MY_GLOBAL.nextId exists).
The best I can come up with is:
var userB = {
init: function(nameParam) {
this.id = MY_GLOBAL.nextId();
this.name = nameParam;
},
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
var bob = Object.create(userB);
bob.init('Bob');
bob.sayHello();
There doesn't seem to be any advantage, so I think I'm not getting it. I'm probably being too neo-classical. How should I use Object.create to create user 'bob'?
With only one level of inheritance, your example may not let you see the real benefits of Object.create.
This methods allows you to easily implement differential inheritance, where objects can directly inherit from other objects.
On your userB example, I don't think that your init method should be public or even exist, if you call again this method on an existing object instance, the id and name properties will change.
Object.create lets you initialize object properties using its second argument, e.g.:
var userB = {
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
var bob = Object.create(userB, {
'id' : {
value: MY_GLOBAL.nextId(),
enumerable:true // writable:false, configurable(deletable):false by default
},
'name': {
value: 'Bob',
enumerable: true
}
});
As you can see, the properties can be initialized on the second argument of Object.create, with an object literal using a syntax similar to the used by the Object.defineProperties and Object.defineProperty methods.
It lets you set the property attributes (enumerable, writable, or configurable), which can be really useful.
There is really no advantage in using Object.create(...) over new object.
Those advocating this method generally state rather ambiguous advantages: "scalability", or "more natural to JavaScript" etc.
However, I have yet to see a concrete example that shows that Object.create has any advantages over using new. On the contrary there are known problems with it. Sam Elsamman describes what happens when there are nested objects and Object.create(...) is used:
var Animal = {
traits: {},
}
var lion = Object.create(Animal);
lion.traits.legs = 4;
var bird = Object.create(Animal);
bird.traits.legs = 2;
alert(lion.traits.legs) // shows 2!!!
This occurs because Object.create(...) advocates a practice where data is used to create new objects; here the Animal datum becomes part of the prototype of lion and bird, and causes problems as it is shared. When using new the prototypal inheritance is explicit:
function Animal() {
this.traits = {};
}
function Lion() { }
Lion.prototype = new Animal();
function Bird() { }
Bird.prototype = new Animal();
var lion = new Lion();
lion.traits.legs = 4;
var bird = new Bird();
bird.traits.legs = 2;
alert(lion.traits.legs) // now shows 4
Regarding, the optional property attributes that are passed into Object.create(...), these can be added using Object.defineProperties(...).
Object.create is not yet standard on several browsers, for example IE8, Opera v11.5, Konq 4.3 do not have it. You can use Douglas Crockford's version of Object.create for those browsers but this doesn't include the second 'initialisation object' parameter used in CMS's answer.
For cross browser code one way to get object initialisation in the meantime is to customise Crockford's Object.create. Here is one method:-
Object.build = function(o) {
var initArgs = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,1)
function F() {
if((typeof o.init === 'function') && initArgs.length) {
o.init.apply(this,initArgs)
}
}
F.prototype = o
return new F()
}
This maintains Crockford prototypal inheritance, and also checks for any init method in the object, then runs it with your parameter(s), like say new man('John','Smith'). Your code then becomes:-
MY_GLOBAL = {i: 1, nextId: function(){return this.i++}} // For example
var userB = {
init: function(nameParam) {
this.id = MY_GLOBAL.nextId();
this.name = nameParam;
},
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
var bob = Object.build(userB, 'Bob'); // Different from your code
bob.sayHello();
So bob inherits the sayHello method and now has own properties id=1 and name='Bob'. These properties are both writable and enumerable of course. This is also a much simpler way to initialise than for ECMA Object.create especially if you aren't concerned about the writable, enumerable and configurable attributes.
For initialisation without an init method the following Crockford mod could be used:-
Object.gen = function(o) {
var makeArgs = arguments
function F() {
var prop, i=1, arg, val
for(prop in o) {
if(!o.hasOwnProperty(prop)) continue
val = o[prop]
arg = makeArgs[i++]
if(typeof arg === 'undefined') break
this[prop] = arg
}
}
F.prototype = o
return new F()
}
This fills the userB own properties, in the order they are defined, using the Object.gen parameters from left to right after the userB parameter. It uses the for(prop in o) loop so, by ECMA standards, the order of property enumeration cannot be guaranteed the same as the order of property definition. However, several code examples tested on (4) major browsers show they are the same, provided the hasOwnProperty filter is used, and sometimes even if not.
MY_GLOBAL = {i: 1, nextId: function(){return this.i++}}; // For example
var userB = {
name: null,
id: null,
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
}
var bob = Object.gen(userB, 'Bob', MY_GLOBAL.nextId());
Somewhat simpler I would say than Object.build since userB does not need an init method. Also userB is not specifically a constructor but looks like a normal singleton object. So with this method you can construct and initialise from normal plain objects.
TL;DR:
new Computer() will invoke the constructor function Computer(){} for one time, while Object.create(Computer.prototype) won't.
All the advantages are based on this point.
Sidenote about performance: Constructor invoking like new Computer() is heavily optimized by the engine, so it may be even faster than Object.create.
You could make the init method return this, and then chain the calls together, like this:
var userB = {
init: function(nameParam) {
this.id = MY_GLOBAL.nextId();
this.name = nameParam;
return this;
},
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
var bob = Object.create(userB).init('Bob');
Another possible usage of Object.create is to clone immutable objects in a cheap and effective way.
var anObj = {
a: "test",
b: "jest"
};
var bObj = Object.create(anObj);
bObj.b = "gone"; // replace an existing (by masking prototype)
bObj.c = "brand"; // add a new to demonstrate it is actually a new obj
// now bObj is {a: test, b: gone, c: brand}
Notes: The above snippet creates a clone of an source object (aka not a reference, as in cObj = aObj). It benefits over the copy-properties method (see 1), in that it does not copy object member properties. Rather it creates another -destination- object with it's prototype set on the source object. Moreover when properties are modified on the dest object, they are created "on the fly", masking the prototype's (src's) properties.This constitutes a fast an effective way of cloning immutable objects.
The caveat here is that this applies to source objects that should not be modified after creation (immutable). If the source object is modified after creation, all the clone's unmasked properties will be modified, too.
Fiddle here(http://jsfiddle.net/y5b5q/1/) (needs Object.create capable browser).
I think the main point in question - is to understand difference between new and Object.create approaches. Accordingly to this answer and to this video new keyword does next things:
Creates new object.
Links new object to constructor function (prototype).
Makes this variable point to the new object.
Executes constructor function using the new object and implicit perform return this;
Assigns constructor function name to new object's property constructor.
Object.create performs only 1st and 2nd steps!!!
In code example provided in question it isn't big deal, but in next example it is:
var onlineUsers = [];
function SiteMember(name) {
this.name = name;
onlineUsers.push(name);
}
SiteMember.prototype.getName = function() {
return this.name;
}
function Guest(name) {
SiteMember.call(this, name);
}
Guest.prototype = new SiteMember();
var g = new Guest('James');
console.log(onlineUsers);
As side effect result will be:
[ undefined, 'James' ]
because of Guest.prototype = new SiteMember();
But we don't need to execute parent constructor method, we need only make method getName to be available in Guest.
Hence we have to use Object.create.
If replace Guest.prototype = new SiteMember();
to Guest.prototype = Object.create(SiteMember.prototype); result be:
[ 'James' ]
Sometimes you cannot create an object with NEW but are still able to invoke the CREATE method.
For example: if you want to define a Custom Element it must derive from HTMLElement.
proto = new HTMLElement //fail :(
proto = Object.create( HTMLElement.prototype ) //OK :)
document.registerElement( "custom-element", { prototype: proto } )
The advantage is that Object.create is typically slower than new on most browsers
In this jsperf example, in a Chromium, browser new is 30 times as fast as Object.create(obj) although both are pretty fast. This is all pretty strange because new does more things (like invoking a constructor) where Object.create should be just creating a new Object with the passed in object as a prototype (secret link in Crockford-speak)
Perhaps the browsers have not caught up in making Object.create more efficient (perhaps they are basing it on new under the covers ... even in native code)
Summary:
Object.create() is a Javascript function which takes 2 arguments and returns a new object.
The first argument is an object which will be the prototype of the newly created object
The second argument is an object which will be the properties of the newly created object
Example:
const proto = {
talk : () => console.log('hi')
}
const props = {
age: {
writable: true,
configurable: true,
value: 26
}
}
let Person = Object.create(proto, props)
console.log(Person.age);
Person.talk();
Practical applications:
The main advantage of creating an object in this manner is that the prototype can be explicitly defined. When using an object literal, or the new keyword you have no control over this (however, you can overwrite them of course).
If we want to have a prototype The new keyword invokes a constructor function. With Object.create() there is no need for invoking or even declaring a constructor function.
It can Basically be a helpful tool when you want create objects in a very dynamic manner. We can make an object factory function which creates objects with different prototypes depending on the arguments received.
You have to make a custom Object.create() function. One that addresses Crockfords concerns and also calls your init function.
This will work:
var userBPrototype = {
init: function(nameParam) {
this.name = nameParam;
},
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
function UserB(name) {
function F() {};
F.prototype = userBPrototype;
var f = new F;
f.init(name);
return f;
}
var bob = UserB('bob');
bob.sayHello();
Here UserB is like Object.create, but adjusted for our needs.
If you want, you can also call:
var bob = new UserB('bob');
While Douglas Crockford used to be a zealous advocate of Object.create() and he is basically the reason why this construct actually is in javascript, he no longer has this opinion.
He stopped using Object.create, because he stopped using this keyword altogether as it causes too much trouble. For example, if you are not careful it can easily point to the global object, which can have really bad consequences. And he claims that without using this Object.create does not make sense anymore.
You can check this video from 2014 where he talks at Nordic.js:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSGEjv3Tqo0
new and Object.create serve different purposes. new is intended to create a new instance of an object type. Object.create is intended to simply create a new object and set its prototype. Why is this useful? To implement inheritance without accessing the __proto__ property. An object instance's prototype referred to as [[Prototype]] is an internal property of the virtual machine and is not intended to be directly accessed. The only reason it is actually possible to directly access [[Prototype]] as the __proto__ property is because it has always been a de-facto standard of every major virtual machine's implementation of ECMAScript, and at this point removing it would break a lot of existing code.
In response to the answer above by 7ochem, objects should absolutely never have their prototype set to the result of a new statement, not only because there's no point calling the same prototype constructor multiple times but also because two instances of the same class can end up with different behavior if one's prototype is modified after being created. Both examples are simply bad code as a result of misunderstanding and breaking the intended behavior of the prototype inheritance chain.
Instead of accessing __proto__, an instance's prototype should be written to when an it is created with Object.create or afterward with Object.setPrototypeOf, and read with Object.getPrototypeOf or Object.isPrototypeOf.
Also, as the Mozilla documentation of Object.setPrototypeOf points out, it is a bad idea to modify the prototype of an object after it is created for performance reasons, in addition to the fact that modifying an object's prototype after it is created can cause undefined behavior if a given piece of code that accesses it can be executed before OR after the prototype is modified, unless that code is very careful to check the current prototype or not access any property that differs between the two.
Given
const X = function (v) { this.v = v };
X.prototype.whatAmI = 'X';
X.prototype.getWhatIAm = () => this.whatAmI;
X.prototype.getV = () => this.v;
the following VM pseudo-code is equivalent to the statement const x0 = new X(1);:
const x0 = {};
x0.[[Prototype]] = X.prototype;
X.prototype.constructor.call(x0, 1);
Note although the constructor can return any value, the new statement always ignores its return value and returns a reference to the newly created object.
And the following pseudo-code is equivalent to the statement const x1 = Object.create(X.prototype);:
const x0 = {};
x0.[[Prototype]] = X.prototype;
As you can see, the only difference between the two is that Object.create does not execute the constructor, which can actually return any value but simply returns the new object reference this if not otherwise specified.
Now, if we wanted to create a subclass Y with the following definition:
const Y = function(u) { this.u = u; }
Y.prototype.whatAmI = 'Y';
Y.prototype.getU = () => this.u;
Then we can make it inherit from X like this by writing to __proto__:
Y.prototype.__proto__ = X.prototype;
While the same thing could be accomplished without ever writing to __proto__ with:
Y.prototype = Object.create(X.prototype);
Y.prototype.constructor = Y;
In the latter case, it is necessary to set the constructor property of the prototype so that the correct constructor is called by the new Y statement, otherwise new Y will call the function X. If the programmer does want new Y to call X, it would be more properly done in Y's constructor with X.call(this, u)
new Operator
This is used to create object from a constructor function
The new keywords also executes the constructor function
function Car() {
console.log(this) // this points to myCar
this.name = "Honda";
}
var myCar = new Car()
console.log(myCar) // Car {name: "Honda", constructor: Object}
console.log(myCar.name) // Honda
console.log(myCar instanceof Car) // true
console.log(myCar.constructor) // function Car() {}
console.log(myCar.constructor === Car) // true
console.log(typeof myCar) // object
Object.create
You can also use Object.create to create a new object
But, it does not execute the constructor function
Object.create is used to create an object from another object
const Car = {
name: "Honda"
}
var myCar = Object.create(Car)
console.log(myCar) // Object {}
console.log(myCar.name) // Honda
console.log(myCar instanceof Car) // ERROR
console.log(myCar.constructor) // Anonymous function object
console.log(myCar.constructor === Car) // false
console.log(typeof myCar) // object
I prefer a closure approach.
I still use new.
I don't use Object.create.
I don't use this.
I still use new as I like the declarative nature of it.
Consider this for simple inheritance.
window.Quad = (function() {
function Quad() {
const wheels = 4;
const drivingWheels = 2;
let motorSize = 0;
function setMotorSize(_) {
motorSize = _;
}
function getMotorSize() {
return motorSize;
}
function getWheelCount() {
return wheels;
}
function getDrivingWheelCount() {
return drivingWheels;
}
return Object.freeze({
getWheelCount,
getDrivingWheelCount,
getMotorSize,
setMotorSize
});
}
return Object.freeze(Quad);
})();
window.Car4wd = (function() {
function Car4wd() {
const quad = new Quad();
const spareWheels = 1;
const extraDrivingWheels = 2;
function getSpareWheelCount() {
return spareWheels;
}
function getDrivingWheelCount() {
return quad.getDrivingWheelCount() + extraDrivingWheels;
}
return Object.freeze(Object.assign({}, quad, {
getSpareWheelCount,
getDrivingWheelCount
}));
}
return Object.freeze(Car4wd);
})();
let myQuad = new Quad();
let myCar = new Car4wd();
console.log(myQuad.getWheelCount()); // 4
console.log(myQuad.getDrivingWheelCount()); // 2
console.log(myCar.getWheelCount()); // 4
console.log(myCar.getDrivingWheelCount()); // 4 - The overridden method is called
console.log(myCar.getSpareWheelCount()); // 1
Feedback encouraged.
I've come to a point where I need to have some sort of rudimentary multiple inheritance happening in JavaScript. (I'm not here to discuss whether this is a good idea or not, so please kindly keep those comments to yourself.)
I just want to know if anyone's attempted this with any (or not) success, and how they went about it.
To boil it down, what I really need is to be able to have an object capable of inheriting a property from more than one prototype chain (i.e. each prototype could have its own proper chain), but in a given order of precedence (it will search the chains in order for the first definition).
To demonstrate how this is theoretically possible, it could be achieved by attaching the secondary chain onto the end of the primary chain, but this would affect all instances of any of those previous prototypes and that's not what I want.
Thoughts?
Multiple inheritance can be achieved in ECMAScript 6 by using Proxy objects.
Implementation
function getDesc (obj, prop) {
var desc = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(obj, prop);
return desc || (obj=Object.getPrototypeOf(obj) ? getDesc(obj, prop) : void 0);
}
function multiInherit (...protos) {
return Object.create(new Proxy(Object.create(null), {
has: (target, prop) => protos.some(obj => prop in obj),
get (target, prop, receiver) {
var obj = protos.find(obj => prop in obj);
return obj ? Reflect.get(obj, prop, receiver) : void 0;
},
set (target, prop, value, receiver) {
var obj = protos.find(obj => prop in obj);
return Reflect.set(obj || Object.create(null), prop, value, receiver);
},
*enumerate (target) { yield* this.ownKeys(target); },
ownKeys(target) {
var hash = Object.create(null);
for(var obj of protos) for(var p in obj) if(!hash[p]) hash[p] = true;
return Object.getOwnPropertyNames(hash);
},
getOwnPropertyDescriptor(target, prop) {
var obj = protos.find(obj => prop in obj);
var desc = obj ? getDesc(obj, prop) : void 0;
if(desc) desc.configurable = true;
return desc;
},
preventExtensions: (target) => false,
defineProperty: (target, prop, desc) => false,
}));
}
Explanation
A proxy object consists of a target object and some traps, which define custom behavior for fundamental operations.
When creating an object which inherits from another one, we use Object.create(obj). But in this case we want multiple inheritance, so instead of obj I use a proxy that will redirect fundamental operations to the appropriate object.
I use these traps:
The has trap is a trap for the in operator. I use some to check if at least one prototype contains the property.
The get trap is a trap for getting property values. I use find to find the first prototype which contains that property, and I return the value, or call the getter on the appropriate receiver. This is handled by Reflect.get. If no prototype contains the property, I return undefined.
The set trap is a trap for setting property values. I use find to find the first prototype which contains that property, and I call its setter on the appropriate receiver. If there is no setter or no prototype contains the property, the value is defined on the appropriate receiver. This is handled by Reflect.set.
The enumerate trap is a trap for for...in loops. I iterate the enumerable properties from the first prototype, then from the second, and so on. Once a property has been iterated, I store it in a hash table to avoid iterating it again.
Warning: This trap has been removed in ES7 draft and is deprecated in browsers.
The ownKeys trap is a trap for Object.getOwnPropertyNames(). Since ES7, for...in loops keep calling [[GetPrototypeOf]] and getting the own properties of each one. So in order to make it iterate the properties of all prototypes, I use this trap to make all enumerable inherited properties appear like own properties.
The getOwnPropertyDescriptor trap is a trap for Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(). Making all enumerable properties appear like own properties in the ownKeys trap is not enough, for...in loops will get the descriptor to check if they are enumerable. So I use find to find the first prototype which contains that property, and I iterate its prototypical chain until I find the property owner, and I return its descriptor. If no prototype contains the property, I return undefined. The descriptor is modified to make it configurable, otherwise we could break some proxy invariants.
The preventExtensions and defineProperty traps are only included to prevent these operations from modifying the proxy target. Otherwise we could end up breaking some proxy invariants.
There are more traps available, which I don't use
The getPrototypeOf trap could be added, but there is no proper way to return the multiple prototypes. This implies instanceof won't work neither. Therefore, I let it get the prototype of the target, which initially is null.
The setPrototypeOf trap could be added and accept an array of objects, which would replace the prototypes. This is left as an exercice for the reader. Here I just let it modify the prototype of the target, which is not much useful because no trap uses the target.
The deleteProperty trap is a trap for deleting own properties. The proxy represents the inheritance, so this wouldn't make much sense. I let it attempt the deletion on the target, which should have no property anyway.
The isExtensible trap is a trap for getting the extensibility. Not much useful, given that an invariant forces it to return the same extensibility as the target. So I just let it redirect the operation to the target, which will be extensible.
The apply and construct traps are traps for calling or instantiating. They are only useful when the target is a function or a constructor.
Example
// Creating objects
var o1, o2, o3,
obj = multiInherit(o1={a:1}, o2={b:2}, o3={a:3, b:3});
// Checking property existences
'a' in obj; // true (inherited from o1)
'b' in obj; // true (inherited from o2)
'c' in obj; // false (not found)
// Setting properties
obj.c = 3;
// Reading properties
obj.a; // 1 (inherited from o1)
obj.b; // 2 (inherited from o2)
obj.c; // 3 (own property)
obj.d; // undefined (not found)
// The inheritance is "live"
obj.a; // 1 (inherited from o1)
delete o1.a;
obj.a; // 3 (inherited from o3)
// Property enumeration
for(var p in obj) p; // "c", "b", "a"
Update (2019): The original post is getting pretty outdated. This article (now internet archive link, since domain went away) and its associated GitHub library are a good modern approach.
Original post:
Multiple inheritance [edit, not proper inheritance of type, but of properties; mixins] in Javascript is pretty straightforward if you use constructed prototypes rather than generic-object ones. Here are two parent classes to inherit from:
function FoodPrototype() {
this.eat = function () {
console.log("Eating", this.name);
};
}
function Food(name) {
this.name = name;
}
Food.prototype = new FoodPrototype();
function PlantPrototype() {
this.grow = function () {
console.log("Growing", this.name);
};
}
function Plant(name) {
this.name = name;
}
Plant.prototype = new PlantPrototype();
Note that I have used the same "name" member in each case, which could be a problem if the parents did not agree about how "name" should be handled. But they're compatible (redundant, really) in this case.
Now we just need a class that inherits from both. Inheritance is done by calling the constructor function (without using the new keyword) for the prototypes and the object constructors. First, the prototype has to inherit from the parent prototypes
function FoodPlantPrototype() {
FoodPrototype.call(this);
PlantPrototype.call(this);
// plus a function of its own
this.harvest = function () {
console.log("harvest at", this.maturity);
};
}
And the constructor has to inherit from the parent constructors:
function FoodPlant(name, maturity) {
Food.call(this, name);
Plant.call(this, name);
// plus a property of its own
this.maturity = maturity;
}
FoodPlant.prototype = new FoodPlantPrototype();
Now you can grow, eat, and harvest different instances:
var fp1 = new FoodPlant('Radish', 28);
var fp2 = new FoodPlant('Corn', 90);
fp1.grow();
fp2.grow();
fp1.harvest();
fp1.eat();
fp2.harvest();
fp2.eat();
This one uses Object.create to make a real prototype chain:
function makeChain(chains) {
var c = Object.prototype;
while(chains.length) {
c = Object.create(c);
$.extend(c, chains.pop()); // some function that does mixin
}
return c;
}
For example:
var obj = makeChain([{a:1}, {a: 2, b: 3}, {c: 4}]);
will return:
a: 1
a: 2
b: 3
c: 4
<Object.prototype stuff>
so that obj.a === 1, obj.b === 3, etc.
I like John Resig's implementation of a class structure: http://ejohn.org/blog/simple-javascript-inheritance/
This can be simply extended to something like:
Class.extend = function(prop /*, prop, prop, prop */) {
for( var i=1, l=arguments.length; i<l; i++ ){
prop = $.extend( prop, arguments[i] );
}
// same code
}
which will allow you to pass in multiple objects of which to inherit. You're going to lose instanceOf capability here, but that's a given if you want multiple inheritance.
my rather convoluted example of the above is available at https://github.com/cwolves/Fetch/blob/master/support/plugins/klass/klass.js
Note that there is some dead code in that file, but it allows multiple inheritance if you want to take a look.
If you want chained inheritance (NOT multiple inheritance, but for most people it's the same thing), it can be accomplished with Class like:
var newClass = Class.extend( cls1 ).extend( cls2 ).extend( cls3 )
which will preserve the original prototype chain, but you'll also have a lot of pointless code running.
I offer a function to allow classes to be defined with multiple inheritance. It allows for code like the following:
let human = new Running({ name: 'human', numLegs: 2 });
human.run();
let airplane = new Flying({ name: 'airplane', numWings: 2 });
airplane.fly();
let dragon = new RunningFlying({ name: 'dragon', numLegs: 4, numWings: 6 });
dragon.takeFlight();
to produce output like this:
human runs with 2 legs.
airplane flies away with 2 wings!
dragon runs with 4 legs.
dragon flies away with 6 wings!
Here are what the class definitions look like:
let Named = makeClass('Named', {}, () => ({
init: function({ name }) {
this.name = name;
}
}));
let Running = makeClass('Running', { Named }, protos => ({
init: function({ name, numLegs }) {
protos.Named.init.call(this, { name });
this.numLegs = numLegs;
},
run: function() {
console.log(`${this.name} runs with ${this.numLegs} legs.`);
}
}));
let Flying = makeClass('Flying', { Named }, protos => ({
init: function({ name, numWings }) {
protos.Named.init.call(this, { name });
this.numWings = numWings;
},
fly: function( ){
console.log(`${this.name} flies away with ${this.numWings} wings!`);
}
}));
let RunningFlying = makeClass('RunningFlying', { Running, Flying }, protos => ({
init: function({ name, numLegs, numWings }) {
protos.Running.init.call(this, { name, numLegs });
protos.Flying.init.call(this, { name, numWings });
},
takeFlight: function() {
this.run();
this.fly();
}
}));
We can see that each class definition using the makeClass function accepts an Object of parent-class names mapped to parent-classes. It also accepts a function that returns an Object containing properties for the class being defined. This function has a parameter protos, which contains enough information to access any property defined by any of the parent-classes.
The final piece required is the makeClass function itself, which does quite a bit of work. Here it is, along with the rest of the code. I've commented makeClass quite heavily:
let makeClass = (name, parents={}, propertiesFn=()=>({})) => {
// The constructor just curries to a Function named "init"
let Class = function(...args) { this.init(...args); };
// This allows instances to be named properly in the terminal
Object.defineProperty(Class, 'name', { value: name });
// Tracking parents of `Class` allows for inheritance queries later
Class.parents = parents;
// Initialize prototype
Class.prototype = Object.create(null);
// Collect all parent-class prototypes. `Object.getOwnPropertyNames`
// will get us the best results. Finally, we'll be able to reference
// a property like "usefulMethod" of Class "ParentClass3" with:
// `parProtos.ParentClass3.usefulMethod`
let parProtos = {};
for (let parName in parents) {
let proto = parents[parName].prototype;
parProtos[parName] = {};
for (let k of Object.getOwnPropertyNames(proto)) {
parProtos[parName][k] = proto[k];
}
}
// Resolve `properties` as the result of calling `propertiesFn`. Pass
// `parProtos`, so a child-class can access parent-class methods, and
// pass `Class` so methods of the child-class have a reference to it
let properties = propertiesFn(parProtos, Class);
properties.constructor = Class; // Ensure "constructor" prop exists
// If two parent-classes define a property under the same name, we
// have a "collision". In cases of collisions, the child-class *must*
// define a method (and within that method it can decide how to call
// the parent-class methods of the same name). For every named
// property of every parent-class, we'll track a `Set` containing all
// the methods that fall under that name. Any `Set` of size greater
// than one indicates a collision.
let propsByName = {}; // Will map property names to `Set`s
for (let parName in parProtos) {
for (let propName in parProtos[parName]) {
// Now track the property `parProtos[parName][propName]` under the
// label of `propName`
if (!propsByName.hasOwnProperty(propName))
propsByName[propName] = new Set();
propsByName[propName].add(parProtos[parName][propName]);
}
}
// For all methods defined by the child-class, create or replace the
// entry in `propsByName` with a Set containing a single item; the
// child-class' property at that property name (this also guarantees
// there is no collision at this property name). Note property names
// prefixed with "$" will be considered class properties (and the "$"
// will be removed).
for (let propName in properties) {
if (propName[0] === '$') {
// The "$" indicates a class property; attach to `Class`:
Class[propName.slice(1)] = properties[propName];
} else {
// No "$" indicates an instance property; attach to `propsByName`:
propsByName[propName] = new Set([ properties[propName] ]);
}
}
// Ensure that "init" is defined by a parent-class or by the child:
if (!propsByName.hasOwnProperty('init'))
throw Error(`Class "${name}" is missing an "init" method`);
// For each property name in `propsByName`, ensure that there is no
// collision at that property name, and if there isn't, attach it to
// the prototype! `Object.defineProperty` can ensure that prototype
// properties won't appear during iteration with `in` keyword:
for (let propName in propsByName) {
let propsAtName = propsByName[propName];
if (propsAtName.size > 1)
throw new Error(`Class "${name}" has conflict at "${propName}"`);
Object.defineProperty(Class.prototype, propName, {
enumerable: false,
writable: true,
value: propsAtName.values().next().value // Get 1st item in Set
});
}
return Class;
};
let Named = makeClass('Named', {}, () => ({
init: function({ name }) {
this.name = name;
}
}));
let Running = makeClass('Running', { Named }, protos => ({
init: function({ name, numLegs }) {
protos.Named.init.call(this, { name });
this.numLegs = numLegs;
},
run: function() {
console.log(`${this.name} runs with ${this.numLegs} legs.`);
}
}));
let Flying = makeClass('Flying', { Named }, protos => ({
init: function({ name, numWings }) {
protos.Named.init.call(this, { name });
this.numWings = numWings;
},
fly: function( ){
console.log(`${this.name} flies away with ${this.numWings} wings!`);
}
}));
let RunningFlying = makeClass('RunningFlying', { Running, Flying }, protos => ({
init: function({ name, numLegs, numWings }) {
protos.Running.init.call(this, { name, numLegs });
protos.Flying.init.call(this, { name, numWings });
},
takeFlight: function() {
this.run();
this.fly();
}
}));
let human = new Running({ name: 'human', numLegs: 2 });
human.run();
let airplane = new Flying({ name: 'airplane', numWings: 2 });
airplane.fly();
let dragon = new RunningFlying({ name: 'dragon', numLegs: 4, numWings: 6 });
dragon.takeFlight();
The makeClass function also supports class properties; these are defined by prefixing property names with the $ symbol (note that the final property name that results will have the $ removed). With this in mind, we could write a specialized Dragon class that models the "type" of the Dragon, where the list of available Dragon types is stored on the Class itself, as opposed to on the instances:
let Dragon = makeClass('Dragon', { RunningFlying }, protos => ({
$types: {
wyvern: 'wyvern',
drake: 'drake',
hydra: 'hydra'
},
init: function({ name, numLegs, numWings, type }) {
protos.RunningFlying.init.call(this, { name, numLegs, numWings });
this.type = type;
},
description: function() {
return `A ${this.type}-type dragon with ${this.numLegs} legs and ${this.numWings} wings`;
}
}));
let dragon1 = new Dragon({ name: 'dragon1', numLegs: 2, numWings: 4, type: Dragon.types.drake });
let dragon2 = new Dragon({ name: 'dragon2', numLegs: 4, numWings: 2, type: Dragon.types.hydra });
The Challenges of Multiple Inheritance
Anyone who followed the code for makeClass closely will note a rather significant undesirable phenomenon occurring silently when the above code runs: instantiating a RunningFlying will result in TWO calls to the Named constructor!
This is because the inheritance graph looks like this:
(^^ More Specialized ^^)
RunningFlying
/ \
/ \
Running Flying
\ /
\ /
Named
(vv More Abstract vv)
When there are multiple paths to the same parent-class in a sub-class' inheritance graph, instantiations of the sub-class will invoke that parent-class' constructor multiple times.
Combatting this is non-trivial. Let's look at some examples with simplified classnames. We'll consider class A, the most abstract parent-class, classes B and C, which both inherit from A, and class BC which inherits from B and C (and hence conceptually "double-inherits" from A):
let A = makeClass('A', {}, () => ({
init: function() {
console.log('Construct A');
}
}));
let B = makeClass('B', { A }, protos => ({
init: function() {
protos.A.init.call(this);
console.log('Construct B');
}
}));
let C = makeClass('C', { A }, protos => ({
init: function() {
protos.A.init.call(this);
console.log('Construct C');
}
}));
let BC = makeClass('BC', { B, C }, protos => ({
init: function() {
// Overall "Construct A" is logged twice:
protos.B.init.call(this); // -> console.log('Construct A'); console.log('Construct B');
protos.C.init.call(this); // -> console.log('Construct A'); console.log('Construct C');
console.log('Construct BC');
}
}));
If we want to prevent BC from double-invoking A.prototype.init we may need to abandon the style of directly calling inherited constructors. We will need some level of indirection to check whether duplicate calls are occurring, and short-circuit before they happen.
We could consider changing the parameters supplied to the properties function: alongside protos, an Object containing raw data describing inherited properties, we could also include a utility function for calling an instance method in such a way that parent methods are also called, but duplicate calls are detected and prevented. Let's take a look at where we establish the parameters for the propertiesFn Function:
let makeClass = (name, parents, propertiesFn) => {
/* ... a bunch of makeClass logic ... */
// Allows referencing inherited functions; e.g. `parProtos.ParentClass3.usefulMethod`
let parProtos = {};
/* ... collect all parent methods in `parProtos` ... */
// Utility functions for calling inherited methods:
let util = {};
util.invokeNoDuplicates = (instance, fnName, args, dups=new Set()) => {
// Invoke every parent method of name `fnName` first...
for (let parName of parProtos) {
if (parProtos[parName].hasOwnProperty(fnName)) {
// Our parent named `parName` defines the function named `fnName`
let fn = parProtos[parName][fnName];
// Check if this function has already been encountered.
// This solves our duplicate-invocation problem!!
if (dups.has(fn)) continue;
dups.add(fn);
// This is the first time this Function has been encountered.
// Call it on `instance`, with the desired args. Make sure we
// include `dups`, so that if the parent method invokes further
// inherited methods we don't lose track of what functions have
// have already been called.
fn.call(instance, ...args, dups);
}
}
};
// Now we can call `propertiesFn` with an additional `util` param:
// Resolve `properties` as the result of calling `propertiesFn`:
let properties = propertiesFn(parProtos, util, Class);
/* ... a bunch more makeClass logic ... */
};
The whole purpose of the above change to makeClass is so that we have an additional argument supplied to our propertiesFn when we invoke makeClass. We should also be aware that every function defined in any class may now receive a parameter after all its others, named dup, which is a Set that holds all functions that have already been called as a result of calling the inherited method:
let A = makeClass('A', {}, () => ({
init: function() {
console.log('Construct A');
}
}));
let B = makeClass('B', { A }, (protos, util) => ({
init: function(dups) {
util.invokeNoDuplicates(this, 'init', [ /* no args */ ], dups);
console.log('Construct B');
}
}));
let C = makeClass('C', { A }, (protos, util) => ({
init: function(dups) {
util.invokeNoDuplicates(this, 'init', [ /* no args */ ], dups);
console.log('Construct C');
}
}));
let BC = makeClass('BC', { B, C }, (protos, util) => ({
init: function(dups) {
util.invokeNoDuplicates(this, 'init', [ /* no args */ ], dups);
console.log('Construct BC');
}
}));
This new style actually succeeds in ensuring "Construct A" is only logged once when an instance of BC is initialized. But there are three downsides, the third of which is very critical:
This code has become less readable and maintainable. A lot of complexity hides behind the util.invokeNoDuplicates function, and thinking about how this style avoids multi-invocation is non-intuitive and headache inducing. We also have that pesky dups parameter, which really needs to be defined on every single function in the class. Ouch.
This code is slower - quite a bit more indirection and computation is required to achieve desirable results with multiple inheritance. Unfortunately this is likely to be the case with any solution to our multiple-invocation problem.
Most significantly, the structure of functions which rely on inheritance has become very rigid. If a sub-class NiftyClass overrides a function niftyFunction, and uses util.invokeNoDuplicates(this, 'niftyFunction', ...) to run it without duplicate-invocation, NiftyClass.prototype.niftyFunction will call the function named niftyFunction of every parent class that defines it, ignore any return values from those classes, and finally perform the specialized logic of NiftyClass.prototype.niftyFunction. This is the only possible structure. If NiftyClass inherits CoolClass and GoodClass, and both these parent-classes provide niftyFunction definitions of their own, NiftyClass.prototype.niftyFunction will never (without risking multiple-invocation) be able to:
A. Run the specialized logic of NiftyClass first, then the specialized logic of parent-classes
B. Run the specialized logic of NiftyClass at any point other than after all specialized parent logic has completed
C. Behave conditionally depending on the return values of its parent's specialized logic
D. Avoid running a particular parent's specialized niftyFunction altogether
Of course, we could solve each lettered problem above by defining specialized functions under util:
A. define util.invokeNoDuplicatesSubClassLogicFirst(instance, fnName, ...)
B. define util.invokeNoDuplicatesSubClassAfterParent(parentName, instance, fnName, ...) (Where parentName is the name of the parent whose specialized logic will be immediately followed by the child-classes' specialized logic)
C. define util.invokeNoDuplicatesCanShortCircuitOnParent(parentName, testFn, instance, fnName, ...) (In this case testFn would receive the result of the specialized logic for the parent named parentName, and would return a true/false value indicating whether the short-circuit should happen)
D. define util.invokeNoDuplicatesBlackListedParents(blackList, instance, fnName, ...) (In this case blackList would be an Array of parent names whose specialized logic should be skipped altogether)
These solutions are all available, but this is total mayhem! For every unique structure that an inherited function call can take, we would need a specialized method defined under util. What an absolute disaster.
With this in mind we can start to see the challenges of implementing good multiple inheritance. The full implementation of makeClass I provided in this answer does not even consider the multiple-invocation problem, or many other problems which arise regarding multiple inheritance.
This answer is getting very long. I hope the makeClass implementation I included is still useful, even if it isn't perfect. I also hope anyone interested in this topic has gained more context to keep in mind as they do further reading!
Don't get confused with JavaScript framework implementations of multiple inheritance.
All you need to do is use Object.create() to create a new object each time with the specified prototype object and properties, then be sure to change the Object.prototype.constructor each step of the way if you plan on instantiating B in the future.
To inherit instance properties thisA and thisB we use Function.prototype.call() at the end of each object function. This is optional if you only care about inheriting the prototype.
Run the following code somewhere and observe objC:
function A() {
this.thisA = 4; // objC will contain this property
}
A.prototype.a = 2; // objC will contain this property
B.prototype = Object.create(A.prototype);
B.prototype.constructor = B;
function B() {
this.thisB = 55; // objC will contain this property
A.call(this);
}
B.prototype.b = 3; // objC will contain this property
C.prototype = Object.create(B.prototype);
C.prototype.constructor = C;
function C() {
this.thisC = 123; // objC will contain this property
B.call(this);
}
C.prototype.c = 2; // objC will contain this property
var objC = new C();
B inherits the prototype from A
C inherits the prototype from B
objC is an instance of C
This is a good explanation of the steps above:
OOP In JavaScript: What You NEED to Know
I’m in no way an expert on javascript OOP, but if I understand you correctly you want something like (pseudo-code):
Earth.shape = 'round';
Animal.shape = 'random';
Cat inherit from (Earth, Animal);
Cat.shape = 'random' or 'round' depending on inheritance order;
In that case, I’d try something like:
var Earth = function(){};
Earth.prototype.shape = 'round';
var Animal = function(){};
Animal.prototype.shape = 'random';
Animal.prototype.head = true;
var Cat = function(){};
MultiInherit(Cat, Earth, Animal);
console.log(new Cat().shape); // yields "round", since I reversed the inheritance order
console.log(new Cat().head); // true
function MultiInherit() {
var c = [].shift.call(arguments),
len = arguments.length
while(len--) {
$.extend(c.prototype, new arguments[len]());
}
}
It's possible to implement multiple inheritance in JavaScript, although very few libraries does it.
I could point Ring.js, the only example I know.
I was working on this a lot today and trying to achieve this myself in ES6. The way I did it was using Browserify, Babel and then I tested it with Wallaby and it seemed to work. My goal is to extend the current Array, include ES6, ES7 and add some additional custom features I need in the prototype for dealing with audio data.
Wallaby passes 4 of my tests. The example.js file can be pasted in the console and you can see that the 'includes' property is in the prototype of the class. I still want to test this more tomorrow.
Here's my method: (I will most likely refactor and repackage as a module after some sleep!)
var includes = require('./polyfills/includes');
var keys = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(includes.prototype);
keys.shift();
class ArrayIncludesPollyfills extends Array {}
function inherit (...keys) {
keys.map(function(key){
ArrayIncludesPollyfills.prototype[key]= includes.prototype[key];
});
}
inherit(keys);
module.exports = ArrayIncludesPollyfills
Github Repo:
https://github.com/danieldram/array-includes-polyfill
I think it is ridiculously simple. The issue here is that the child class will only refer to instanceof for the first class you call
https://jsfiddle.net/1033xzyt/19/
function Foo() {
this.bar = 'bar';
return this;
}
Foo.prototype.test = function(){return 1;}
function Bar() {
this.bro = 'bro';
return this;
}
Bar.prototype.test2 = function(){return 2;}
function Cool() {
Foo.call(this);
Bar.call(this);
return this;
}
var combine = Object.create(Foo.prototype);
$.extend(combine, Object.create(Bar.prototype));
Cool.prototype = Object.create(combine);
Cool.prototype.constructor = Cool;
var cool = new Cool();
console.log(cool.test()); // 1
console.log(cool.test2()); //2
console.log(cool.bro) //bro
console.log(cool.bar) //bar
console.log(cool instanceof Foo); //true
console.log(cool instanceof Bar); //false
Check the code below which IS showing support for multiple inheritance. Done by using PROTOTYPAL INHERITANCE
function A(name) {
this.name = name;
}
A.prototype.setName = function (name) {
this.name = name;
}
function B(age) {
this.age = age;
}
B.prototype.setAge = function (age) {
this.age = age;
}
function AB(name, age) {
A.prototype.setName.call(this, name);
B.prototype.setAge.call(this, age);
}
AB.prototype = Object.assign({}, Object.create(A.prototype), Object.create(B.prototype));
AB.prototype.toString = function () {
return `Name: ${this.name} has age: ${this.age}`
}
const a = new A("shivang");
const b = new B(32);
console.log(a.name);
console.log(b.age);
const ab = new AB("indu", 27);
console.log(ab.toString());
Take a look of the package IeUnit.
The concept assimilation implemented in IeUnit seems to offers what you are looking for in a quite dynamical way.
Here is an example of prototype chaining using constructor functions:
function Lifeform () { // 1st Constructor function
this.isLifeform = true;
}
function Animal () { // 2nd Constructor function
this.isAnimal = true;
}
Animal.prototype = new Lifeform(); // Animal is a lifeform
function Mammal () { // 3rd Constructor function
this.isMammal = true;
}
Mammal.prototype = new Animal(); // Mammal is an animal
function Cat (species) { // 4th Constructor function
this.isCat = true;
this.species = species
}
Cat.prototype = new Mammal(); // Cat is a mammal
This concept uses Yehuda Katz's definition of a "class" for JavaScript:
...a JavaScript "class" is just a Function object that serves as a constructor plus an attached prototype object. (Source: Guru Katz)
Unlike the Object.create approach, when the classes are built in this way and we want to create instances of a "class", we don't need to know what each "class" is inheriting from. We just use new.
// Make an instance object of the Cat "Class"
var tiger = new Cat("tiger");
console.log(tiger.isCat, tiger.isMammal, tiger.isAnimal, tiger.isLifeform);
// Outputs: true true true true
The order of precendence should make sense. First it looks in the instance object, then it's prototype, then the next prototype, etc.
// Let's say we have another instance, a special alien cat
var alienCat = new Cat("alien");
// We can define a property for the instance object and that will take
// precendence over the value in the Mammal class (down the chain)
alienCat.isMammal = false;
// OR maybe all cats are mutated to be non-mammals
Cat.prototype.isMammal = false;
console.log(alienCat);
We can also modify the prototypes which will effect all objects built on the class.
// All cats are mutated to be non-mammals
Cat.prototype.isMammal = false;
console.log(tiger, alienCat);
I originally wrote some of this up with this answer.
A latecomer in the scene is SimpleDeclare. However, when dealing with multiple inheritance, you will still end up with copies of the original constructors. That's a necessity in Javascript...
Merc.
I would use ds.oop. Its similar to prototype.js and others. makes multiple inheritance very easy and its minimalist. (only 2 or 3 kb) Also supports some other neat features like interfaces and dependency injection
/*** multiple inheritance example ***********************************/
var Runner = ds.class({
run: function() { console.log('I am running...'); }
});
var Walker = ds.class({
walk: function() { console.log('I am walking...'); }
});
var Person = ds.class({
inherits: [Runner, Walker],
eat: function() { console.log('I am eating...'); }
});
var person = new Person();
person.run();
person.walk();
person.eat();
How about this, it implements multiple inheritance in JavaScript:
class Car {
constructor(brand) {
this.carname = brand;
}
show() {
return 'I have a ' + this.carname;
}
}
class Asset {
constructor(price) {
this.price = price;
}
show() {
return 'its estimated price is ' + this.price;
}
}
class Model_i1 { // extends Car and Asset (just a comment for ourselves)
//
constructor(brand, price, usefulness) {
specialize_with(this, new Car(brand));
specialize_with(this, new Asset(price));
this.usefulness = usefulness;
}
show() {
return Car.prototype.show.call(this) + ", " + Asset.prototype.show.call(this) + ", Model_i1";
}
}
mycar = new Model_i1("Ford Mustang", "$100K", 16);
document.getElementById("demo").innerHTML = mycar.show();
And here's the code for specialize_with() utility function:
function specialize_with(o, S) { for (var prop in S) { o[prop] = S[prop]; } }
This is real code that runs. You can copy-paste it in html file, and try it yourself. It does work.
That's the effort to implement MI in JavaScript. Not much of code, more of a know-how.
Please feel free to look at my complete article on this, https://github.com/latitov/OOP_MI_Ct_oPlus_in_JS
I just used to assign what classes I need in properties of others, and add a proxy to auto-point to them i like:
class A {
constructor()
{
this.test = "a test";
}
method()
{
console.log("in the method");
}
}
class B {
constructor()
{
this.extends = [new A()];
return new Proxy(this, {
get: function(obj, prop) {
if(prop in obj)
return obj[prop];
let response = obj.extends.find(function (extended) {
if(prop in extended)
return extended[prop];
});
return response ? response[prop] : Reflect.get(...arguments);
},
})
}
}
let b = new B();
b.test ;// "a test";
b.method(); // in the method
In JavaScript, I may begin writing a 'library' or collection of functionality using a top level object like this:
window.Lib = (function()
{
return {
// Define Lib here.
//
};
})();
I may also add some functions within Lib which serve to create objects related to it:
window.Lib = (function()
{
return {
ObjectA: function()
{
var _a = 5;
return {
getA: function(){ return _a; }
};
},
ObjectB: function()
{
var _b = 2;
var _c = 1;
return {
getB: function(){ return _b; }
};
}
};
})();
Which would be used like so:
var thing = Lib.ObjectA();
var thing2 = Lib.ObjectA();
var thing3 = Lib.ObjectB();
And I can use the methods within each of those created above to get the values of _a defined within ObjectA() or _b defined within ObjectB():
alert(thing.getA()); // 5
alert(thing3.getB()); // 2
What I want to achieve is this:
Say I want to access the property _c (defined within ObjectB()) but only within the scope of Lib. How could I go about that? By this I mean, I want to make the property readable within any function that I define within the object returned by Lib(), but I don't want to expose those values outside of that.
Code example:
window.Lib = (function()
{
return {
ObjectA: function(){ ... },
ObjectB: function(){ ... },
assess: function(obj)
{
// Somehow get _c here.
alert( obj.getInternalC() );
}
};
})();
Which would work like so:
var thing = Lib.ObjectB();
alert( thing.getInternalC() ) // error | null | no method named .getInternalC()
Lib.assess(thing); // 1
Hope this makes sense.
So you want per-instance protected properties? That is, properties on the instances created by ObjectA, ObjectB, etc., but which are only accessible to the code within your library, and not to code outside it?
You cannot currently do that properly in JavaScript, but you'll be able to in the next version using private name objects. (See "Almost doing it" below for something similar you can do now in ES5, though.)
It's easy to create data that's shared by all code within Lib, but not per-instance properties, like so:
window.Lib = (function()
{
var sharedData;
// ...
})();
All of the functions defined within there (your ObjectA, etc.) will have access to that one sharedData variable, which is completely inaccessible from outside. But it's not per-instance, each object created by ObjectA, ObjectB, etc. doesn't get its own copy.
Almost doing it
If your code will be running in an environment with ES5 (so, any modern browser, where "modern" does not include IE8 or earlier), you can have obscured but not actually private properties, via Object.defineProperty. This is similar to how private name objects will work in ES.next, but not genuinely private:
Live Example | Source
window.Lib = (function() {
// Get a random name for our "c" property
var c = "__c" + Math.round(Math.random() * 1000000);
// Return our library functions
return {
ObjectA: function() {
// Create an object with a couple of public proprties:
var obj = {
pub1: "I'm a public property",
pub2: "So am I"
};
// Add our obscured "c" property to it, make sure it's
// non-enumerable (doesn't show up in for-in loops)
Object.defineProperty(obj, c, {
enumerable: false, // false is actually the default value, just emphasizing
writable: true,
value: "I'm an obscured property"
});
// Return it
return obj;
},
ObjectB: function(){ /* ... */ },
assess: function(obj) {
// Here, we access the property using the `c` variable, which
// contains the property name. In JavaScript, you can access
// properties either using dotted notation and a literal
// (`foo.propName`), or using bracketed notation and a string
// (`foo["propName"]`). Here we're using bracketed notation,
// and our `c` string, which has the actual property name.
display( obj[c] );
},
alter: function(obj, value) {
// Similarly, we can change the value with code that has
// access to the `c` variable
obj[c] = value;
}
};
})();
And use it like this:
// Create our object
var o = Lib.ObjectA();
// Play with it
display("pub1: " + o.pub1); // displays "pub1: I'm a public property"
display("c: " + o.c); // displays "c: undefined" since `o` has no property called `c`
Lib.assess(o); // displays "I'm an obscured property"
// Note that our obscured property doesn't show up in for-in loops or Object.keys:
var propName, propNames = [];
for (propName in o) {
propNames.push(propName);
}
display("propNames: " + propNames.join(","));
display("Object.keys: " + Object.keys(o).join(","));
// Our Lib code can modify the property
Lib.alter(o, "Updated obscured property");
Lib.assess(o);
The object returned by Lib.ObjectA has a property whose name will change every time Lib is loaded, and which is not enumerable (doesn't show up in for-in loops). The only way to get at it is to know it's name (which, again, changes every time Lib is created — e.g., every page load). The code within Lib knows what the property name is, because it's in the c variable which is shared by all of the Lib code. Since you can access properties using bracketed notation and a string, we can use instance[c] to access the property.
You see how these are pretty well obscured. Code outside of Lib don't see the obscured property when enumerating the property in the object, and they don't know the semi-random name we assigned it, so can't find the property. Of course, you could find it via inspection using a debugger, but debuggers can do lots of things.
And in fact, this is how private properties will work in ES.next, except that c won't be a string, it'll be a private name object.
Well, you would "just" need to declare those variables within the Context of Lib
window.Lib = (function()
{
var _c = 42;
return {
};
});
Notice that I removed the automatic invocation of that pseudo constructor function. That means, you would need to create multiple calls to Lib() for multiple instances, each would have its own unique set of values.
var inst1 = Lib(),
inst2 = Lib();
If you only want to have shared access from all child-context's (functions), you can just use the same pattern you already do (only with moving the var declarations to the parent context like shown above).