JavaScript class - Call method when object initialized - javascript

I have a class similar to the one below. How do I call my init method when the object is created? I don't want to have to create an instance of my object then call initialize like I do below.
var myObj = new myClass(2, true);
myObj.init();
function myClass(v1, v2)
{
// public vars
this.var1 = v1;
// private vars
var2 = v2;
// pub methods
this.init = function() {
// do some stuff
};
// private methods
someMethod = function() {
// do some private stuff
};
}

NB. Constructor function names should start with a capital letter to distinguish them from ordinary functions, e.g. MyClass instead of myClass.
Either you can call init from your constructor function:
var myObj = new MyClass(2, true);
function MyClass(v1, v2)
{
// ...
// pub methods
this.init = function() {
// do some stuff
};
// ...
this.init(); // <------------ added this
}
Or more simply you could just copy the body of the init function to the end of the constructor function. No need to actually have an init function at all if it's only called once.

There is even more smooth way to do this:
this.init = function(){
// method body
}();
This will both create method and call it.

See below for one possible answer, and some corrections to your code.
function myClass(v1, v2)
{
// public vars
this.var1 = v1;
// private vars
// use var to actually make this private
var var2 = v2;
// pub methods
this.init = function() {
// do some stuff
};
// private methods
// this will be private as though it had been declared with var
function someMethod() {
// do some private stuff
};
//call init
this.init();
}

JavaScript classes introduced in ECMAScript 2015 are primarily syntactical sugar over JavaScript's existing prototype-based inheritance. The class syntax is not introducing a new object-oriented inheritance model to JavaScript. JavaScript classes provide a much simpler and clearer syntax to create objects and deal with inheritance.
- MDN web docs
When using this syntax, because only the constructor() method is run on instantiation you can't auto-instantiate an object. You always have to add user = new MyUser()
var user;
class MyUser {
constructor(var1, var2) {
this.var1 = var1;
this.var2 = var2;
}
static staticMethod() {
// accessed directly with the class name `MyUser`
}
instanceMethod() {
// accessed with object instance
return true
}
}
user = new MyUser('hey','there')

Just add
this.init();
to your myClass function.

Related

How to compare JavaScript Classes with Java Classes [duplicate]

I understand basic JavaScript pseudo-classes:
function Foo(bar) {
this._bar = bar;
}
Foo.prototype.getBar = function() {
return this._bar;
};
var foo = new Foo('bar');
alert(foo.getBar()); // 'bar'
alert(foo._bar); // 'bar'
I also understand the module pattern, which can emulate encapsulation:
var Foo = (function() {
var _bar;
return {
getBar: function() {
return _bar;
},
setBar: function(bar) {
_bar = bar;
}
};
})();
Foo.setBar('bar');
alert(Foo.getBar()); // 'bar'
alert(Foo._bar); // undefined
But there are un-OOP-like properties to both of these patterns. The former does not provide encapsulation. The latter does not provide instantiation. Both patterns can be modified to support pseudo-inheritance.
What I'd like to know is if there is any pattern that allows:
Inheritance
Encapsulation (support for "private" properties/methods)
Instantiation (can have multiple instances of the "class", each with its own state)
what about this :
var Foo = (function() {
// "private" variables
var _bar;
// constructor
function Foo() {};
// add the methods to the prototype so that all of the
// Foo instances can access the private static
Foo.prototype.getBar = function() {
return _bar;
};
Foo.prototype.setBar = function(bar) {
_bar = bar;
};
return Foo;
})();
And now we have instantiation, encapsulation and inheritance.
But, there still is a problem. The private variable is static because it's shared across all instances of Foo. Quick demo :
var a = new Foo();
var b = new Foo();
a.setBar('a');
b.setBar('b');
alert(a.getBar()); // alerts 'b' :(
A better approach might be using conventions for the private variables : any private variable should start with an underscore. This convention is well known and widely used, so when another programmer uses or alters your code and sees a variable starting with underscore, he'll know that it's private, for internal use only and he won't modify it.
Here's the rewrite using this convention :
var Foo = (function() {
// constructor
function Foo() {
this._bar = "some value";
};
// add the methods to the prototype so that all of the
// Foo instances can access the private static
Foo.prototype.getBar = function() {
return this._bar;
};
Foo.prototype.setBar = function(bar) {
this._bar = bar;
};
return Foo;
})();
Now we have instantiation, inheritance, but we've lost our encapsulation in favor of conventions :
var a = new Foo();
var b = new Foo();
a.setBar('a');
b.setBar('b');
alert(a.getBar()); // alerts 'a' :)
alert(b.getBar()); // alerts 'b' :)
but the private vars are accessible :
delete a._bar;
b._bar = null;
alert(a.getBar()); // alerts undefined :(
alert(b.getBar()); // alerts null :(
I think what you're looking for is the "Revealing Prototype Pattern".
Dan Wahlin has a great blog post: http://weblogs.asp.net/dwahlin/archive/2011/08/03/techniques-strategies-and-patterns-for-structuring-javascript-code-revealing-prototype-pattern.aspx
and even better Pluralsight course on this and other related JavaScript structures: http://pluralsight.com/training/courses/TableOfContents?courseName=structuring-javascript&highlight=dan-wahlin_structuring-javascript-module1!dan-wahlin_structuring-javascript-module2!dan-wahlin_structuring-javascript-module5!dan-wahlin_structuring-javascript-module4!dan-wahlin_structuring-javascript-module3#structuring-javascript-module1
Closures are your friend!
Simply add the following tiny function to your top-level namespace and you're ready to OOP, complete with
encapsulation, with static and instance, private and public variables
and methods
inheritance
class-level injection (eg. for singleton services)
no constraints, no framework, just plain old Javascript
function clazz(_class, _super) {
var _prototype = Object.create((_super || function() {}).prototype);
var _deps = Array.isArray(_class) ? _class : [_class]; _class = _deps.pop();
_deps.push(_super);
_prototype.constructor = _class.apply(_prototype, _deps) || _prototype.constructor;
_prototype.constructor.prototype = _prototype;
return _prototype.constructor;
}
The above function simply wires up the given class' prototype and eventual parent constructor, and returns the resulting constructor, ready for instantiation.
Now you can most naturally declare your base classes (ie. that extend {}) in a few lines of code, complete with static, instance, public and private properties and methods:
MyBaseClass = clazz(function(_super) { // class closure, 'this' is the prototype
// local variables and functions declared here are private static variables and methods
// properties of 'this' declared here are public static variables and methods
return function MyBaseClass(arg1, ...) { // or: this.constructor = function(arg1, ...) {
// local variables and functions declared here are private instance variables and methods
// properties of 'this' declared here are public instance variables and methods
};
});
Extending a class? All the more natural as well:
MySubClass = clazz(function(_super) { // class closure, 'this' is the prototype
// local variables and functions are private static variables and methods
// properties of this are public static variables and methods
return function MySubClass(arg1, ...) // or: this.constructor = function(arg1, ...) {
// local variables and functions are private instance variables and methods
_super.apply(this, arguments); // or _super.call(this, arg1, ...)
// properties of 'this' are public instance variables and methods
};
}, MyBaseClass); // extend MyBaseClass
In other words, pass the parent class constructor to the clazz function, and add _super.call(this, arg1, ...) to the child class' constructor, which calls the parent class' constructor with the required arguments. As with any standard inheritance scheme, the parent constructor call must come first in the child constructor.
Note that you're free to either explicitly name the contructor with this.constructor = function(arg1, ...) {...}, or this.constructor = function MyBaseClass(arg1, ...) {...} if you need simple access to the constructor from the code inside the constructor, or even simply return the constructor with return function MyBaseClass(arg1, ...) {...} as in the above code. Whichever you feel most comfortable with.
Simply instantiate objects from such classes as you normally would from a constructor: myObj = new MyBaseClass();
Notice how closures nicely encapsulate all of a class' functionality, including its prototype and constructor, providing a natural namespace for static and instance, private and public properties and methods. The code within a class closure is completely free of constraints. No framework, no constraints, just plain old Javascript. Closures rule!
Oh, and if you want to inject singleton dependencies (eg. services) into your class (ie. prototype), clazz will do this for you à la AngularJS:
DependentClass = clazz([aService, function(_service, _super) { // class closure, 'this' is the prototype
// the injected _service dependency is available anywhere in this class
return function MySubClass(arg1, ...) // or: this.constructor = function(arg1, ...) {
_super.apply(this, arguments); // or _super.call(this, arg1, ...)
// the injected _service dependency is also available in the constructor
};
}], MyBaseClass); // extend MyBaseClass
As the above code attempts to illustrate, to inject singletons into a class simply place the class closure as the last entry into an array with all its dependencies. Also add the corresponding parameters to the class closure in front of the _super parameter and in the same order as in the array. clazz will inject the dependencies from the array as arguments into the class closure. The dependencies are then available anywhere within the class closure, including the constructor.
In fact, since the dependencies are injected into the prototype, they are available to static methods even before any object is instantiated from the class. This is very powerful for wiring up your apps or unit and end-to-end tests. It also removes the need to inject singletons into constructors, which otherwise unnecessarily clobbers the constructor's code.
Check this fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/5uzmyvdq/1/
Feedback and suggestions most welcome!
Javascript is certainly OOP. You always have polymorphism, however you have to sacrifice either encapsulation or instantiation which is the problem you ran into.
Try this to just brush up on your options.
http://www.webmonkey.com/2010/02/make_oop_classes_in_javascript/
Also an old question that I had bookmarked:
Is JavaScript object-oriented?
JavaScript classes are introduced in ECMAScript 6 and are syntactical sugar over JavaScript's existing prototype-based inheritance. The class syntax is not introducing a new object-oriented inheritance model to JavaScript. JavaScript classes provide a much simpler and clearer syntax to create objects and deal with inheritance.
You can see more in this link Mozilla Community
Github
I was thinking about this particular subject recently and the limitations of the various approaches. The best solution I've been able to come up with is below.
It seems to solve the problems with inheritance, instantiation and ecapsulation (at least from tests on Google Chrome v.24) although probably at a cost in memory usage.
function ParentClass(instanceProperty) {
// private
var _super = Object.create(null),
privateProperty = "private " + instanceProperty;
// public
var api = Object.create(_super);
api.constructor = this.constructor;
api.publicMethod = function() {
console.log( "publicMethod on ParentClass" );
console.log( privateProperty );
};
api.publicMethod2 = function() {
console.log( "publicMethod2 on ParentClass" );
console.log( privateProperty );
};
return api;
}
function SubClass(instanceProperty) {
// private
var _super = ParentClass.call( this, instanceProperty ),
privateProperty = "private sub " + instanceProperty;
// public
var api = Object.create(_super);
api.constructor = this.constructor;
api.publicMethod = function() {
_super.publicMethod.call(this); // call method on ParentClass
console.log( "publicMethod on SubClass" );
console.log( privateProperty );
}
return api;
}
var par1 = new ParentClass(0),
par2 = new ParentClass(1),
sub1 = new SubClass(2),
sub2 = new SubClass(3);
par1.publicMethod();
par2.publicMethod();
sub1.publicMethod();
sub2.publicMethod();
par1.publicMethod2();
par2.publicMethod2();
sub1.publicMethod2();
sub2.publicMethod2();
One problem with a lot of JS classes out there is that they do not secure their fields and methods which means that anyone using it may accidentally replace a method. For example the code:
function Class(){
var name="Luis";
var lName="Potter";
}
Class.prototype.changeName=function(){
this.name="BOSS";
console.log(this.name);
};
var test= new Class();
console.log(test.name);
test.name="ugly";
console.log(test.name);
test.changeName();
test.changeName=function(){
console.log("replaced");
};
test.changeName();
test.changeName();
will output:
ugly
BOSS
replaced
replaced
As you can see the changeName function gets overriden. The following code would secure the class methods and fields and the getters and setters would be used to access them making this more of a "regular" class found in other languages.
function Class(){
var name="Luis";
var lName="Potter";
function getName(){
console.log("called getter");
return name;
};
function setName(val){
console.log("called setter");
name = val
};
function getLName(){
return lName
};
function setLName(val){
lName = val;
};
Object.defineProperties(this,{
name:{
get:getName,
set:setName,
enumerable:true,
configurable:false
},
lastName:{
get:getLName,
set:setLName,
enumerable:true,
configurable:false
}
});
}
Class.prototype.changeName=function(){
this.name="BOSS";
};
Object.defineProperty(Class.prototype, "changeName", {
writable:false,
configurable:false
});
var test= new Class();
console.log(test.name);
test.name="ugly";
console.log(test.name);
test.changeName();
test.changeName=function(){
console.log("replaced")
};
test.changeName();
test.changeName();
This outputs:
called getter
Luis
called setter
called getter
ugly
called setter
called setter
called setter
Now your class methods cannot be replaced by random values or functions and the code in the getters and setters always run when attempting to read or write to field.
This closure allows instantiation and encapsulation but no inheritance.
function Foo(){
var _bar = "foo";
return {
getBar: function() {
return _bar;
},
setBar: function(bar) {
_bar = bar;
}
};
};
a = Foo();
b = Foo();
a.setBar("bar");
alert(a.getBar()); // "bar"
alert(b.getBar()); // "foo"

Javascript inheritance and encapsulation, done efficiently

Coming from a C++ / Objective-C background, I'm trying to learn how to correctly and efficiently reproduce the patterns of inheritance and encapsulation in Javascript. I've done plenty of reading (Crockford etc.) and while there are plenty of examples of how to achieve one or the other, I'm struggling with how to combine them without introducing significant negatives.
At the moment, I have this code:
var BaseClass = (function() {
function doThing() {
console.log("[%s] Base-class's 'doThing'", this.name);
}
function reportThing() {
console.log("[%s] Base-class's 'reportThing'", this.name);
}
return function(name) {
var self = Object.create({});
self.name = name;
self.doThing = doThing;
self.reportThing = reportThing;
return self;
}
}());
var SubClass = (function(base) {
function extraThing() {
console.log("[%s] Sub-class's 'extraThing'", this.name);
}
function doThing() {
console.log("[%s] Sub-class's replacement 'doThing'", this.name);
}
return function(name) {
// Create an instance of the base object, passing our 'name' to it.
var self = Object.create(base(name));
// We need to bind the new method to replace the old
self.doThing = doThing;
self.extraThing = extraThing;
return self;
}
}(BaseClass));
It mostly does what I want:
// Create an instance of the base class and call it's two methods
var base = BaseClass("Bert");
base.doThing(); // "[Bert] Base-class's 'doThing'"
base.reportThing(); // "[Bert] Base-class's 'reportThing'"
var other = BaseClass("Fred");
// Create an instance of the sub-class and call it's three methods (two from the base, one of it's own)
var sub = SubClass("Alfred");
sub.doThing(); // "[Alfred] Sub-class's replacement 'doThing'"
sub.extraThing(); // "[Alfred] Sub-class's 'extraThing'"
sub.reportThing(); // "[Alfred] Base-class's 'reportThing'"
But, there's (at least!) two issues:
I'm not convinced the prototype chain is intact. If I substitute a method in the prototype via one instance of a sub-class, other instances don't see it:
No encapsulation of .name property
I'm replacing the prototype's implementation of a function like this:
Object.getPrototypeOf(oneInstance).reportThing = function() { ... }
otherInstance.reportThing() // Original version is still called
That's perhaps not a significant problem, but it is causing me to doubt my understanding.
Private variables is something I want to implement efficiently though. The module pattern of variable hiding doesn't help here, as it causes function definitions to exist per-object. I'm probably missing a way of combining patterns, so is there a way of achieving private variables without duplicating functions?
This is usually how I tackle inheritance and encapsulation in JavaScript. The defclass function is used to create a new class that doesn't inherit from any other class and the extend function is used to create a new class which extends another class:
var base = new BaseClass("Bert");
base.doThing(); // "Bert BaseClass doThing"
base.reportThing(); // "Bert BaseClass reportThing"
var sub = new SubClass("Alfred");
sub.doThing(); // "Alfred SubClass replacement doThing"
sub.extraThing(); // "Alfred SubClass extraThing"
sub.reportThing(); // "Alfred BaseClass reportThing"
var other = new SubClass("Fred");
SubClass.prototype.reportThing = function () {
console.log(this.name + " SubClass replacement reportThing");
};
other.reportThing(); // Fred SubClass replacement reportThing
<script>
function defclass(prototype) {
var constructor = prototype.constructor;
constructor.prototype = prototype;
return constructor;
}
function extend(constructor, keys) {
var prototype = Object.create(constructor.prototype);
for (var key in keys) prototype[key] = keys[key];
return defclass(prototype);
}
var BaseClass = defclass({
constructor: function (name) {
this.name = name;
},
doThing: function () {
console.log(this.name + " BaseClass doThing");
},
reportThing: function () {
console.log(this.name + " BaseClass reportThing");
}
});
var SubClass = extend(BaseClass, {
constructor: function (name) {
BaseClass.call(this, name);
},
doThing: function () {
console.log(this.name + " SubClass replacement doThing");
},
extraThing: function () {
console.log(this.name + " SubClass extraThing");
}
});
</script>
Read the following answer to understand how inheritance works in JavaScript:
What are the downsides of defining functions on prototype this way?
It explains the difference between prototypes and constructors. In addition, it also shows how prototypes and classes are isomorphic and how to create “classes” in JavaScript.
Hope that helps.
The simple recipe follows:
function BaseClass(someParams)
{
// Setup the public properties, e.g.
this.name = someParams.name;
}
BaseClass.prototype.someMethod = function(){
// Do something with the public properties
}
Now the inheritance occurs this way
function SubClass(someParams)
{
// Reuse the base class constructor
BaseClass.call(this, someParams);
// Keep initializing stuff that wasn't initialized by the base class
this.anotherProperty= someParams.anotherProperty;
}
// Copy the prototype from the BaseClass
SubClass.prototype = Object.create(BaseClass.prototype);
SubClass.prototype.constructor = SubClass;
// Start extending or overriding stuff
SubClass.prototype.someMethod = function(){
// In case you still wanna have the side effects of the original method
// This is opt-in code so it depends on your scenario.
BaseClass.prototype.someMethod.apply(this, arguments);
// Override the method here
}
Taken from:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Introduction_to_Object-Oriented_JavaScript
P.S. Object.create may not be supported on all old browsers, but don't worry, there's a polyfill for that in this link. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/create
If you want to preserve the prototype chain, you must override and use .prototype:
Example:
Main Class:
function BaseClass(){
}
BaseClass.prototype.doThing = function(){...}
SubClass:
function SubClass(){
}
SubClass.prototype= new BaseClass();
SubClass.prototype.extraThing = function(){};
Now, whenever you change extraThing or doThing it gets replaced everywhere.
The name property is accessible as a public variable (it's not static).
If you want it static, you must put it in prototype.
If you want it private, you mast make it function local:
function BaseClass(nameParam){
var name = nameParam;
}
To create an object simply call the function:
var testObj = new BaseClass("test");
testObj.doThing();
If you want to combine private variables with rewritable functions, you might find your answer here. But if you are able to rewrite the function that has access to the private variable, it's not really a private variable anymore.

Prototype for private sub-methods

I have code that looks like this:
var baseClass = function() {
// CODE
var subClass = function() {
// MORE CODE
}
}
Adding methods to baseClass is fine, I just use
baseClass.prototype.newMethod = function () {
// NEW CODE
}
My question is how should I add methods to subClass? Is the only way to simply make it a public method?
######## EDIT ##############
OK so I've rearranged the code so the subClass is outside the baseClass. I pass in baseClass so subClass can still access the properties of the instance of baseClass.
var baseClass = function() {
var base = this;
this.property_a = 1;
this.property_b = 5;
var sub = new subClass(base);
// CODE
}
var subClass = function(parent) {
var sub = this;
this.property_c = 1;
this.method_a = function() {
return sub.property_c + parent.property_a;
}
// MORE CODE
}
this is fine and works, but now I have a new problem of when I add a method using prototype:
subClass.prototype.method_b = function(){
return sub.property_c + parent.property_b;
}
I get an error saying parent isn't defined.
Basically I have a fairly simple web application that has two sides, a viewing side and an editing side. I build the base class which includes everything necessary for viewing, and I want to add the methods required for editing in a different file so they're only loaded when a user is on the editing page.
Why do you declare that subclass in the base class? Doesn't make sense to me.
You can add to the subclass's prototype whereever it is in you scope. In your code it would be
var baseClass = function() {
// CODE
var subClass = function() {
// MORE CODE
}
subClass.prototype = {
...
}
}
But I'd suggest to put it out of the base class constructor. If you want it private for some reason, add a closure:
(function(){
baseClass = function() { // public
// CODE
}
baseClass.prototype = {...};
var subClass = function() { // private
// MORE CODE
}
subClass.prototype = Object.create(baseClass.prototype);
subClass.prototype.newMethod = function () { ... }
})()
EDIT to answer the extended question:
Ah, subClass doesn't inherit from baseClass! We had expected that, otherwise it may be OK to have it inside the constructor. Then, the same prototype could have been added to each of the different subClass constructors:
var subproto = {
method_b: = function(){
// manipulate "this"
},
...
};
function baseClass() {
// some code
function sub() {
// is a constructor for subs which belong to this specif base intance
...
}
sub.prototype = subproto; // the sub constructors of each base instance
// have the same prototype
var x = new sub(),
y = new sub(); // example usage of the sub constructor
}
baseClass.prototype = {...}
Else, if you want one common sub constructor (outside of function baseClass), you may give the base instance the sub belongs to as an argument to the constructor - as you did. Of course the sub (both internal and external methods) can only access public properties of that base instance.
The mistake you made in your rearranged code is that your prototype ("external") methods tried to access the private parent variable from the sub constructor. As you say, "error saying parent isn't defined".
var subClass = function(parent) {
var sub = this;
this.parent = parent; // make it public
this.property_c = 1;
this.method_a = function() {
return sub.property_c + parent.property_a;
}
// MORE CODE
}
subClass.prototype.method_b = function(){
// prototype functions can only access public properties
// i.e. privileged methods, public attributes and other prototype properties
return this.property_c + this.parent.property_b;
}
You will have to define the methods in the same context as you define subClass:
var baseClass = function() {
// CODE
var subClass = function() {
// MORE CODE
}
subClass.prototype.newMethod = function () { ... }
}
If that's not possible, then you will need to expose subClass to the appropriate context or provide a mechanism from baseClass to extend subClass.
If you really want to keep the subclass private, you could hide the definitions in a closure:
var BaseClass = (function() {
function BaseClass() { ... };
function SubClass() { ... };
BaseClass.prototype.foo = function() { ... };
SubClass.prototype.foo = function() { ... };
return BaseClass;
})();
I have personally found this kind of closure-enforced protection to be more trouble than it's worth (ex, makes debugging more difficult)… But if you wanted to do it, that's how you would.

How can I transition my Module-Singleton JavaScript to supporting instances?

I've been writing an application and I have had a lot of success breaking different pieces of functionality into the so called "Module" pattern where you have a self-executing singleton with public and private members.
var WidgetModule = (function($, options) {
// Private variable
var someVar;
// Private functions
function somePrivateFunction() {
}
// Define the public members
var self = {
init: function() {
},
someFunction: function() {
}
};
return self;
})(jQuery, options);
I have now run into a case where I have several modules which I would like to be able to create multiple instances of.
I know this pattern is based on the singleton but I wonder if there was a painless way to modify this pattern to support creating instances of them?
When I need common functionality for multiple objects, here's the pattern I usually use (adjusted to account for the code you presented):
var Widget = (function($) {
var pubs = Widget.prototype;
// Private variable -- global to all instances
var someVar;
// The constructor
function Widget(options) {
var privateInstanceVar;
this.privateInstanceFunc = function() {
return privateInstanceVar;
};
}
// Private functions -- global to all instances
function somePrivateFunction() {
}
// Define the public members
pubs.init = function() {
};
pubs.someFunction = function() {
};
return Widget;
})(jQuery);
Usage:
var w = new Widget({someOption: "here"});
As you can see, you can share private data amongst all instances created by the constructor, and if you really want to, you can have private data that's shared only with certain select instance functions. Those functions have to be created in the constructor, which has reuse implications, whereas functions that don't need the truly-private instance data can be on the prototype and therefore be shared by all instances.
Better yet, since you already have a handy scoping function, you can help your tools help you by giving your public functions actual names:
pubs.init = Widget_init;
function Widget_init() {
}
I mostly don't actually code the above, because I've defined a helper factory that makes it a bit more concise (and makes it easier to do specializations of functionality, like a Car inheriting functionality from Vehicle); details here.
What about this:
function WidgetModule(options){
//var $ = jQuery;
// Private variable
var someVar;
// Private functions
function somePrivateFunction() {
}
// Define the public members
var self = {
init: function() {
console.log(options.id);
},
someFunction: function() {
}
};
return self;
}
var w1 = WidgetModule({id:1}),
w2 = WidgetModule({id:2});
w1.init(); // --> 1
w2.init(); // --> 2

Private static functions in javascript

How can I create a function that can't be called from outside?
var obj = {
function1: function(){
alert("function1");
},
function2: function(){
alert("function2...");
obj.function1();
}
};
// so how to make this function unaccessible
obj.function1();
// and you could only call this function
obj.function2();
You may want to consider using the Yahoo Module Pattern. This is a singleton pattern, and the methods are not really static, but it may be what you are looking for:
var obj = (function () {
//"private" variables:
var myPrivateVar = "I can be accessed only from within obj.";
//"private" method:
var myPrivateMethod = function () {
console.log("I can be accessed only from within obj");
};
return {
myPublicVar: "I'm accessible as obj.myPublicVar",
myPublicMethod: function () {
console.log("I'm accessible as obj.myPublicMethod");
//Within obj, I can access "private" vars and methods:
console.log(myPrivateVar);
console.log(myPrivateMethod());
}
};
})();
You define your private members where myPrivateVar and myPrivateMethod are defined, and your public members where myPublicVar and myPublicMethod are defined.
You can simply access the public methods and properties as follows:
obj.myPublicMethod(); // Works
obj.myPublicVar; // Works
obj.myPrivateMethod(); // Doesn't work - private
obj.myPrivateVar; // Doesn't work - private
The simple answer is that you can't do both. You can create "private" methods or "static" methods, but you can't create Private static functions as in other languages.
The way you can emulate privacy is closure:
function f() {
function inner(){}
return {
publicFn: function() {},
publicFn2: function() {}
}
}
Here because of closure, the inner function will be created every time you call f, and the public functions can acces this inner function, but for the outside world inner will be hidden.
The way you create static methods of an object is simple:
function f() {}
f.staticVar = 5;
f.staticFn = function() {};
// or
f.prototype.staticFn = function() {};
Here the function object f will only have one staticFn which has access to static variables, but nothing from the instances.
Please note that the prototype version will be inherited while the first one won't.
So you either make a private method that is not accessing anything from the instances, or you make a static method which you doesn't try to access from the outside.
​
You can use a closure, something along the lines of....
var construct = function() {
var obj = {};
var method1 = function() {
alert("method1");
}
obj.method2 = function() {
alert("method2...");
method1();
}
return obj;
}
obj = construct();
Then:
obj.method2 is accessible, but obj.method1 doesn't exist for public usage. It can be only accessed using member functions of the class.
Objects can be produced by constructors, which are functions which initialize objects. Constructors provide the features that classes provide in other languages, including static variables and methods.
Read all about it at http://www.crockford.com/javascript/private.html
You can do it like this:
var obj = new function() {
var method1 = function() { // private }
this.method2 = function() { // public }
}
obj.method1(); // not possible
obj.method2(); // possible
Note that I also use an anonymous constructor. This is sort of analogous to the Singleton pattern.
Maybe you want a proxy object containing only the public methods, e.g.
var obj = (function() {
var obj = {
method1: function(){
alert("method1");
},
method2: function(){
alert("method2...");
obj.method1();
}
}
return {
method2: function() { return obj.method2.apply(obj, arguments) }
}
})()
// you could only call this function
obj.method2();
// this function inaccessible
obj.method1();
I don't see the point of private methods in javascript. If you don't want people calling a method then don't advertise it. Private methods also make debugging just that bit harder too.
This is how it really should be done.
var MyClass = new(function() {
var privateStaticVariable = '';
function privateStaticMethod() {
}
function construct() {
var self = this;
this.publicMethod = function() {};
function privateMethod() {
//maybe lest use our private static method
privateStaticMethod();
}
}
construct.publicStaticVariable = '';
construct.publicStaticMethod = function() {};
return construct;
})();
Now lets use it:
var myClass = new MyClass();.....
MyClass.publicStaticMethod();
MyClass.publicStaticVariable = 'sfdsdf';
myClass.publicMethod();
.....
Use class. Though some of the features are still not shipped as it’s at Stage 3.
const instance = new (class Alpha {
static #private_static_method() {
console.info("I am private and static.");
}
static public_static_method() {
Alpha.#private_static_method();
console.info("I am public and static.");
}
#private_nonstatic_method() {
console.info("I am private and non-static.");
}
public_nonstatic_method() {
this.#private_nonstatic_method();
console.info("I am public and non-static.");
}
});
instance.constructor.public_static_method();
// instance.constructor.#private_static_method(); // impossible
instance.public_nonstatic_method();
// instance.#private_nonstatic_method(); // impossible

Categories