Related
I prefer to use OOP in large scale projects like the one I'm working on right now. I need to create several classes in JavaScript but, if I'm not mistaken, there are at least a couple of ways to go about doing that. What would be the syntax and why would it be done in that way?
I would like to avoid using third-party libraries - at least at first.
Looking for other answers, I found the article Object-Oriented Programming with JavaScript, Part I: Inheritance - Doc JavaScript that discusses object-oriented programming in JavaScript. Is there a better way to do inheritance?
Here's the way to do it without using any external libraries:
// Define a class like this
function Person(name, gender){
// Add object properties like this
this.name = name;
this.gender = gender;
}
// Add methods like this. All Person objects will be able to invoke this
Person.prototype.speak = function(){
alert("Howdy, my name is" + this.name);
};
// Instantiate new objects with 'new'
var person = new Person("Bob", "M");
// Invoke methods like this
person.speak(); // alerts "Howdy, my name is Bob"
Now the real answer is a whole lot more complex than that. For instance, there is no such thing as classes in JavaScript. JavaScript uses a prototype-based inheritance scheme.
In addition, there are numerous popular JavaScript libraries that have their own style of approximating class-like functionality in JavaScript. You'll want to check out at least Prototype and jQuery.
Deciding which of these is the "best" is a great way to start a holy war on Stack Overflow. If you're embarking on a larger JavaScript-heavy project, it's definitely worth learning a popular library and doing it their way. I'm a Prototype guy, but Stack Overflow seems to lean towards jQuery.
As far as there being only "one way to do it", without any dependencies on external libraries, the way I wrote is pretty much it.
The best way to define a class in JavaScript is to not define a class.
Seriously.
There are several different flavors of object-orientation, some of them are:
class-based OO (first introduced by Smalltalk)
prototype-based OO (first introduced by Self)
multimethod-based OO (first introduced by CommonLoops, I think)
predicate-based OO (no idea)
And probably others I don't know about.
JavaScript implements prototype-based OO. In prototype-based OO, new objects are created by copying other objects (instead of being instantiated from a class template) and methods live directly in objects instead of in classes. Inheritance is done via delegation: if an object doesn't have a method or property, it is looked up on its prototype(s) (i.e. the object it was cloned from), then the prototype's prototypes and so on.
In other words: there are no classes.
JavaScript actually has a nice tweak of that model: constructors. Not only can you create objects by copying existing ones, you can also construct them "out of thin air", so to speak. If you call a function with the new keyword, that function becomes a constructor and the this keyword will not point to the current object but instead to a newly created "empty" one. So, you can configure an object any way you like. In that way, JavaScript constructors can take on one of the roles of classes in traditional class-based OO: serving as a template or blueprint for new objects.
Now, JavaScript is a very powerful language, so it is quite easy to implement a class-based OO system within JavaScript if you want to. However, you should only do this if you really have a need for it and not just because that's the way Java does it.
ES2015 Classes
In the ES2015 specification, you can use the class syntax which is just sugar over the prototype system.
class Person {
constructor(name) {
this.name = name;
}
toString() {
return `My name is ${ this.name }.`;
}
}
class Employee extends Person {
constructor(name, hours) {
super(name);
this.hours = hours;
}
toString() {
return `${ super.toString() } I work ${ this.hours } hours.`;
}
}
Benefits
The main benefit is that static analysis tools find it easier to target this syntax. It is also easier for others coming from class-based languages to use the language as a polyglot.
Caveats
Be wary of its current limitations. To achieve private properties, one must resort to using Symbols or WeakMaps. In future releases, classes will most likely be expanded to include these missing features.
Support
Browser support isn't very good at the moment (supported by nearly everyone except IE), but you can use these features now with a transpiler like Babel.
Resources
Classes in ECMAScript 6 (final semantics)
What? Wait. Really? Oh no! (a post about ES6 classes and privacy)
Compatibility Table – Classes
Babel – Classes
I prefer to use Daniel X. Moore's {SUPER: SYSTEM}. This is a discipline that provides benefits such as true instance variables, trait based inheritance, class hierarchies and configuration options. The example below illustrates the use of true instance variables, which I believe is the biggest advantage. If you don't need instance variables and are happy with only public or private variables then there are probably simpler systems.
function Person(I) {
I = I || {};
Object.reverseMerge(I, {
name: "McLovin",
age: 25,
homeState: "Hawaii"
});
return {
introduce: function() {
return "Hi I'm " + I.name + " and I'm " + I.age;
}
};
}
var fogel = Person({
age: "old enough"
});
fogel.introduce(); // "Hi I'm McLovin and I'm old enough"
Wow, that's not really very useful on it's own, but take a look at adding a subclass:
function Ninja(I) {
I = I || {};
Object.reverseMerge(I, {
belt: "black"
});
// Ninja is a subclass of person
return Object.extend(Person(I), {
greetChallenger: function() {
return "In all my " + I.age + " years as a ninja, I've never met a challenger as worthy as you...";
}
});
}
var resig = Ninja({name: "John Resig"});
resig.introduce(); // "Hi I'm John Resig and I'm 25"
Another advantage is the ability to have modules and trait based inheritance.
// The Bindable module
function Bindable() {
var eventCallbacks = {};
return {
bind: function(event, callback) {
eventCallbacks[event] = eventCallbacks[event] || [];
eventCallbacks[event].push(callback);
},
trigger: function(event) {
var callbacks = eventCallbacks[event];
if(callbacks && callbacks.length) {
var self = this;
callbacks.forEach(function(callback) {
callback(self);
});
}
},
};
}
An example of having the person class include the bindable module.
function Person(I) {
I = I || {};
Object.reverseMerge(I, {
name: "McLovin",
age: 25,
homeState: "Hawaii"
});
var self = {
introduce: function() {
return "Hi I'm " + I.name + " and I'm " + I.age;
}
};
// Including the Bindable module
Object.extend(self, Bindable());
return self;
}
var person = Person();
person.bind("eat", function() {
alert(person.introduce() + " and I'm eating!");
});
person.trigger("eat"); // Blasts the alert!
Disclosure: I am Daniel X. Moore and this is my {SUPER: SYSTEM}. It is the best way to define a class in JavaScript.
var Animal = function(options) {
var name = options.name;
var animal = {};
animal.getName = function() {
return name;
};
var somePrivateMethod = function() {
};
return animal;
};
// usage
var cat = Animal({name: 'tiger'});
Following are the ways to create objects in javascript, which I've used so far
Example 1:
obj = new Object();
obj.name = 'test';
obj.sayHello = function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
Example 2:
obj = {};
obj.name = 'test';
obj.sayHello = function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
obj.sayHello();
Example 3:
var obj = function(nameParam) {
this.name = nameParam;
}
obj.prototype.sayHello = function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
Example 4: Actual benefits of Object.create(). please refer [this link]
var Obj = {
init: function(nameParam) {
this.name = nameParam;
},
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
var usrObj = Object.create(Obj); // <== one level of inheritance
usrObj.init('Bob');
usrObj.sayHello();
Example 5 (customised Crockford's Object.create):
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()
}
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();
To keep answer updated with ES6/ ES2015
A class is defined like this:
class Person {
constructor(strName, numAge) {
this.name = strName;
this.age = numAge;
}
toString() {
return '((Class::Person) named ' + this.name + ' & of age ' + this.age + ')';
}
}
let objPerson = new Person("Bob",33);
console.log(objPerson.toString());
I think you should read Douglas Crockford's Prototypal Inheritance in JavaScript and Classical Inheritance in JavaScript.
Examples from his page:
Function.prototype.method = function (name, func) {
this.prototype[name] = func;
return this;
};
Effect? It will allow you to add methods in more elegant way:
function Parenizor(value) {
this.setValue(value);
}
Parenizor.method('setValue', function (value) {
this.value = value;
return this;
});
I also recommend his videos:
Advanced JavaScript.
You can find more videos on his page: http://javascript.crockford.com/
In John Reisig book you can find many examples from Douglas Crockfor's website.
Because I will not admit the YUI/Crockford factory plan and because I like to keep things self contained and extensible this is my variation:
function Person(params)
{
this.name = params.name || defaultnamevalue;
this.role = params.role || defaultrolevalue;
if(typeof(this.speak)=='undefined') //guarantees one time prototyping
{
Person.prototype.speak = function() {/* do whatever */};
}
}
var Robert = new Person({name:'Bob'});
where ideally the typeof test is on something like the first method prototyped
If you're going for simple, you can avoid the "new" keyword entirely and just use factory methods. I prefer this, sometimes, because I like using JSON to create objects.
function getSomeObj(var1, var2){
var obj = {
instancevar1: var1,
instancevar2: var2,
someMethod: function(param)
{
//stuff;
}
};
return obj;
}
var myobj = getSomeObj("var1", "var2");
myobj.someMethod("bla");
I'm not sure what the performance hit is for large objects, though.
var Student = (function () {
function Student(firstname, lastname) {
this.firstname = firstname;
this.lastname = lastname;
this.fullname = firstname + " " + lastname;
}
Student.prototype.sayMyName = function () {
return this.fullname;
};
return Student;
}());
var user = new Student("Jane", "User");
var user_fullname = user.sayMyName();
Thats the way TypeScript compiles class with constructor to JavaScript.
The simple way is:
function Foo(a) {
var that=this;
function privateMethod() { .. }
// public methods
that.add = function(b) {
return a + b;
};
that.avg = function(b) {
return that.add(b) / 2; // calling another public method
};
}
var x = new Foo(10);
alert(x.add(2)); // 12
alert(x.avg(20)); // 15
The reason for that is that this can be bound to something else if you give a method as an event handler, so you save the value during instantiation and use it later.
Edit: it's definitely not the best way, just a simple way. I'm waiting for good answers too!
You probably want to create a type by using the Folding Pattern:
// Here is the constructor section.
var myType = function () {
var N = {}, // Enclosed (private) members are here.
X = this; // Exposed (public) members are here.
(function ENCLOSED_FIELDS() {
N.toggle = false;
N.text = '';
}());
(function EXPOSED_FIELDS() {
X.count = 0;
X.numbers = [1, 2, 3];
}());
// The properties below have access to the enclosed fields.
// Careful with functions exposed within the closure of the
// constructor, each new instance will have it's own copy.
(function EXPOSED_PROPERTIES_WITHIN_CONSTRUCTOR() {
Object.defineProperty(X, 'toggle', {
get: function () {
var before = N.toggle;
N.toggle = !N.toggle;
return before;
}
});
Object.defineProperty(X, 'text', {
get: function () {
return N.text;
},
set: function (value) {
N.text = value;
}
});
}());
};
// Here is the prototype section.
(function PROTOTYPE() {
var P = myType.prototype;
(function EXPOSED_PROPERTIES_WITHIN_PROTOTYPE() {
Object.defineProperty(P, 'numberLength', {
get: function () {
return this.numbers.length;
}
});
}());
(function EXPOSED_METHODS() {
P.incrementNumbersByCount = function () {
var i;
for (i = 0; i < this.numbers.length; i++) {
this.numbers[i] += this.count;
}
};
P.tweak = function () {
if (this.toggle) {
this.count++;
}
this.text = 'tweaked';
};
}());
}());
That code will give you a type called myType. It will have internal private fields called toggle and text. It will also have these exposed members: the fields count and numbers; the properties toggle, text and numberLength; the methods incrementNumbersByCount and tweak.
The Folding Pattern is fully detailed here:
Javascript Folding Pattern
Code golf for #liammclennan's answer.
var Animal = function (args) {
return {
name: args.name,
getName: function () {
return this.name; // member access
},
callGetName: function () {
return this.getName(); // method call
}
};
};
var cat = Animal({ name: 'tiger' });
console.log(cat.callGetName());
MooTools (My Object Oriented Tools) is centered on the idea of classes. You can even extend and implement with inheritance.
When mastered, it makes for ridiculously reusable, powerful javascript.
Object Based Classes with Inheritence
var baseObject =
{
// Replication / Constructor function
new : function(){
return Object.create(this);
},
aProperty : null,
aMethod : function(param){
alert("Heres your " + param + "!");
},
}
newObject = baseObject.new();
newObject.aProperty = "Hello";
anotherObject = Object.create(baseObject);
anotherObject.aProperty = "There";
console.log(newObject.aProperty) // "Hello"
console.log(anotherObject.aProperty) // "There"
console.log(baseObject.aProperty) // null
Simple, sweet, and gets 'er done.
Based on the example of Triptych, this might even be simpler:
// Define a class and instantiate it
var ThePerson = new function Person(name, gender) {
// Add class data members
this.name = name;
this.gender = gender;
// Add class methods
this.hello = function () { alert('Hello, this is ' + this.name); }
}("Bob", "M"); // this instantiates the 'new' object
// Use the object
ThePerson.hello(); // alerts "Hello, this is Bob"
This only creates a single object instance, but is still useful if you want to encapsulate a bunch of names for variable and methods in a class. Normally there would not be the "Bob, M" arguments to the constructor, for example if the methods would be calls to a system with its own data, such as a database or network.
I am still too new with JS to see why this does not use the prototype thing.
A base
function Base(kind) {
this.kind = kind;
}
A class
// Shared var
var _greeting;
(function _init() {
Class.prototype = new Base();
Class.prototype.constructor = Class;
Class.prototype.log = function() { _log.apply(this, arguments); }
_greeting = "Good afternoon!";
})();
function Class(name, kind) {
Base.call(this, kind);
this.name = name;
}
// Shared function
function _log() {
console.log(_greeting + " Me name is " + this.name + " and I'm a " + this.kind);
}
Action
var c = new Class("Joe", "Object");
c.log(); // "Good afternoon! Me name is Joe and I'm a Object"
JavaScript is object-oriented, but it's radically different than other OOP languages like Java, C# or C++. Don't try to understand it like that. Throw that old knowledge out and start anew. JavaScript needs a different thinking.
I'd suggest to get a good manual or something on the subject. I myself found ExtJS Tutorials the best for me, although I haven't used the framework before or after reading it. But it does give a good explanation about what is what in JavaScript world. Sorry, it seems that that content has been removed. Here's a link to archive.org copy instead. Works today. :P
//new way using this and new
function Persons(name) {
this.name = name;
this.greeting = function() {
alert('Hi! I\'m ' + this.name + '.');
};
}
var gee=new Persons("gee");
gee.greeting();
var gray=new Persons("gray");
gray.greeting();
//old way
function createPerson(name){
var obj={};
obj.name=name;
obj.greeting = function(){
console.log("hello I am"+obj.name);
};
return obj;
}
var gita=createPerson('Gita');
gita.greeting();
I prefer to use OOP in large scale projects like the one I'm working on right now. I need to create several classes in JavaScript but, if I'm not mistaken, there are at least a couple of ways to go about doing that. What would be the syntax and why would it be done in that way?
I would like to avoid using third-party libraries - at least at first.
Looking for other answers, I found the article Object-Oriented Programming with JavaScript, Part I: Inheritance - Doc JavaScript that discusses object-oriented programming in JavaScript. Is there a better way to do inheritance?
Here's the way to do it without using any external libraries:
// Define a class like this
function Person(name, gender){
// Add object properties like this
this.name = name;
this.gender = gender;
}
// Add methods like this. All Person objects will be able to invoke this
Person.prototype.speak = function(){
alert("Howdy, my name is" + this.name);
};
// Instantiate new objects with 'new'
var person = new Person("Bob", "M");
// Invoke methods like this
person.speak(); // alerts "Howdy, my name is Bob"
Now the real answer is a whole lot more complex than that. For instance, there is no such thing as classes in JavaScript. JavaScript uses a prototype-based inheritance scheme.
In addition, there are numerous popular JavaScript libraries that have their own style of approximating class-like functionality in JavaScript. You'll want to check out at least Prototype and jQuery.
Deciding which of these is the "best" is a great way to start a holy war on Stack Overflow. If you're embarking on a larger JavaScript-heavy project, it's definitely worth learning a popular library and doing it their way. I'm a Prototype guy, but Stack Overflow seems to lean towards jQuery.
As far as there being only "one way to do it", without any dependencies on external libraries, the way I wrote is pretty much it.
The best way to define a class in JavaScript is to not define a class.
Seriously.
There are several different flavors of object-orientation, some of them are:
class-based OO (first introduced by Smalltalk)
prototype-based OO (first introduced by Self)
multimethod-based OO (first introduced by CommonLoops, I think)
predicate-based OO (no idea)
And probably others I don't know about.
JavaScript implements prototype-based OO. In prototype-based OO, new objects are created by copying other objects (instead of being instantiated from a class template) and methods live directly in objects instead of in classes. Inheritance is done via delegation: if an object doesn't have a method or property, it is looked up on its prototype(s) (i.e. the object it was cloned from), then the prototype's prototypes and so on.
In other words: there are no classes.
JavaScript actually has a nice tweak of that model: constructors. Not only can you create objects by copying existing ones, you can also construct them "out of thin air", so to speak. If you call a function with the new keyword, that function becomes a constructor and the this keyword will not point to the current object but instead to a newly created "empty" one. So, you can configure an object any way you like. In that way, JavaScript constructors can take on one of the roles of classes in traditional class-based OO: serving as a template or blueprint for new objects.
Now, JavaScript is a very powerful language, so it is quite easy to implement a class-based OO system within JavaScript if you want to. However, you should only do this if you really have a need for it and not just because that's the way Java does it.
ES2015 Classes
In the ES2015 specification, you can use the class syntax which is just sugar over the prototype system.
class Person {
constructor(name) {
this.name = name;
}
toString() {
return `My name is ${ this.name }.`;
}
}
class Employee extends Person {
constructor(name, hours) {
super(name);
this.hours = hours;
}
toString() {
return `${ super.toString() } I work ${ this.hours } hours.`;
}
}
Benefits
The main benefit is that static analysis tools find it easier to target this syntax. It is also easier for others coming from class-based languages to use the language as a polyglot.
Caveats
Be wary of its current limitations. To achieve private properties, one must resort to using Symbols or WeakMaps. In future releases, classes will most likely be expanded to include these missing features.
Support
Browser support isn't very good at the moment (supported by nearly everyone except IE), but you can use these features now with a transpiler like Babel.
Resources
Classes in ECMAScript 6 (final semantics)
What? Wait. Really? Oh no! (a post about ES6 classes and privacy)
Compatibility Table – Classes
Babel – Classes
I prefer to use Daniel X. Moore's {SUPER: SYSTEM}. This is a discipline that provides benefits such as true instance variables, trait based inheritance, class hierarchies and configuration options. The example below illustrates the use of true instance variables, which I believe is the biggest advantage. If you don't need instance variables and are happy with only public or private variables then there are probably simpler systems.
function Person(I) {
I = I || {};
Object.reverseMerge(I, {
name: "McLovin",
age: 25,
homeState: "Hawaii"
});
return {
introduce: function() {
return "Hi I'm " + I.name + " and I'm " + I.age;
}
};
}
var fogel = Person({
age: "old enough"
});
fogel.introduce(); // "Hi I'm McLovin and I'm old enough"
Wow, that's not really very useful on it's own, but take a look at adding a subclass:
function Ninja(I) {
I = I || {};
Object.reverseMerge(I, {
belt: "black"
});
// Ninja is a subclass of person
return Object.extend(Person(I), {
greetChallenger: function() {
return "In all my " + I.age + " years as a ninja, I've never met a challenger as worthy as you...";
}
});
}
var resig = Ninja({name: "John Resig"});
resig.introduce(); // "Hi I'm John Resig and I'm 25"
Another advantage is the ability to have modules and trait based inheritance.
// The Bindable module
function Bindable() {
var eventCallbacks = {};
return {
bind: function(event, callback) {
eventCallbacks[event] = eventCallbacks[event] || [];
eventCallbacks[event].push(callback);
},
trigger: function(event) {
var callbacks = eventCallbacks[event];
if(callbacks && callbacks.length) {
var self = this;
callbacks.forEach(function(callback) {
callback(self);
});
}
},
};
}
An example of having the person class include the bindable module.
function Person(I) {
I = I || {};
Object.reverseMerge(I, {
name: "McLovin",
age: 25,
homeState: "Hawaii"
});
var self = {
introduce: function() {
return "Hi I'm " + I.name + " and I'm " + I.age;
}
};
// Including the Bindable module
Object.extend(self, Bindable());
return self;
}
var person = Person();
person.bind("eat", function() {
alert(person.introduce() + " and I'm eating!");
});
person.trigger("eat"); // Blasts the alert!
Disclosure: I am Daniel X. Moore and this is my {SUPER: SYSTEM}. It is the best way to define a class in JavaScript.
var Animal = function(options) {
var name = options.name;
var animal = {};
animal.getName = function() {
return name;
};
var somePrivateMethod = function() {
};
return animal;
};
// usage
var cat = Animal({name: 'tiger'});
Following are the ways to create objects in javascript, which I've used so far
Example 1:
obj = new Object();
obj.name = 'test';
obj.sayHello = function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
Example 2:
obj = {};
obj.name = 'test';
obj.sayHello = function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
obj.sayHello();
Example 3:
var obj = function(nameParam) {
this.name = nameParam;
}
obj.prototype.sayHello = function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
Example 4: Actual benefits of Object.create(). please refer [this link]
var Obj = {
init: function(nameParam) {
this.name = nameParam;
},
sayHello: function() {
console.log('Hello '+ this.name);
}
};
var usrObj = Object.create(Obj); // <== one level of inheritance
usrObj.init('Bob');
usrObj.sayHello();
Example 5 (customised Crockford's Object.create):
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()
}
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();
To keep answer updated with ES6/ ES2015
A class is defined like this:
class Person {
constructor(strName, numAge) {
this.name = strName;
this.age = numAge;
}
toString() {
return '((Class::Person) named ' + this.name + ' & of age ' + this.age + ')';
}
}
let objPerson = new Person("Bob",33);
console.log(objPerson.toString());
I think you should read Douglas Crockford's Prototypal Inheritance in JavaScript and Classical Inheritance in JavaScript.
Examples from his page:
Function.prototype.method = function (name, func) {
this.prototype[name] = func;
return this;
};
Effect? It will allow you to add methods in more elegant way:
function Parenizor(value) {
this.setValue(value);
}
Parenizor.method('setValue', function (value) {
this.value = value;
return this;
});
I also recommend his videos:
Advanced JavaScript.
You can find more videos on his page: http://javascript.crockford.com/
In John Reisig book you can find many examples from Douglas Crockfor's website.
Because I will not admit the YUI/Crockford factory plan and because I like to keep things self contained and extensible this is my variation:
function Person(params)
{
this.name = params.name || defaultnamevalue;
this.role = params.role || defaultrolevalue;
if(typeof(this.speak)=='undefined') //guarantees one time prototyping
{
Person.prototype.speak = function() {/* do whatever */};
}
}
var Robert = new Person({name:'Bob'});
where ideally the typeof test is on something like the first method prototyped
If you're going for simple, you can avoid the "new" keyword entirely and just use factory methods. I prefer this, sometimes, because I like using JSON to create objects.
function getSomeObj(var1, var2){
var obj = {
instancevar1: var1,
instancevar2: var2,
someMethod: function(param)
{
//stuff;
}
};
return obj;
}
var myobj = getSomeObj("var1", "var2");
myobj.someMethod("bla");
I'm not sure what the performance hit is for large objects, though.
var Student = (function () {
function Student(firstname, lastname) {
this.firstname = firstname;
this.lastname = lastname;
this.fullname = firstname + " " + lastname;
}
Student.prototype.sayMyName = function () {
return this.fullname;
};
return Student;
}());
var user = new Student("Jane", "User");
var user_fullname = user.sayMyName();
Thats the way TypeScript compiles class with constructor to JavaScript.
The simple way is:
function Foo(a) {
var that=this;
function privateMethod() { .. }
// public methods
that.add = function(b) {
return a + b;
};
that.avg = function(b) {
return that.add(b) / 2; // calling another public method
};
}
var x = new Foo(10);
alert(x.add(2)); // 12
alert(x.avg(20)); // 15
The reason for that is that this can be bound to something else if you give a method as an event handler, so you save the value during instantiation and use it later.
Edit: it's definitely not the best way, just a simple way. I'm waiting for good answers too!
You probably want to create a type by using the Folding Pattern:
// Here is the constructor section.
var myType = function () {
var N = {}, // Enclosed (private) members are here.
X = this; // Exposed (public) members are here.
(function ENCLOSED_FIELDS() {
N.toggle = false;
N.text = '';
}());
(function EXPOSED_FIELDS() {
X.count = 0;
X.numbers = [1, 2, 3];
}());
// The properties below have access to the enclosed fields.
// Careful with functions exposed within the closure of the
// constructor, each new instance will have it's own copy.
(function EXPOSED_PROPERTIES_WITHIN_CONSTRUCTOR() {
Object.defineProperty(X, 'toggle', {
get: function () {
var before = N.toggle;
N.toggle = !N.toggle;
return before;
}
});
Object.defineProperty(X, 'text', {
get: function () {
return N.text;
},
set: function (value) {
N.text = value;
}
});
}());
};
// Here is the prototype section.
(function PROTOTYPE() {
var P = myType.prototype;
(function EXPOSED_PROPERTIES_WITHIN_PROTOTYPE() {
Object.defineProperty(P, 'numberLength', {
get: function () {
return this.numbers.length;
}
});
}());
(function EXPOSED_METHODS() {
P.incrementNumbersByCount = function () {
var i;
for (i = 0; i < this.numbers.length; i++) {
this.numbers[i] += this.count;
}
};
P.tweak = function () {
if (this.toggle) {
this.count++;
}
this.text = 'tweaked';
};
}());
}());
That code will give you a type called myType. It will have internal private fields called toggle and text. It will also have these exposed members: the fields count and numbers; the properties toggle, text and numberLength; the methods incrementNumbersByCount and tweak.
The Folding Pattern is fully detailed here:
Javascript Folding Pattern
Code golf for #liammclennan's answer.
var Animal = function (args) {
return {
name: args.name,
getName: function () {
return this.name; // member access
},
callGetName: function () {
return this.getName(); // method call
}
};
};
var cat = Animal({ name: 'tiger' });
console.log(cat.callGetName());
MooTools (My Object Oriented Tools) is centered on the idea of classes. You can even extend and implement with inheritance.
When mastered, it makes for ridiculously reusable, powerful javascript.
Object Based Classes with Inheritence
var baseObject =
{
// Replication / Constructor function
new : function(){
return Object.create(this);
},
aProperty : null,
aMethod : function(param){
alert("Heres your " + param + "!");
},
}
newObject = baseObject.new();
newObject.aProperty = "Hello";
anotherObject = Object.create(baseObject);
anotherObject.aProperty = "There";
console.log(newObject.aProperty) // "Hello"
console.log(anotherObject.aProperty) // "There"
console.log(baseObject.aProperty) // null
Simple, sweet, and gets 'er done.
Based on the example of Triptych, this might even be simpler:
// Define a class and instantiate it
var ThePerson = new function Person(name, gender) {
// Add class data members
this.name = name;
this.gender = gender;
// Add class methods
this.hello = function () { alert('Hello, this is ' + this.name); }
}("Bob", "M"); // this instantiates the 'new' object
// Use the object
ThePerson.hello(); // alerts "Hello, this is Bob"
This only creates a single object instance, but is still useful if you want to encapsulate a bunch of names for variable and methods in a class. Normally there would not be the "Bob, M" arguments to the constructor, for example if the methods would be calls to a system with its own data, such as a database or network.
I am still too new with JS to see why this does not use the prototype thing.
A base
function Base(kind) {
this.kind = kind;
}
A class
// Shared var
var _greeting;
(function _init() {
Class.prototype = new Base();
Class.prototype.constructor = Class;
Class.prototype.log = function() { _log.apply(this, arguments); }
_greeting = "Good afternoon!";
})();
function Class(name, kind) {
Base.call(this, kind);
this.name = name;
}
// Shared function
function _log() {
console.log(_greeting + " Me name is " + this.name + " and I'm a " + this.kind);
}
Action
var c = new Class("Joe", "Object");
c.log(); // "Good afternoon! Me name is Joe and I'm a Object"
JavaScript is object-oriented, but it's radically different than other OOP languages like Java, C# or C++. Don't try to understand it like that. Throw that old knowledge out and start anew. JavaScript needs a different thinking.
I'd suggest to get a good manual or something on the subject. I myself found ExtJS Tutorials the best for me, although I haven't used the framework before or after reading it. But it does give a good explanation about what is what in JavaScript world. Sorry, it seems that that content has been removed. Here's a link to archive.org copy instead. Works today. :P
//new way using this and new
function Persons(name) {
this.name = name;
this.greeting = function() {
alert('Hi! I\'m ' + this.name + '.');
};
}
var gee=new Persons("gee");
gee.greeting();
var gray=new Persons("gray");
gray.greeting();
//old way
function createPerson(name){
var obj={};
obj.name=name;
obj.greeting = function(){
console.log("hello I am"+obj.name);
};
return obj;
}
var gita=createPerson('Gita');
gita.greeting();
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.
I have a set of JavaScript "classes" where a base class defines functions that are then shared by an inherited class. It is working, and it is set up like this:
var ThingA = function(name) {
this.name = name;
};
ThingA.prototype = {
sayHi: function() {
alert('Hi, ' + this.name + '!');
}
};
var ThingB = function() {
ThingA.call(this, 'Charlie');
};
ThingB.prototype = new ThingA();
ThingB.prototype.constructor = ThingB;
var instanceOfB = new ThingB();
instanceOfB.sayHi(); // alerts 'Hi, Charlie!'
For reasons that are outside of my control, my company prefers to follow this pattern when writing JavaScript:
SomeClass = function() {
// "Private" functions go here
function somePrivateMethod() {
...
}
return {
// "Public" methods go here
somePublicMethod: function() { ... }
};
}();
Now, this is fine as far as things go, and it works well for many situations. But it is more of a functional style. There is only one "class" instance, and everything is static.
I've been asked to modify my working code to more closely match the style my company prefers. So my question is, there a way to inherit from a class that is wrapped inside a factory class? It would look something like this:
FactoryClassA = function() {
var ThingA = function(name) {
this.name = name;
};
ThingA.prototype = {
sayHi: function() {
alert('Hi, ' + this.name + '!');
}
};
return {
createThingA: function(name) {
return new ThingA(name);
}
};
}();
FactoryClassB = function() {
// Define a ThingB class that inherits from ThingA somehow
return {
createThingB: function() {
return new ThingB();
}
};
}();
var instanceOfB = FactoryClassB.createThingB();
instanceOfB.sayHi(); // should alert 'Hi, Charlie!'
Is there a way to define ThingB wrapped in FactoryClassB that inherits from ThingA wrapped in FactoryClassA? Thanks to this question, I know that I'm not going to be able to do it exactly like this. I am thinking of using a method to extend a given class ... somehow?
This answer seems close, but I'm having trouble figuring out the details of how to modify that example to fit with the specifics of my situation. I am willing to bend my company's usual pattern a little bit, but can I at least get closer to it?
UPDATE 1
In response to Adam's comment to just add a parameter to the factory class, here's where I'm stuck:
ThingB.prototype = new ThingA();
ThingB.prototype.constructor = ThingB;
I can't figure out how to adapt these lines to make it work if I just pass in a parameter to the factory class method.
Below is what (I believe) you're looking for:
FactoryClassA = function() {
var ThingA = function(name) {
this.name = name;
};
ThingA.prototype = {
sayHi: function() {
console.log('Hi, ' + this.name + '!');
}
};
// Add the constructor back to the prototype
// (see explanation below)
ThingA.prototype.constructor = ThingA;
return {
createThingA: function(name) {
return new ThingA(name);
}
};
}();
FactoryClassB = function() {
// Bootstrapping:
// Capture the instance, as we'll need it to set up the prototype
var baseInstance = new FactoryClassA.createThingA();
// Capture the constructor
var baseConstructor = baseInstance.constructor;
// Keep a reference to the base prototype
var baseProto = baseConstructor.prototype;
function ThingB(name) {
// Call base constructor, along with our args
baseConstructor.call(this, name);
};
ThingB.prototype = baseInstance;
ThingB.prototype.constructor = ThingB;
ThingB.prototype.sayHi = function() {
console.log('here I am');
// call the base class `sayHi`
baseProto.sayHi.call(this);
};
return {
createThingB: function(name) {
return new ThingB(name);
}
};
}();
// Testing
var foo = FactoryClassB.createThingB("Indeed");
foo.sayHi();
// Output:
// here I am
// hi indeed
Explanation:
in FactoryClassA, this line is necessary:
ThingA.prototype.constructor = ThingA;
Note that every prototype in JS is automatically created with a reference to its constructor. For example, when you do:
function T(){}
T.prototype already has a property called constructor which points back to T.
However, in your implementation of ThingA, you reset the entire prototype, by doing ThingA.prototype = { ... }. Therefore, you now have lost the reference to its constructor. In 99% of cases it is ok, and won't have any negative side effects (which is probably why most developers tend to forget it). However, in the case of inheritance, it may be necessary.
Now, within FactoryClassB, we need to do some bootstrapping:
var baseInstance = new FactoryClassA.createThingA();
var baseConstructor = baseInstance.constructor;
var baseProto = baseConstructor.prototype;
Observe the last two lines, as they are pivotal to achieving inheritance in this design pattern. First, since ThingA's constructor is accessible via the prototype (ThingA.prototype.constructor = ThingA), then it means that given an instance of ThingA, we can directly retrieve its constructor. Since the constructor is the function itself, and since every function has a reference to its prototype, we can keep a reference of ThingA.prototype with baseConstructor.prototype.
Next is the critical part, where we set up the inheritance chain:
function ThingB(name) {
// Call the base constructor
baseConstructor.call(this, name);
};
ThingB.prototype = baseInstance;
ThingB.prototype.constructor = ThingB;
The last line above is quite important, as it tells the prototype what its constructor is, otherwise it would still point to ThingA.
There you have it - prototypal inheritance.
Side note:
You can probably see how the above can get quite tedious, a little grotesque, and repetitive. Ergo, you might want to consider an inheritance library like Fiber.js which follows the encapsulation pattern you desired (along with some bonuses like mixins and decorators). Disclaimer: I authored the library.
To make a JavaScript class with a public method I'd do something like:
function Restaurant() {}
Restaurant.prototype.buy_food = function(){
// something here
}
Restaurant.prototype.use_restroom = function(){
// something here
}
That way users of my class can:
var restaurant = new Restaurant();
restaurant.buy_food();
restaurant.use_restroom();
How do I create a private method that can be called by the buy_food and use_restroom methods but not externally by users of the class?
In other words, I want my method implementation to be able to do:
Restaurant.prototype.use_restroom = function() {
this.private_stuff();
}
But this shouldn't work:
var r = new Restaurant();
r.private_stuff();
How do I define private_stuff as a private method so both of these hold true?
I've read Doug Crockford's writeup a few times but it doesn't seem like "private" methods can be called by public methods and "privileged" methods can be called externally.
You can do it, but the downside is that it can't be part of the prototype:
function Restaurant() {
var myPrivateVar;
var private_stuff = function() { // Only visible inside Restaurant()
myPrivateVar = "I can set this here!";
}
this.use_restroom = function() { // use_restroom is visible to all
private_stuff();
}
this.buy_food = function() { // buy_food is visible to all
private_stuff();
}
}
Using self invoking function and call
JavaScript uses prototypes and does't have classes (or methods for that matter) like Object Oriented languages. A JavaScript developer need to think in JavaScript.
Wikipedia quote:
Unlike many object-oriented languages, there is no distinction between
a function definition and a method definition. Rather, the distinction
occurs during function calling; when a function is called as a method
of an object, the function's local this keyword is bound to that
object for that invocation.
Solution using a self invoking function and the call function to call the private "method" :
var MyObject = (function () {
// Constructor
function MyObject(foo) {
this._foo = foo;
}
function privateFun(prefix) {
return prefix + this._foo;
}
MyObject.prototype.publicFun = function () {
return privateFun.call(this, ">>");
}
return MyObject;
}());
var myObject = new MyObject("bar");
myObject.publicFun(); // Returns ">>bar"
myObject.privateFun(">>"); // ReferenceError: private is not defined
The call function allows us to call the private function with the appropriate context (this).
Simpler with Node.js
If you are using Node.js, you don't need the IIFE because you can take advantage of the module loading system:
function MyObject(foo) {
this._foo = foo;
}
function privateFun(prefix) {
return prefix + this._foo;
}
MyObject.prototype.publicFun = function () {
return privateFun.call(this, ">>");
}
module.exports= MyObject;
Load the file:
var MyObject = require("./MyObject");
var myObject = new MyObject("bar");
myObject.publicFun(); // Returns ">>bar"
myObject.privateFun(">>"); // ReferenceError: private is not defined
(new!) Native private methods in future JavaScript versions
TC39 private methods and getter/setters for JavaScript classes proposal is stage 3. That means any time soon, JavaScript will implement private methods natively!
Note that JavaScript private class fields already exists in modern JavaScript versions.
Here is an example of how it is used:
class MyObject {
// Private field
#foo;
constructor(foo) {
this.#foo = foo;
}
#privateFun(prefix) {
return prefix + this.#foo;
}
publicFun() {
return this.#privateFun(">>");
}
}
You may need a JavaScript transpiler/compiler to run this code on old JavaScript engines.
PS: If you wonder why the # prefix, read this.
(deprecated) ES7 with the Bind Operator
Warning: The bind operator TC39 proposition is near dead https://github.com/tc39/proposal-bind-operator/issues/53#issuecomment-374271822
The bind operator :: is an ECMAScript proposal and is implemented in Babel (stage 0).
export default class MyObject {
constructor (foo) {
this._foo = foo;
}
publicFun () {
return this::privateFun(">>");
}
}
function privateFun (prefix) {
return prefix + this._foo;
}
You can simulate private methods like this:
function Restaurant() {
}
Restaurant.prototype = (function() {
var private_stuff = function() {
// Private code here
};
return {
constructor:Restaurant,
use_restroom:function() {
private_stuff();
}
};
})();
var r = new Restaurant();
// This will work:
r.use_restroom();
// This will cause an error:
r.private_stuff();
More information on this technique here: http://webreflection.blogspot.com/2008/04/natural-javascript-private-methods.html
In these situations when you have a public API, and you would like private and public methods/properties, I always use the Module Pattern. This pattern was made popular within the YUI library, and the details can be found here:
http://yuiblog.com/blog/2007/06/12/module-pattern/
It is really straightforward, and easy for other developers to comprehend. For a simple example:
var MYLIB = function() {
var aPrivateProperty = true;
var aPrivateMethod = function() {
// some code here...
};
return {
aPublicMethod : function() {
aPrivateMethod(); // okay
// some code here...
},
aPublicProperty : true
};
}();
MYLIB.aPrivateMethod() // not okay
MYLIB.aPublicMethod() // okay
Here is the class which I created to understand what Douglas Crockford's has suggested in his site Private Members in JavaScript
function Employee(id, name) { //Constructor
//Public member variables
this.id = id;
this.name = name;
//Private member variables
var fName;
var lName;
var that = this;
//By convention, we create a private variable 'that'. This is used to
//make the object available to the private methods.
//Private function
function setFName(pfname) {
fName = pfname;
alert('setFName called');
}
//Privileged function
this.setLName = function (plName, pfname) {
lName = plName; //Has access to private variables
setFName(pfname); //Has access to private function
alert('setLName called ' + this.id); //Has access to member variables
}
//Another privileged member has access to both member variables and private variables
//Note access of this.dataOfBirth created by public member setDateOfBirth
this.toString = function () {
return 'toString called ' + this.id + ' ' + this.name + ' ' + fName + ' ' + lName + ' ' + this.dataOfBirth;
}
}
//Public function has access to member variable and can create on too but does not have access to private variable
Employee.prototype.setDateOfBirth = function (dob) {
alert('setDateOfBirth called ' + this.id);
this.dataOfBirth = dob; //Creates new public member note this is accessed by toString
//alert(fName); //Does not have access to private member
}
$(document).ready()
{
var employee = new Employee(5, 'Shyam'); //Create a new object and initialize it with constructor
employee.setLName('Bhaskar', 'Ram'); //Call privileged function
employee.setDateOfBirth('1/1/2000'); //Call public function
employee.id = 9; //Set up member value
//employee.setFName('Ram'); //can not call Private Privileged method
alert(employee.toString()); //See the changed object
}
ES12 Private Methods
You can do this now with es12 private methods. You just need to add a # before the method name.
class ClassWithPrivateMethod {
#privateMethod() {
return 'hello world';
}
getPrivateMessage() {
return #privateMethod();
}
}
I conjured up this: EDIT: Actually, someone has linked to a identical solution. Duh!
var Car = function() {
}
Car.prototype = (function() {
var hotWire = function() {
// Private code *with* access to public properties through 'this'
alert( this.drive() ); // Alerts 'Vroom!'
}
return {
steal: function() {
hotWire.call( this ); // Call a private method
},
drive: function() {
return 'Vroom!';
}
};
})();
var getAwayVechile = new Car();
hotWire(); // Not allowed
getAwayVechile.hotWire(); // Not allowed
getAwayVechile.steal(); // Alerts 'Vroom!'
ES2021 / ES12 - Private Methods
Private method names start with a hash # prefix and can be accessed only inside the class where it is defined.
class Restaurant {
// private method
#private_stuff() {
console.log("private stuff");
}
// public method
buy_food() {
this.#private_stuff();
}
};
const restaurant = new Restaurant();
restaurant.buy_food(); // "private stuff";
restaurant.private_stuff(); // Uncaught TypeError: restaurant.private_stuff is not a function
I think such questions come up again and again because of the lack of understanding of the closures. Сlosures is most important thing in JS. Every JS programmer have to feel the essence of it.
1. First of all we need to make separate scope (closure).
function () {
}
2. In this area, we can do whatever we want. And no one will know about it.
function () {
var name,
secretSkills = {
pizza: function () { return new Pizza() },
sushi: function () { return new Sushi() }
}
function Restaurant(_name) {
name = _name
}
Restaurant.prototype.getFood = function (name) {
return name in secretSkills ? secretSkills[name]() : null
}
}
3. For the world to know about our restaurant class,
we have to return it from the closure.
var Restaurant = (function () {
// Restaurant definition
return Restaurant
})()
4. At the end, we have:
var Restaurant = (function () {
var name,
secretSkills = {
pizza: function () { return new Pizza() },
sushi: function () { return new Sushi() }
}
function Restaurant(_name) {
name = _name
}
Restaurant.prototype.getFood = function (name) {
return name in secretSkills ? secretSkills[name]() : null
}
return Restaurant
})()
5. Also, this approach has potential for inheritance and templating
// Abstract class
function AbstractRestaurant(skills) {
var name
function Restaurant(_name) {
name = _name
}
Restaurant.prototype.getFood = function (name) {
return skills && name in skills ? skills[name]() : null
}
return Restaurant
}
// Concrete classes
SushiRestaurant = AbstractRestaurant({
sushi: function() { return new Sushi() }
})
PizzaRestaurant = AbstractRestaurant({
pizza: function() { return new Pizza() }
})
var r1 = new SushiRestaurant('Yo! Sushi'),
r2 = new PizzaRestaurant('Dominos Pizza')
r1.getFood('sushi')
r2.getFood('pizza')
I hope this helps someone better understand this subject
Personally, I prefer the following pattern for creating classes in JavaScript :
var myClass = (function() {
// Private class properties go here
var blueprint = function() {
// Private instance properties go here
...
};
blueprint.prototype = {
// Public class properties go here
...
};
return {
// Public class properties go here
create : function() { return new blueprint(); }
...
};
})();
As you can see, it allows you to define both class properties and instance properties, each of which can be public and private.
Demo
var Restaurant = function() {
var totalfoodcount = 0; // Private class property
var totalrestroomcount = 0; // Private class property
var Restaurant = function(name){
var foodcount = 0; // Private instance property
var restroomcount = 0; // Private instance property
this.name = name
this.incrementFoodCount = function() {
foodcount++;
totalfoodcount++;
this.printStatus();
};
this.incrementRestroomCount = function() {
restroomcount++;
totalrestroomcount++;
this.printStatus();
};
this.getRestroomCount = function() {
return restroomcount;
},
this.getFoodCount = function() {
return foodcount;
}
};
Restaurant.prototype = {
name : '',
buy_food : function(){
this.incrementFoodCount();
},
use_restroom : function(){
this.incrementRestroomCount();
},
getTotalRestroomCount : function() {
return totalrestroomcount;
},
getTotalFoodCount : function() {
return totalfoodcount;
},
printStatus : function() {
document.body.innerHTML
+= '<h3>Buying food at '+this.name+'</h3>'
+ '<ul>'
+ '<li>Restroom count at ' + this.name + ' : '+ this.getRestroomCount() + '</li>'
+ '<li>Food count at ' + this.name + ' : ' + this.getFoodCount() + '</li>'
+ '<li>Total restroom count : '+ this.getTotalRestroomCount() + '</li>'
+ '<li>Total food count : '+ this.getTotalFoodCount() + '</li>'
+ '</ul>';
}
};
return { // Singleton public properties
create : function(name) {
return new Restaurant(name);
},
printStatus : function() {
document.body.innerHTML
+= '<hr />'
+ '<h3>Overview</h3>'
+ '<ul>'
+ '<li>Total restroom count : '+ Restaurant.prototype.getTotalRestroomCount() + '</li>'
+ '<li>Total food count : '+ Restaurant.prototype.getTotalFoodCount() + '</li>'
+ '</ul>'
+ '<hr />';
}
};
}();
var Wendys = Restaurant.create("Wendy's");
var McDonalds = Restaurant.create("McDonald's");
var KFC = Restaurant.create("KFC");
var BurgerKing = Restaurant.create("Burger King");
Restaurant.printStatus();
Wendys.buy_food();
Wendys.use_restroom();
KFC.use_restroom();
KFC.use_restroom();
Wendys.use_restroom();
McDonalds.buy_food();
BurgerKing.buy_food();
Restaurant.printStatus();
BurgerKing.buy_food();
Wendys.use_restroom();
McDonalds.buy_food();
KFC.buy_food();
Wendys.buy_food();
BurgerKing.buy_food();
McDonalds.buy_food();
Restaurant.printStatus();
See also this Fiddle.
All of this closure will cost you. Make sure you test the speed implications especially in IE. You will find you are better off with a naming convention. There are still a lot of corporate web users out there that are forced to use IE6...
Don't be so verbose. It's Javascript. Use a Naming Convention.
After years of working in es6 classes, I recently started work on an es5 project (using requireJS which is already very verbose-looking). I've been over and over all the strategies mentioned here and it all basically boils down to use a naming convention:
Javascript doesn't have scope keywords like private. Other developers entering Javascript will know this upfront. Therefore, a simple naming convention is more than sufficient. A simple naming convention of prefixing with an underscore solves the problem of both private properties and private methods.
Let's take advantage of the Prototype for speed reasons, but lets not get anymore verbose than that. Let's try to keep the es5 "class" looking as closely to what we might expect in other backend languages (and treat every file as a class, even if we don't need to return an instance).
Let's demonstrate with a more realistic module situation (we'll use old es5 and old requireJs).
my-tooltip.js
define([
'tooltip'
],
function(
tooltip
){
function MyTooltip() {
// Later, if needed, we can remove the underscore on some
// of these (make public) and allow clients of our class
// to set them.
this._selector = "#my-tooltip"
this._template = 'Hello from inside my tooltip!';
this._initTooltip();
}
MyTooltip.prototype = {
constructor: MyTooltip,
_initTooltip: function () {
new tooltip.tooltip(this._selector, {
content: this._template,
closeOnClick: true,
closeButton: true
});
}
}
return {
init: function init() {
new MyTooltip(); // <-- Our constructor adds our tooltip to the DOM so not much we need to do after instantiation.
}
// You could instead return a new instantiation,
// if later you do more with this class.
/*
create: function create() {
return new MyTooltip();
}
*/
}
});
Take any of the solutions that follow Crockford's private or priviledged pattern. For example:
function Foo(x) {
var y = 5;
var bar = function() {
return y * x;
};
this.public = function(z) {
return bar() + x * z;
};
}
In any case where the attacker has no "execute" right on the JS context he has no way of accessing any "public" or "private" fields or methods. In case the attacker does have that access he can execute this one-liner:
eval("Foo = " + Foo.toString().replace(
/{/, "{ this.eval = function(code) { return eval(code); }; "
));
Note that the above code is generic to all constructor-type-privacy. It will fail with some of the solutions here but it should be clear that pretty much all of the closure based solutions can be broken like this with different replace() parameters.
After this is executed any object created with new Foo() is going to have an eval method which can be called to return or change values or methods defined in the constructor's closure, e.g.:
f = new Foo(99);
f.eval("x");
f.eval("y");
f.eval("x = 8");
The only problem I can see with this that it won't work for cases where there is only one instance and it's created on load. But then there is no reason to actually define a prototype and in that case the attacker can simply recreate the object instead of the constructor as long as he has a way of passing the same parameters (e.g. they are constant or calculated from available values).
In my opinion, this pretty much makes Crockford's solution useless. Since the "privacy" is easily broken the downsides of his solution (reduced readability & maintainability, decreased performance, increased memory) makes the "no privacy" prototype based method the better choice.
I do usually use leading underscores to mark __private and _protected methods and fields (Perl style), but the idea of having privacy in JavaScript just shows how it's a misunderstood language.
Therefore I disagree with Crockford except for his first sentence.
So how do you get real privacy in JS? Put everything that is required to be private on the server side and use JS to do AJAX calls.
The apotheosis of the Module Pattern: The Revealing Module Pattern
A neat little extension to a very robust pattern.
If you want the full range of public and private functions with the ability for public functions to access private functions, layout code for an object like this:
function MyObject(arg1, arg2, ...) {
//constructor code using constructor arguments...
//create/access public variables as
// this.var1 = foo;
//private variables
var v1;
var v2;
//private functions
function privateOne() {
}
function privateTwon() {
}
//public functions
MyObject.prototype.publicOne = function () {
};
MyObject.prototype.publicTwo = function () {
};
}
var TestClass = function( ) {
var privateProperty = 42;
function privateMethod( ) {
alert( "privateMethod, " + privateProperty );
}
this.public = {
constructor: TestClass,
publicProperty: 88,
publicMethod: function( ) {
alert( "publicMethod" );
privateMethod( );
}
};
};
TestClass.prototype = new TestClass( ).public;
var myTestClass = new TestClass( );
alert( myTestClass.publicProperty );
myTestClass.publicMethod( );
alert( myTestClass.privateMethod || "no privateMethod" );
Similar to georgebrock but a little less verbose (IMHO)
Any problems with doing it this way? (I haven't seen it anywhere)
edit: I realised this is kinda useless since every independent instantiation has its own copy of the public methods, thus undermining the use of the prototype.
Here's what i enjoyed the most so far regarding private/public methods/members and instantiation in javascript:
here is the article: http://www.sefol.com/?p=1090
and here is the example:
var Person = (function () {
//Immediately returns an anonymous function which builds our modules
return function (name, location) {
alert("createPerson called with " + name);
var localPrivateVar = name;
var localPublicVar = "A public variable";
var localPublicFunction = function () {
alert("PUBLIC Func called, private var is :" + localPrivateVar)
};
var localPrivateFunction = function () {
alert("PRIVATE Func called ")
};
var setName = function (name) {
localPrivateVar = name;
}
return {
publicVar: localPublicVar,
location: location,
publicFunction: localPublicFunction,
setName: setName
}
}
})();
//Request a Person instance - should print "createPerson called with ben"
var x = Person("ben", "germany");
//Request a Person instance - should print "createPerson called with candide"
var y = Person("candide", "belgium");
//Prints "ben"
x.publicFunction();
//Prints "candide"
y.publicFunction();
//Now call a public function which sets the value of a private variable in the x instance
x.setName("Ben 2");
//Shouldn't have changed this : prints "candide"
y.publicFunction();
//Should have changed this : prints "Ben 2"
x.publicFunction();
JSFiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/northkildonan/kopj3dt3/1/
The module pattern is right in most cases. But if you have thousands of instances, classes save memory. If saving memory is a concern and your objects contain a small amount of private data, but have a lot of public functions, then you'll want all public functions to live in the .prototype to save memory.
This is what I came up with:
var MyClass = (function () {
var secret = {}; // You can only getPriv() if you know this
function MyClass() {
var that = this, priv = {
foo: 0 // ... and other private values
};
that.getPriv = function (proof) {
return (proof === secret) && priv;
};
}
MyClass.prototype.inc = function () {
var priv = this.getPriv(secret);
priv.foo += 1;
return priv.foo;
};
return MyClass;
}());
var x = new MyClass();
x.inc(); // 1
x.inc(); // 2
The object priv contains private properties. It is accessible through the public function getPriv(), but this function returns false unless you pass it the secret, and this is only known inside the main closure.
What about this?
var Restaurant = (function() {
var _id = 0;
var privateVars = [];
function Restaurant(name) {
this.id = ++_id;
this.name = name;
privateVars[this.id] = {
cooked: []
};
}
Restaurant.prototype.cook = function (food) {
privateVars[this.id].cooked.push(food);
}
return Restaurant;
})();
Private variable lookup is impossible outside of the scope of the immediate function.
There is no duplication of functions, saving memory.
The downside is that the lookup of private variables is clunky privateVars[this.id].cooked is ridiculous to type. There is also an extra "id" variable.
Wrap all code in Anonymous Function: Then , all functions will be private ,ONLY functions attached to window object :
(function(w,nameSpacePrivate){
w.Person=function(name){
this.name=name;
return this;
};
w.Person.prototype.profilePublic=function(){
return nameSpacePrivate.profile.call(this);
};
nameSpacePrivate.profile=function(){
return 'My name is '+this.name;
};
})(window,{});
Use this :
var abdennour=new Person('Abdennour');
abdennour.profilePublic();
FIDDLE
I prefer to store private data in an associated WeakMap. This allows you to keep your public methods on the prototype where they belong. This seems to be the most efficient way to handle this problem for large numbers of objects.
const data = new WeakMap();
function Foo(value) {
data.set(this, {value});
}
// public method accessing private value
Foo.prototype.accessValue = function() {
return data.get(this).value;
}
// private 'method' accessing private value
function accessValue(foo) {
return data.get(foo).value;
}
export {Foo};
2021 HERE!
This polyfill effectively hides your private properties and methods returning undefined when you try to read your private property and a TypeError when you try to execute your private method thus effectively making them both PRIVATE to the outside but giving you access to them by using your public methods.
If you check it you will see it is very easy to implement. For the most part you don't need to do anything quirky like using Proxy objects, underscore functions (_myprivate), getters or setters. None of that. The only thing required is to place in your constructor that like snippet of code that is aimed to let you expose your public interface to the outside world.
((self) => ({
pubProp: self.pubProp,
// More public properties to export HERE
// ...
pubMethod: self.pubMethod.bind(self)
// More public mehods to export HERE
// Be sure bind each of them to self!!!
// ...
}))(self);
The above code is where the magic happens. It is an IIFE that returns an object with just the properties and methods you want to exposed and bound to the context of the object that was first instantiated.
You can still access your hidden properties and methods but only through your public methods just the way OOP should do.
Consider that part of the code as your module.exports
BTW, this is without using the latest ECMAScript 2022 # addition to the language.
'use strict';
class MyClass {
constructor(pubProp) {
let self = this;
self.pubProp = pubProp;
self.privProp = "I'm a private property!";
return ((self) => ({
pubProp: self.pubProp,
// More public properties to export HERE
// ...
pubMethod: self.pubMethod.bind(self)
// More public mehods to export HERE
// Be sure to bind each of them to self!!!
// ...
}))(self);
}
pubMethod() {
console.log("I'm a public method!");
console.log(this.pubProp);
return this.privMethod();
}
privMethod() {
console.log("I'm a private method!");
return this.privProp
}
}
const myObj = new MyClass("I'm a public property!");
console.log("***DUMPING MY NEW INSTANCE***");
console.dir(myObj);
console.log("");
console.log("***TESTING ACCESS TO PUBLIC PROPERTIES***");
console.log(myObj.pubProp);
console.log("");
console.log("***TESTING ACCESS TO PRIVATE PROPERTIES***");
console.log(myObj.privProp);
console.log("");
console.log("***TESTING ACCESS TO PUBLIC METHODS***");
console.log("1. pubMethod access pubProp ");
console.log("2. pubMethod calls privMethod");
console.log("3. privMethod access privProp");
console.log("")
console.log(myObj.pubMethod());
console.log("");
console.log("***TESTING ACCESS TO PRIVATE METHODS***");
console.log(myObj.privMethod());
Check my gist
Private functions cannot access the public variables using module pattern
Since everybody was posting here his own code, I'm gonna do that too...
I like Crockford because he introduced real object oriented patterns in Javascript. But he also came up with a new misunderstanding, the "that" one.
So why is he using "that = this"? It has nothing to do with private functions at all. It has to do with inner functions!
Because according to Crockford this is buggy code:
Function Foo( ) {
this.bar = 0;
var foobar=function( ) {
alert(this.bar);
}
}
So he suggested doing this:
Function Foo( ) {
this.bar = 0;
that = this;
var foobar=function( ) {
alert(that.bar);
}
}
So as I said, I'm quite sure that Crockford was wrong his explanation about that and this (but his code is certainly correct). Or was he just fooling the Javascript world, to know who is copying his code? I dunno...I'm no browser geek ;D
EDIT
Ah, that's what is all about: What does 'var that = this;' mean in JavaScript?
So Crockie was really wrong with his explanation....but right with his code, so he's still a great guy. :))
In general I added the private Object _ temporarily to the object.
You have to open the privacy exlipcitly in the "Power-constructor" for the method.
If you call the method from the prototype, you will
be able to overwrite the prototype-method
Make a public method accessible in the "Power-constructor": (ctx is the object context)
ctx.test = GD.Fabric.open('test', GD.Test.prototype, ctx, _); // is a private object
Now I have this openPrivacy:
GD.Fabric.openPrivacy = function(func, clss, ctx, _) {
return function() {
ctx._ = _;
var res = clss[func].apply(ctx, arguments);
ctx._ = null;
return res;
};
};
This is what I worked out:
Needs one class of sugar code that you can find here. Also supports protected, inheritance, virtual, static stuff...
;( function class_Restaurant( namespace )
{
'use strict';
if( namespace[ "Restaurant" ] ) return // protect against double inclusions
namespace.Restaurant = Restaurant
var Static = TidBits.OoJs.setupClass( namespace, "Restaurant" )
// constructor
//
function Restaurant()
{
this.toilets = 3
this.Private( private_stuff )
return this.Public( buy_food, use_restroom )
}
function private_stuff(){ console.log( "There are", this.toilets, "toilets available") }
function buy_food (){ return "food" }
function use_restroom (){ this.private_stuff() }
})( window )
var chinese = new Restaurant
console.log( chinese.buy_food() ); // output: food
console.log( chinese.use_restroom() ); // output: There are 3 toilets available
console.log( chinese.toilets ); // output: undefined
console.log( chinese.private_stuff() ); // output: undefined
// and throws: TypeError: Object #<Restaurant> has no method 'private_stuff'
Class({
Namespace:ABC,
Name:"ClassL2",
Bases:[ABC.ClassTop],
Private:{
m_var:2
},
Protected:{
proval:2,
fight:Property(function(){
this.m_var--;
console.log("ClassL2::fight (m_var)" +this.m_var);
},[Property.Type.Virtual])
},
Public:{
Fight:function(){
console.log("ClassL2::Fight (m_var)"+this.m_var);
this.fight();
}
}
});
https://github.com/nooning/JSClass
I have created a new tool to allow you to have true private methods on the prototype
https://github.com/TremayneChrist/ProtectJS
Example:
var MyObject = (function () {
// Create the object
function MyObject() {}
// Add methods to the prototype
MyObject.prototype = {
// This is our public method
public: function () {
console.log('PUBLIC method has been called');
},
// This is our private method, using (_)
_private: function () {
console.log('PRIVATE method has been called');
}
}
return protect(MyObject);
})();
// Create an instance of the object
var mo = new MyObject();
// Call its methods
mo.public(); // Pass
mo._private(); // Fail
You have to put a closure around your actual constructor-function, where you can define your private methods.
To change data of the instances through these private methods, you have to give them "this" with them, either as an function argument or by calling this function with .apply(this) :
var Restaurant = (function(){
var private_buy_food = function(that){
that.data.soldFood = true;
}
var private_take_a_shit = function(){
this.data.isdirty = true;
}
// New Closure
function restaurant()
{
this.data = {
isdirty : false,
soldFood: false,
};
}
restaurant.prototype.buy_food = function()
{
private_buy_food(this);
}
restaurant.prototype.use_restroom = function()
{
private_take_a_shit.call(this);
}
return restaurant;
})()
// TEST:
var McDonalds = new Restaurant();
McDonalds.buy_food();
McDonalds.use_restroom();
console.log(McDonalds);
console.log(McDonalds.__proto__);
I know it's a bit too late but how about this?
var obj = function(){
var pr = "private";
var prt = Object.getPrototypeOf(this);
if(!prt.hasOwnProperty("showPrivate")){
prt.showPrivate = function(){
console.log(pr);
}
}
}
var i = new obj();
i.showPrivate();
console.log(i.hasOwnProperty("pr"));