Creating immutable class for Node CommonJS module

Creating immutable class for Node CommonJS module - javascript

I'm creating a basic class in a Node project, and I want to test it using Jest. I'm getting an error that is implying the use of 'strict' mode in the test, which I want to avoid/fix
~/lib/LogRecord.js
module.exports = class LogRecord {
constructor(level, message, timestamp) {
this.level = level;
this.message = message;
this.timestamp = timestamp ? timestamp : Date.now();
}
get level() {
return this.level;
}
get message() {
return this.message;
}
get timestamp() {
return this.timestamp;
}
}
I'm testing it with this:
let LogRecord = require('../lib/logRecord');
describe('Test LogRecord functionality', () => {
test('LogRecord constructor', () => {
let timestamp = Date.now();
let logRecord = new LogRecord('INFO', 'Test Message', timestamp);
expect(logRecord.level).toBe('INFO');
expect(logRecord.message).toBe('Test Message');
expect(logRecord.timestamp).toBe(timestamp);
});
test('LogRecord is read-only', () => {
let timestamp = Date.now();
let logRecord = new LogRecord('INFO', 'Test Message', timestamp);
logRecord.level = 'WARN'
logRecord.message = 'New Message'
logRecord.timestamp = Date.now();
expect(logRecord.level).toBe('INFO');
expect(logRecord.message).toBe('Test Message');
expect(logRecord.timestamp).toBe(timestamp);
});
});
When I run npm test I get the following error on both of the LogRecord tests:
Test LogRecord functionality › LogRecord constructor
TypeError: Cannot set property level of #<LogRecord> which has only a getter
1 | module.exports = class LogRecord {
2 | constructor(level, message, timestamp) {
> 3 | this.level = level;
| ^
4 | this.message = message;
5 | this.timestamp = timestamp ? timestamp : Date.now();
6 | }
at new LogRecord (lib/logRecord.js:3:9)
at Object.test (test/logRecord.test.js:6:25)
Edit - Working class
const data = new WeakMap();
let levelKey = {id:'level'};
let messageKey = {id:'message'};
let timestampKey = {id:'timestamp'};
module.exports = class LogRecord {
constructor(level, message, timestamp) {
data.set(levelKey, level);
data.set(messageKey, message);
data.set(timestampKey, timestamp ? timestamp : Date.now());
}
get level () {
return data.get(levelKey)
}
get message () {
return data.get(messageKey)
}
get timestamp () {
return data.get(timestampKey)
}
}

Testing is about making sure that your code does what you think it does. Consider the following class:
class Foo {
constructor (bar) {
this._bar = bar;
}
get bar () {
return this._bar;
}
}
Here bar is read-only, there is no way to set the bar property:
let foo = new Foo('a foo');
foo.bar; // 'a foo'
foo.bar = 'am not'; // TypeError!
The modules question isn't really relevant: as Logar linked in the comments class bodies are always strict mode irregardless.
So if you want a property to be read only, you don't need to worry about writing it. Workflow might look something like this:
Write empty class Foo class Foo {} and construct an instance foo = new Foo()
Write test that checks for bar which fails because we have an empty class
Add constructor parameter and getter
Check that test now passes
Add test to ensure that trying to set bar throws expected error*
If you don't want read-only properties you can just add a setter:
class Foo {
constructor (bar) {
this._bar = bar;
}
get bar () {
return this._bar;
}
set bar (value) {
this._bar = value;
}
}
In which case you'd add a test that sets bar and the reads the altered value back out.
* You might be wondering why this test is here when this behavior is guaranteed by the spec and I would argue that the test is necessary since someone could (transparently to the callers) refactor the class to be an old-school constructor and create a vector for bugs:
// post refactor Foo
const Foo = function Foo(bar) {
this.bar = bar; // danger! now writable!
};
Hopefully this sort of thing would be caught by a knowledgable reviewer, but I'd write the test anyways.
Update
If what you want is a guaranteed read-only property that you set in the constructor, here is a recipe for such:
const data = new WeakMap();
module.exports = class Foo () {
constructor (bar) {
data.set(this, bar);
}
get bar () {
return data.get(this);
}
};
Because data is not exported no outside code can change it. Attempting to set the bar property of an instance will throw. This is a bit more complicated that just defining an underscore property with getters and setters, but if it's what you want, well... I know this pattern because I've used it.
Update 2
You only create one weakmap per module, not per class or instance. The weakmap stores a unique data entry keyed to individual instances (i.e. this):
const data = new WeakMap();
module.exports = {
Foo: class Foo () {
constructor (bar) {
data.set(this, bar);
}
get bar () {
return data.get(this);
}
},
Bar: class Bar () {
constructor (prop1, prop2) {
// for multiple props we'll store an object...
data.set(this, { prop2, prop1 });
}
get prop1 () {
// ...and retrieve it and access it's props to return
return data.get(this).prop1;
}
get prop2 () {
return data.get(this).prop2;
}
}
};
Note that setting the props with a getter but no setter will still throw...
// in someotherfile.js
const { Foo } = require('path/to/file/with/foo.js');
const foo = new Foo('imma foo');
foo.bar; // 'imma foo'
foo.bar = 'no not really'; // TypeError!
// you can still set random properties that don't have a getter:
foo.baz = 'I do not throw';
foo.baz; // 'I do not throw'

If you want your properties to be read only after object initialization, you can use Object.freeze in the constructor, and remove your getters :
class LogRecord {
constructor(level, message, timestamp) {
this.level = level;
this.message = message;
this.timestamp = timestamp ? timestamp : Date.now();
Object.freeze(this);
}
}
But this will freeze all of your object's properties. You won't be able to modify, remove, or add any after that. Didn't dive too deep into this so it may have some flaws as well

Related

New Instance field syntax [duplicate]

I was reading about JavaScript classes, and came across this term "public class fields syntax". On digging a bit deeper into it I came across this Babel's documentation on class properties.
Can someone please explain - implementation-wise what are the use-cases for this new syntax? (What solutions/benefits does it offer to JavaScript, which were missing so far?)
Here's an example below (ran without errors in Google Chrome):
class Person {
firstName = "Mike";
lastName = "Patel";
// this is a public class field syntax
getName = () => {
return this.firstName + " " + this.lastName;
};
}
var p = new Person();
console.log(p.firstName); // Mike
console.log(p.lastName); // Patel
console.log(p.getName); // () => { return this.firstName + " " + this.lastName; }
console.log(typeof p.getName); // function
console.log(p.getName()); // Mike Patel

Simply put, the reason to use this is ease of understanding the code. Without class field declarations, you would do something like:
class Person {
constructor() {
this.firstName = "Mike";
this.lastName = "Patel";
this.getName = () => {
return this.firstName + " " + this.lastName;
};
}
}
var p = new Person();
console.log(p.firstName); // Mike
console.log(p.lastName); // Patel
console.log(p.getName); // () => { return this.firstName + " " + this.lastName; }
console.log(typeof p.getName); // function
console.log(p.getName()); // Mike Patel
This works but now you have both the callable getName() and the rest of the plain instance properties all collected in the constructor. You could have even more which means that your class definition would look rather meaningless overall:
class MyClass() {
constructor(someArg) {
this.foo1 = 1;
this.foo2 = 2;
this.foo3 = 3;
this.foo4 = someArg;
this.bar1 = () => {}
this.bar2 = () => {}
this.bar3 = () => {}
this.bar4 = () => {}
}
}
and so on. Again, everything is in the constructor. If you have a lot of code, it becomes harder to read what is what. And if the constructor takes any arguments, then you have the extra overhead of keeping track of those. Therefore, it is hard to read, hard to maintain, all for no real benefit. You are stuffing everything in the same place.
With class field declarations, you separate them and you get
class MyClass() {
/* properties - do not depend on the constructor*/
foo1 = 1;
foo2 = 2;
foo3 = 3;
foo4; /* this is a property that this class will have -
I do not need to look at the constructor to know about it */
/* easy to see what the constructor does that is only about *constructing* the object */
constructor(someArg) {
this.foo4= someArg;
}
/* callable field are separated from the rest of the simple properties and construction logic */
bar1 = () => {}
bar2 = () => {}
bar3 = () => {}
bar4 = () => {}
}
So, all in all, it is not revolutionary but it is slightly nicer syntax that makes it easier to express what a class has.

To quote from the class fields proposal
By declaring fields up-front, class definitions become more self-documenting; instances go through fewer state transitions, as declared fields are always present.
The introduction of class fields also allows for private class fields, which also come with a few benefits:
By defining things which are not visible outside of the class, ESnext provides stronger encapsulation, ensuring that your classes' users don't accidentally trip themselves up by depending on internals, which may change version to version.

It originates from this proposal where an "issue" is being tackled down.
PRE-PROPOSAL
Assume that you want to have a class Foo that holds a default attribute, then you can write inituitvely the following
class Foo {
defaultAttribute = 'default';
getDefault() { return this.defaultAttribute; }
}
Remember that the proposal here above did not got implemented atm. The defaultAttribute = '...' is being ignored when setting up the class object (when compiling). It is even not a part of the prototypes or field members (of the function object).
That is because the defaultAttribute is not picked up by the compiler. Therefore you cannot do foo.defaultAttribute.
Calling getDefault() will throw an error here because it is undefined at that moment. That function does work if you provide a value to defaultAttribute in the constructor;
class Foo {
defaultAttribute = 'default';
constructor() {
this.defaultAttribute = 'hello';
}
getDefault() { return this.defaultAttribute; }
}
In this situation, the defaultAttribute is set to 'Hello' but it did not override the original variable with 'default'.
POST-PROPOSAL
With that proposal, the "ignoring" problem is tackled down that you can do that what you just described:
class Foo {
defaultAttribute = 'default';
getDefault() { return this.defaultAttribute; }
}
With this, you can skip the use of constructor()
class Foo1 {
defaultAttribute = 'default';
getDefault() { return this.defaultAttribute; }
}
class Foo2 {
defaultAttribute = 'default';
constructor() {this.defaultAttribute = 'hello';}
getDefault() { return this.defaultAttribute; }
}
const foo1 = new Foo1();
const foo2 = new Foo2();
console.log(foo1.getDefault());
console.log(foo2.getDefault());

Calculate and define a constant in class constructor

If a value of the constant is a pure constant, than it is very easy to define it:
class Foo {
static get bar() { return 123; }
}
However, what if I need to define a constant that needs to be calculated in the constructor?
class Foo {
constructor(m) {
// ...
}
}
let test = new Foo(10);
console.log(test.bar); // OK
test.bar = 1; // ERROR
How can I define bar within the constructor and make this bar accessible as a constant?
The value of this constant is needed many times in other methods. The calculation of this constant value is not trivial, so it would be a waste of resources to calculate it each time when it is needed. On the other hand, I want to ensure that it can't be changed once it is calculated.

UPDATE
Per the discussion in the comments, this can be achieved even more cleanly by simply setting a value property in the config passed to Object.defineProperty() in lieu of a get property; because the writable and configurable properties default to false, this is sufficient in providing the desired behavior outlined in the question:
class Foo {
constructor(m) {
this.m = m;
const bar = m * 100;
Object.defineProperty(this, 'bar', { value: bar });
}
}
let test = new Foo(10);
console.log(test.bar);
test.bar = 300;
console.log(test.bar);
delete test.bar;
console.log(test.bar);
ORIGINAL ANSWER
One option would be to use Object.defineProperty() in the constructor to set a getter for bar, and a setter that prevented its being changed:
class Foo {
constructor(m) {
this.m = m;
const bar = m * 100;
Object.defineProperty(this, 'bar', {
get: () => bar,
set: () => console.warn('bar cannot be set'), // The setter is optional
});
}
}
let test = new Foo(10);
console.log(test.bar);
test.bar = 300;
console.log(test.bar);

How about this
class Foo {
constructor (m) {
this._bar = m + 10; // this is _bar , not bar
}
get bar() {
return this._bar; //_bar is the private methods, which is different from bar
}
}
const foo = new Foo(1);
console.log(foo.bar) // return 11
foo.bar = 0
console.log(foo.bar) // still return 11

You can check this.
class Foo {
constructor(value) {
this._privateValue = value;
}
get bar() {
return this._privateValue;
}
set bar(val) {
console.error("Sorry can't edit me ;) ")
}
}
const test = new Foo(10)
console.log(test.bar)
test.bar = 20;
console.log(test.bar)

Encapsulation using class in Javascript [duplicate]

Is it possible to create private properties in ES6 classes?
Here's an example.
How can I prevent access to instance.property?
class Something {
constructor(){
this.property = "test";
}
}
var instance = new Something();
console.log(instance.property); //=> "test"

Private class features is now supported by the majority of browsers.
class Something {
#property;
constructor(){
this.#property = "test";
}
#privateMethod() {
return 'hello world';
}
getPrivateMessage() {
return this.#property;
}
}
const instance = new Something();
console.log(instance.property); //=> undefined
console.log(instance.privateMethod); //=> undefined
console.log(instance.getPrivateMessage()); //=> test
console.log(instance.#property); //=> Syntax error

Update: See others answer, this is outdated.
Short answer, no, there is no native support for private properties with ES6 classes.
But you could mimic that behaviour by not attaching the new properties to the object, but keeping them inside a class constructor, and use getters and setters to reach the hidden properties. Note that the getters and setters gets redefine on each new instance of the class.
ES6
class Person {
constructor(name) {
var _name = name
this.setName = function(name) { _name = name; }
this.getName = function() { return _name; }
}
}
ES5
function Person(name) {
var _name = name
this.setName = function(name) { _name = name; }
this.getName = function() { return _name; }
}

Yes, prefix the name with # and include it in the class definition, not just the constructor.
MDN Docs
Real private properties were finally added in ES2022. As of 2023-01-01, private properties (fields and methods) have been supported in all major browsers for at least a year, but 5-10% of users are still on older browsers [Can I Use].
Example:
class Person {
#age
constructor(name) {
this.name = name; // this is public
this.#age = 20; // this is private
}
greet() {
// here we can access both name and age
console.log(`name: ${this.name}, age: ${this.#age}`);
}
}
let joe = new Person('Joe');
joe.greet();
// here we can access name but not age
Following are methods for keeping properties private in pre-ES2022 environments, with various tradeoffs.
Scoped variables
The approach here is to use the scope of the constructor function, which is private, to store private data. For methods to have access to this private data they must be created within the constructor as well, meaning you're recreating them with every instance. This is a performance and memory penalty, but it may be acceptable. The penalty can be avoided for methods that do not need access to private data by declaring them in the normal way.
Example:
class Person {
constructor(name) {
let age = 20; // this is private
this.name = name; // this is public
this.greet = () => {
// here we can access both name and age
console.log(`name: ${this.name}, age: ${age}`);
};
}
anotherMethod() {
// here we can access name but not age
}
}
let joe = new Person('Joe');
joe.greet();
// here we can access name but not age
Scoped WeakMap
A WeakMap can be used to improve the performance of the above approach, in exchange for even more clutter. WeakMaps associate data with Objects (here, class instances) in such a way that it can only be accessed using that WeakMap. So, we use the scoped variables method to create a private WeakMap, then use that WeakMap to retrieve private data associated with this. This is faster than the scoped variables method because all your instances can share a single WeakMap, so you don't need to recreate methods just to make them access their own WeakMaps.
Example:
let Person = (function () {
let privateProps = new WeakMap();
return class Person {
constructor(name) {
this.name = name; // this is public
privateProps.set(this, {age: 20}); // this is private
}
greet() {
// Here we can access both name and age
console.log(`name: ${this.name}, age: ${privateProps.get(this).age}`);
}
};
})();
let joe = new Person('Joe');
joe.greet();
// here we can access name but not age
This example uses a WeakMap with Object keys to use one WeakMap for multiple private properties; you could also use multiple WeakMaps and use them like privateAge.set(this, 20), or write a small wrapper and use it another way, like privateProps.set(this, 'age', 0).
The privacy of this approach could theoretically be breached by tampering with the global WeakMap object. That said, all JavaScript can be broken by mangled globals.
(This method could also be done with Map, but WeakMap is better because Map will create memory leaks unless you're very careful, and for this purpose the two aren't otherwise different.)
Half-Answer: Scoped Symbols
A Symbol is a type of primitive value that can serve as a property name instead of a string. You can use the scoped variable method to create a private Symbol, then store private data at this[mySymbol].
The privacy of this method can be breached using Object.getOwnPropertySymbols, but is somewhat awkward to do.
Example:
let Person = (() => {
let ageKey = Symbol();
return class Person {
constructor(name) {
this.name = name; // this is public
this[ageKey] = 20; // this is intended to be private
}
greet() {
// Here we can access both name and age
console.log(`name: ${this.name}, age: ${this[ageKey]}`);
}
}
})();
let joe = new Person('Joe');
joe.greet();
// Here we can access joe's name and, with a little effort, age. We can’t
// access ageKey directly, but we can obtain it by listing all Symbol
// properties on `joe` with `Object.getOwnPropertySymbols(joe)`.
Note that making a property non-enumerable using Object.defineProperty does not prevent it from being included in Object.getOwnPropertySymbols.
Half-Answer: Underscores
The old convention is to just use a public property with an underscore prefix. This does not keep it private, but it does do a good job of communicating to readers that they should treat it as private, which often gets the job done. In exchange for this, we get an approach that's easier to read, easier to type, and faster than the other workarounds.
Example:
class Person {
constructor(name) {
this.name = name; // this is public
this._age = 20; // this is intended to be private
}
greet() {
// Here we can access both name and age
console.log(`name: ${this.name}, age: ${this._age}`);
}
}
let joe = new Person('Joe');
joe.greet();
// Here we can access both joe's name and age. But we know we aren't
// supposed to access his age, which just might stop us.
Summary
ES2022: great but not yet supported by all visitors
Scoped variables: private, slower, awkward
Scoped WeakMaps: hackable, awkward
Scoped Symbols: enumerable and hackable, somewhat awkward
Underscores: just a request for privacy, no other downsides

Update: A proposal with nicer syntax is on its way. Contributions are welcome.
Yes, there is - for scoped access in objects - ES6 introduces Symbols.
Symbols are unique, you can't gain access to one from the outside except with reflection (like privates in Java/C#) but anyone who has access to a symbol on the inside can use it for key access:
var property = Symbol();
class Something {
constructor(){
this[property] = "test";
}
}
var instance = new Something();
console.log(instance.property); //=> undefined, can only access with access to the Symbol

The answer is "No". But you can create private access to properties like this:
Use modules. Everything in a module is private unless it's made public by using the export keyword.
Inside modules, use function closure: http://www.kirupa.com/html5/closures_in_javascript.htm
(The suggestion that Symbols could be used to ensure privacy was true in an earlier version of the ES6 spec but is no longer the case:https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2014-January/035604.html and https://stackoverflow.com/a/22280202/1282216. For a longer discussion about Symbols and privacy see: https://curiosity-driven.org/private-properties-in-javascript)

The only way to get true privacy in JS is through scoping, so there is no way to have a property that is a member of this that will be accessible only inside the component. The best way to store truly private data in ES6 is with a WeakMap.
const privateProp1 = new WeakMap();
const privateProp2 = new WeakMap();
class SomeClass {
constructor() {
privateProp1.set(this, "I am Private1");
privateProp2.set(this, "I am Private2");
this.publicVar = "I am public";
this.publicMethod = () => {
console.log(privateProp1.get(this), privateProp2.get(this))
};
}
printPrivate() {
console.log(privateProp1.get(this));
}
}
Obviously this is a probably slow, and definitely ugly, but it does provide privacy.
Keep in mind that EVEN THIS isn't perfect, because Javascript is so dynamic. Someone could still do
var oldSet = WeakMap.prototype.set;
WeakMap.prototype.set = function(key, value){
// Store 'this', 'key', and 'value'
return oldSet.call(this, key, value);
};
to catch values as they are stored, so if you wanted to be extra careful, you'd need to capture a local reference to .set and .get to use explicitly instead of relying on the overridable prototype.
const {set: WMSet, get: WMGet} = WeakMap.prototype;
const privateProp1 = new WeakMap();
const privateProp2 = new WeakMap();
class SomeClass {
constructor() {
WMSet.call(privateProp1, this, "I am Private1");
WMSet.call(privateProp2, this, "I am Private2");
this.publicVar = "I am public";
this.publicMethod = () => {
console.log(WMGet.call(privateProp1, this), WMGet.call(privateProp2, this))
};
}
printPrivate() {
console.log(WMGet.call(privateProp1, this));
}
}

For future reference of other on lookers, I'm hearing now that the recommendation is to use WeakMaps to hold private data.
Here is a more clear, working example:
function storePrivateProperties(a, b, c, d) {
let privateData = new WeakMap;
// unique object as key, weak map can only accept object as key, when key is no longer referened, garbage collector claims the key-value
let keyA = {}, keyB = {}, keyC = {}, keyD = {};
privateData.set(keyA, a);
privateData.set(keyB, b);
privateData.set(keyC, c);
privateData.set(keyD, d);
return {
logPrivateKey(key) {
switch(key) {
case "a":
console.log(privateData.get(keyA));
break;
case "b":
console.log(privateData.get(keyB));
break;
case "c":
console.log(privateData.get(keyC));
break;
case "d":
console.log(privateData.set(keyD));
break;
default:
console.log(`There is no value for ${key}`)
}
}
}
}

Depends on whom you ask :-)
No private property modifier is included in the Maximally minimal classes proposal which seems to have made it into the current draft.
However, there might be support for private names, which does allow private properties - and they probably could be used in class definitions as well.

Using ES6 modules (initially proposed by #d13) works well for me. It doesn't mimic private properties perfectly, but at least you can be confident that properties that should be private won't leak outside of your class. Here's an example:
something.js
let _message = null;
const _greet = name => {
console.log('Hello ' + name);
};
export default class Something {
constructor(message) {
_message = message;
}
say() {
console.log(_message);
_greet('Bob');
}
};
Then the consuming code can look like this:
import Something from './something.js';
const something = new Something('Sunny day!');
something.say();
something._message; // undefined
something._greet(); // exception
Update (Important):
As #DanyalAytekin outlined in the comments, these private properties are static, so therefore global in scope. They will work well when working with Singletons, but care must be taken for Transient objects. Extending the example above:
import Something from './something.js';
import Something2 from './something.js';
const a = new Something('a');
a.say(); // a
const b = new Something('b');
b.say(); // b
const c = new Something2('c');
c.say(); // c
a.say(); // c
b.say(); // c
c.say(); // c

Yes - you can create encapsulated property, but it's not been done with access modifiers (public|private) at least not with ES6.
Here is a simple example how it can be done with ES6:
1 Create class using class word
2 Inside it's constructor declare block-scoped variable using let OR const reserved words -> since they are block-scope they cannot be accessed from outside (encapsulated)
3 To allow some access control (setters|getters) to those variables you can declare instance method inside it's constructor using: this.methodName=function(){} syntax
"use strict";
class Something{
constructor(){
//private property
let property="test";
//private final (immutable) property
const property2="test2";
//public getter
this.getProperty2=function(){
return property2;
}
//public getter
this.getProperty=function(){
return property;
}
//public setter
this.setProperty=function(prop){
property=prop;
}
}
}
Now lets check it:
var s=new Something();
console.log(typeof s.property);//undefined
s.setProperty("another");//set to encapsulated `property`
console.log(s.getProperty());//get encapsulated `property` value
console.log(s.getProperty2());//get encapsulated immutable `property2` value

Completing #d13 and the comments by #johnny-oshika and #DanyalAytekin:
I guess in the example provided by #johnny-oshika we could use normal functions instead of arrow functions and then .bind them with the current object plus a _privates object as a curried parameter:
something.js
function _greet(_privates) {
return 'Hello ' + _privates.message;
}
function _updateMessage(_privates, newMessage) {
_privates.message = newMessage;
}
export default class Something {
constructor(message) {
const _privates = {
message
};
this.say = _greet.bind(this, _privates);
this.updateMessage = _updateMessage.bind(this, _privates);
}
}
main.js
import Something from './something.js';
const something = new Something('Sunny day!');
const message1 = something.say();
something.updateMessage('Cloudy day!');
const message2 = something.say();
console.log(message1 === 'Hello Sunny day!'); // true
console.log(message2 === 'Hello Cloudy day!'); // true
// the followings are not public
console.log(something._greet === undefined); // true
console.log(something._privates === undefined); // true
console.log(something._updateMessage === undefined); // true
// another instance which doesn't share the _privates
const something2 = new Something('another Sunny day!');
const message3 = something2.say();
console.log(message3 === 'Hello another Sunny day!'); // true
Benefits I can think of:
we can have private methods (_greet and _updateMessage act like private methods as long as we don't export the references)
although they're not on the prototype, the above mentioned methods will save memory because the instances are created once, outside the class (as opposed to defining them in the constructor)
we don't leak any globals since we're inside a module
we can also have private properties using the binded _privates object
Some drawbacks I can think of:
less intuitive
mixed usage of class syntax and old school patterns (object bindings, module/function scoped variables)
hard bindings - we can't rebind the public methods (although we can improve this by using soft bindings (https://github.com/getify/You-Dont-Know-JS/blob/master/this%20%26%20object%20prototypes/ch2.md#softening-binding))
A running snippet can be found here: http://www.webpackbin.com/NJgI5J8lZ

A different approach to "private"
Instead of fighting against the fact that private visibility is currently unavailable in ES6, I decided to take a more practical approach that does just fine if your IDE supports JSDoc (e.g., Webstorm). The idea is to use the #private tag. As far as development goes, the IDE will prevent you from accessing any private member from outside its class. Works pretty well for me and it's been really useful for hiding internal methods so the auto-complete feature shows me just what the class really meant to expose. Here's an example:

Oh, so many exotic solutions! I usually don't care about privacy so I use "pseudo privacy" as it's said here. But if do care (if there are some special requirements for that) I use something like in this example:
class jobImpl{
// public
constructor(name){
this.name = name;
}
// public
do(time){
console.log(`${this.name} started at ${time}`);
this.prepare();
this.execute();
}
//public
stop(time){
this.finish();
console.log(`${this.name} finished at ${time}`);
}
// private
prepare(){ console.log('prepare..'); }
// private
execute(){ console.log('execute..'); }
// private
finish(){ console.log('finish..'); }
}
function Job(name){
var impl = new jobImpl(name);
return {
do: time => impl.do(time),
stop: time => impl.stop(time)
};
}
// Test:
// create class "Job"
var j = new Job("Digging a ditch");
// call public members..
j.do("08:00am");
j.stop("06:00pm");
// try to call private members or fields..
console.log(j.name); // undefined
j.execute(); // error
Another possible implementation of function (constructor) Job:
function Job(name){
var impl = new jobImpl(name);
this.do = time => impl.do(time),
this.stop = time => impl.stop(time)
}

WeakMap
supported in IE11 (Symbols are not)
hard-private (props using Symbols are soft-private due to Object.getOwnPropertySymbols)
can look really clean (unlike closures which require all props and methods in the constructor)
First, define a function to wrap WeakMap:
function Private() {
const map = new WeakMap();
return obj => {
let props = map.get(obj);
if (!props) {
props = {};
map.set(obj, props);
}
return props;
};
}
Then, construct a reference outside your class:
const p = new Private();
class Person {
constructor(name, age) {
this.name = name;
p(this).age = age; // it's easy to set a private variable
}
getAge() {
return p(this).age; // and get a private variable
}
}
Note: class isn't supported by IE11, but it looks cleaner in the example.

I came across this post when looking for the best practice for "private data for classes". It was mentioned that a few of the patterns would have performance issues.
I put together a few jsperf tests based on the 4 main patterns from the online book "Exploring ES6":
http://exploringjs.com/es6/ch_classes.html#sec_private-data-for-classes
The tests can be found here:
https://jsperf.com/private-data-for-classes
In Chrome 63.0.3239 / Mac OS X 10.11.6, the best performing patterns were "Private data via constructor environments" and "Private data via a naming convention". For me Safari performed well for WeakMap but Chrome not so well.
I don't know the memory impact, but the pattern for "constructor environments" which some had warned would be a performance issue was very performant.
The 4 basic patterns are:
Private data via constructor environments
class Countdown {
constructor(counter, action) {
Object.assign(this, {
dec() {
if (counter < 1) return;
counter--;
if (counter === 0) {
action();
}
}
});
}
}
const c = new Countdown(2, () => {});
c.dec();
c.dec();
Private data via constructor environments 2
class Countdown {
constructor(counter, action) {
this.dec = function dec() {
if (counter < 1) return;
counter--;
if (counter === 0) {
action();
}
}
}
}
const c = new Countdown(2, () => {});
c.dec();
c.dec();
Private data via a naming convention
class Countdown {
constructor(counter, action) {
this._counter = counter;
this._action = action;
}
dec() {
if (this._counter < 1) return;
this._counter--;
if (this._counter === 0) {
this._action();
}
}
}
const c = new Countdown(2, () => {});
c.dec();
c.dec();
Private data via WeakMaps
const _counter = new WeakMap();
const _action = new WeakMap();
class Countdown {
constructor(counter, action) {
_counter.set(this, counter);
_action.set(this, action);
}
dec() {
let counter = _counter.get(this);
if (counter < 1) return;
counter--;
_counter.set(this, counter);
if (counter === 0) {
_action.get(this)();
}
}
}
const c = new Countdown(2, () => {});
c.dec();
c.dec();
Private data via symbols
const _counter = Symbol('counter');
const _action = Symbol('action');
class Countdown {
constructor(counter, action) {
this[_counter] = counter;
this[_action] = action;
}
dec() {
if (this[_counter] < 1) return;
this[_counter]--;
if (this[_counter] === 0) {
this[_action]();
}
}
}
const c = new Countdown(2, () => {});
c.dec();
c.dec();

Personally I like the proposal of the bind operator :: and would then combine it with the solution #d13 mentioned but for now stick with #d13 's answer where you use the export keyword for your class and put the private functions in the module.
there is one more solution tough which hasn't been mentioned here that follows are more functional approach and would allow it to have all the private props/methods within the class.
Private.js
export const get = state => key => state[key];
export const set = state => (key,value) => { state[key] = value; }
Test.js
import { get, set } from './utils/Private'
export default class Test {
constructor(initialState = {}) {
const _set = this.set = set(initialState);
const _get = this.get = get(initialState);
this.set('privateMethod', () => _get('propValue'));
}
showProp() {
return this.get('privateMethod')();
}
}
let one = new Test({ propValue: 5});
let two = new Test({ propValue: 8});
two.showProp(); // 8
one.showProp(); // 5
comments on it would be appreciated.

I think Benjamin's answer is probably the best for most cases until the language natively supports explicitly private variables.
However, if for some reason you need to prevent access with Object.getOwnPropertySymbols(), a method I've considered using is attaching a unique, non-configurable, non-enumerable, non-writable property that can be used as a property identifier to each object on construction (such as a unique Symbol, if you don't already have some other unique property like an id). Then just keep a map of each object's 'private' variables using that identifier.
const privateVars = {};
class Something {
constructor(){
Object.defineProperty(this, '_sym', {
configurable: false,
enumerable: false,
writable: false,
value: Symbol()
});
var myPrivateVars = {
privateProperty: "I'm hidden"
};
privateVars[this._sym] = myPrivateVars;
this.property = "I'm public";
}
getPrivateProperty() {
return privateVars[this._sym].privateProperty;
}
// A clean up method of some kind is necessary since the
// variables won't be cleaned up from memory automatically
// when the object is garbage collected
destroy() {
delete privateVars[this._sym];
}
}
var instance = new Something();
console.log(instance.property); //=> "I'm public"
console.log(instance.privateProperty); //=> undefined
console.log(instance.getPrivateProperty()); //=> "I'm hidden"
The potential advantage of this approach over using a WeakMap is faster access time if performance becomes a concern.

I believe it is possible to get 'best of both worlds' using closures inside constructors. There are two variations:
All data members are private
function myFunc() {
console.log('Value of x: ' + this.x);
this.myPrivateFunc();
}
function myPrivateFunc() {
console.log('Enhanced value of x: ' + (this.x + 1));
}
class Test {
constructor() {
let internal = {
x : 2,
};
internal.myPrivateFunc = myPrivateFunc.bind(internal);
this.myFunc = myFunc.bind(internal);
}
};
Some members are private
NOTE: This is admittedly ugly. If you know a better solution, please edit this response.
function myFunc(priv, pub) {
pub.y = 3; // The Test object now gets a member 'y' with value 3.
console.log('Value of x: ' + priv.x);
this.myPrivateFunc();
}
function myPrivateFunc() {
pub.z = 5; // The Test object now gets a member 'z' with value 3.
console.log('Enhanced value of x: ' + (priv.x + 1));
}
class Test {
constructor() {
let self = this;
let internal = {
x : 2,
};
internal.myPrivateFunc = myPrivateFunc.bind(null, internal, self);
this.myFunc = myFunc.bind(null, internal, self);
}
};

In fact it is possible using Symbols and Proxies. You use the symbols in the class scope and set two traps in a proxy: one for the class prototype so that the Reflect.ownKeys(instance) or Object.getOwnPropertySymbols doesn't give your symbols away, the other one is for the constructor itself so when new ClassName(attrs) is called, the instance returned will be intercepted and have the own properties symbols blocked.
Here's the code:
const Human = (function() {
const pet = Symbol();
const greet = Symbol();
const Human = privatizeSymbolsInFn(function(name) {
this.name = name; // public
this[pet] = 'dog'; // private
});
Human.prototype = privatizeSymbolsInObj({
[greet]() { // private
return 'Hi there!';
},
revealSecrets() {
console.log(this[greet]() + ` The pet is a ${this[pet]}`);
}
});
return Human;
})();
const bob = new Human('Bob');
console.assert(bob instanceof Human);
console.assert(Reflect.ownKeys(bob).length === 1) // only ['name']
console.assert(Reflect.ownKeys(Human.prototype).length === 1 ) // only ['revealSecrets']
// Setting up the traps inside proxies:
function privatizeSymbolsInObj(target) {
return new Proxy(target, { ownKeys: Object.getOwnPropertyNames });
}
function privatizeSymbolsInFn(Class) {
function construct(TargetClass, argsList) {
const instance = new TargetClass(...argsList);
return privatizeSymbolsInObj(instance);
}
return new Proxy(Class, { construct });
}
Reflect.ownKeys() works like so: Object.getOwnPropertyNames(myObj).concat(Object.getOwnPropertySymbols(myObj)) that's why we need a trap for these objects.

Even Typescript can't do it. From their documentation:
When a member is marked private, it cannot be accessed from outside of its containing class. For example:
class Animal {
private name: string;
constructor(theName: string) { this.name = theName; }
}
new Animal("Cat").name; // Error: 'name' is private;
But transpiled on their playground this gives:
var Animal = (function () {
function Animal(theName) {
this.name = theName;
}
return Animal;
}());
console.log(new Animal("Cat").name);
So their "private" keyword is ineffective.

Coming very late to this party but I hit the OP question in a search so...
Yes, you can have private properties by wrapping the class declaration in a closure
There is an example of how I have private methods in this codepen. In the snippet below, the Subscribable class has two 'private' functions process and processCallbacks. Any properties can be added in this manner and they are kept private through the use of the closure. IMO Privacy is a rare need if concerns are well separated and Javascript does not need to become bloated by adding more syntax when a closure neatly does the job.
const Subscribable = (function(){
const process = (self, eventName, args) => {
self.processing.set(eventName, setTimeout(() => processCallbacks(self, eventName, args)))};
const processCallbacks = (self, eventName, args) => {
if (self.callingBack.get(eventName).length > 0){
const [nextCallback, ...callingBack] = self.callingBack.get(eventName);
self.callingBack.set(eventName, callingBack);
process(self, eventName, args);
nextCallback(...args)}
else {
delete self.processing.delete(eventName)}};
return class {
constructor(){
this.callingBack = new Map();
this.processing = new Map();
this.toCallbacks = new Map()}
subscribe(eventName, callback){
const callbacks = this.unsubscribe(eventName, callback);
this.toCallbacks.set(eventName, [...callbacks, callback]);
return () => this.unsubscribe(eventName, callback)} // callable to unsubscribe for convenience
unsubscribe(eventName, callback){
let callbacks = this.toCallbacks.get(eventName) || [];
callbacks = callbacks.filter(subscribedCallback => subscribedCallback !== callback);
if (callbacks.length > 0) {
this.toCallbacks.set(eventName, callbacks)}
else {
this.toCallbacks.delete(eventName)}
return callbacks}
emit(eventName, ...args){
this.callingBack.set(eventName, this.toCallbacks.get(eventName) || []);
if (!this.processing.has(eventName)){
process(this, eventName, args)}}}})();
I like this approach because it separates concerns nicely and keeps things truly private. The only downside is the need to use 'self' (or something similar) to refer to 'this' in the private content.

Yes totally can, and pretty easily too. This is done by exposing your private variables and functions by returning the prototype object graph in the constructor. This is nothing new, but take a bit of js foo to understand the elegance of it. This way does not use global scoped, or weakmaps. It is a form of reflection built into the language. Depending on how you leverage this; one can either force an exception which interrupts the call stack, or bury the exception as an undefined. This is demonstarted below, and can read more about these features here
class Clazz {
constructor() {
var _level = 1
function _private(x) {
return _level * x;
}
return {
level: _level,
public: this.private,
public2: function(x) {
return _private(x);
},
public3: function(x) {
return _private(x) * this.public(x);
},
};
}
private(x) {
return x * x;
}
}
var clazz = new Clazz();
console.log(clazz._level); //undefined
console.log(clazz._private); // undefined
console.log(clazz.level); // 1
console.log(clazz.public(1)); //1
console.log(clazz.public2(2)); //2
console.log(clazz.public3(3)); //27
console.log(clazz.private(0)); //error

class Something {
constructor(){
var _property = "test";
Object.defineProperty(this, "property", {
get: function(){ return _property}
});
}
}
var instance = new Something();
console.log(instance.property); //=> "test"
instance.property = "can read from outside, but can't write";
console.log(instance.property); //=> "test"

Another way similar to the last two posted
class Example {
constructor(foo) {
// privates
const self = this;
this.foo = foo;
// public interface
return self.public;
}
public = {
// empty data
nodata: { data: [] },
// noop
noop: () => {},
}
// everything else private
bar = 10
}
const test = new Example('FOO');
console.log(test.foo); // undefined
console.log(test.noop); // { data: [] }
console.log(test.bar); // undefined

I found a very simple solution, just use Object.freeze(). Of course the problem is you can't add nothing to the object later.
class Cat {
constructor(name ,age) {
this.name = name
this.age = age
Object.freeze(this)
}
}
let cat = new Cat('Garfield', 5)
cat.age = 6 // doesn't work, even throws an error in strict mode

This code demonstrates private and public, static and non-static, instance and class-level, variables, methods, and properties.
https://codesandbox.io/s/class-demo-837bj
class Animal {
static count = 0 // class static public
static #ClassPriVar = 3 // class static private
constructor(kind) {
this.kind = kind // instance public property
Animal.count++
let InstancePriVar = 'InstancePriVar: ' + kind // instance private constructor-var
log(InstancePriVar)
Animal.#ClassPriVar += 3
this.adhoc = 'adhoc' // instance public property w/out constructor- parameter
}
#PawCount = 4 // instance private var
set Paws(newPawCount) {
// instance public prop
this.#PawCount = newPawCount
}
get Paws() {
// instance public prop
return this.#PawCount
}
get GetPriVar() {
// instance public prop
return Animal.#ClassPriVar
}
static get GetPriVarStat() {
// class public prop
return Animal.#ClassPriVar
}
PrintKind() {
// instance public method
log('kind: ' + this.kind)
}
ReturnKind() {
// instance public function
return this.kind
}
/* May be unsupported
get #PrivMeth(){ // instance private prop
return Animal.#ClassPriVar + ' Private Method'
}
static get #PrivMeth(){ // class private prop
return Animal.#ClassPriVar + ' Private Method'
}
*/
}
function log(str) {
console.log(str)
}
// TESTING
log(Animal.count) // static, avail w/out instance
log(Animal.GetPriVarStat) // static, avail w/out instance
let A = new Animal('Cat')
log(Animal.count + ': ' + A.kind)
log(A.GetPriVar)
A.PrintKind()
A.Paws = 6
log('Paws: ' + A.Paws)
log('ReturnKind: ' + A.ReturnKind())
log(A.adhoc)
let B = new Animal('Dog')
log(Animal.count + ': ' + B.kind)
log(B.GetPriVar)
log(A.GetPriVar) // returns same as B.GetPriVar. Acts like a class-level property, but called like an instance-level property. It's cuz non-stat fx requires instance.
log('class: ' + Animal.GetPriVarStat)
// undefined
log('instance: ' + B.GetPriVarStat) // static class fx
log(Animal.GetPriVar) // non-stat instance fx
log(A.InstancePriVar) // private
log(Animal.InstancePriVar) // private instance var
log('PawCount: ' + A.PawCount) // private. Use getter
/* log('PawCount: ' + A.#PawCount) // private. Use getter
log('PawCount: ' + Animal.#PawCount) // Instance and private. Use getter */

Reading the previous answer i thought that this example can summarise the above solutions
const friend = Symbol('friend');
const ClassName = ((hidden, hiddenShared = 0) => {
class ClassName {
constructor(hiddenPropertyValue, prop){
this[hidden] = hiddenPropertyValue * ++hiddenShared;
this.prop = prop
}
get hidden(){
console.log('getting hidden');
return this[hidden];
}
set [friend](v){
console.log('setting hiddenShared');
hiddenShared = v;
}
get counter(){
console.log('getting hiddenShared');
return hiddenShared;
}
get privileged(){
console.log('calling privileged method');
return privileged.bind(this);
}
}
function privileged(value){
return this[hidden] + value;
}
return ClassName;
})(Symbol('hidden'), 0);
const OtherClass = (() => class OtherClass extends ClassName {
constructor(v){
super(v, 100);
this[friend] = this.counter - 1;
}
})();
UPDATE
now is it possible to make true private properties and methods (at least on chrome based browsers for now).
The syntax is pretty neat
class MyClass {
#privateProperty = 1
#privateMethod() { return 2 }
static #privateStatic = 3
static #privateStaticMethod(){return 4}
static get #privateStaticGetter(){return 5}
// also using is quite straightforward
method(){
return (
this.#privateMethod() +
this.#privateProperty +
MyClass.#privateStatic +
MyClass.#privateStaticMethod() +
MyClass.#privateStaticGetter
)
}
}
new MyClass().method()
// returns 15
Note that for retrieving static references you wouldn't use this.constructor.#private, because it would brake its subclasses. You must use a reference to the proper class in order to retrieve its static private references (that are available only inside the methods of that class), ie MyClass.#private.

Most answers either say it's impossible, or require you to use a WeakMap or Symbol, which are ES6 features that would probably require polyfills. There's however another way! Check out this out:
// 1. Create closure
var SomeClass = function() {
// 2. Create `key` inside a closure
var key = {};
// Function to create private storage
var private = function() {
var obj = {};
// return Function to access private storage using `key`
return function(testkey) {
if(key === testkey) return obj;
// If `key` is wrong, then storage cannot be accessed
console.error('Cannot access private properties');
return undefined;
};
};
var SomeClass = function() {
// 3. Create private storage
this._ = private();
// 4. Access private storage using the `key`
this._(key).priv_prop = 200;
};
SomeClass.prototype.test = function() {
console.log(this._(key).priv_prop); // Using property from prototype
};
return SomeClass;
}();
// Can access private property from within prototype
var instance = new SomeClass();
instance.test(); // `200` logged
// Cannot access private property from outside of the closure
var wrong_key = {};
instance._(wrong_key); // undefined; error logged
I call this method accessor pattern. The essential idea is that we have a closure, a key inside the closure, and we create a private object (in the constructor) that can only be accessed if you have the key.
If you are interested, you can read more about this in my article. Using this method, you can create per object properties that cannot be accessed outside of the closure. Therefore, you can use them in constructor or prototype, but not anywhere else. I haven't seen this method used anywhere, but I think it's really powerful.

See this answer for a a clean & simple 'class' solution with a private and public interface and support for composition

I use this pattern and it's always worked for me
class Test {
constructor(data) {
class Public {
constructor(prv) {
// public function (must be in constructor on order to access "prv" variable)
connectToDb(ip) {
prv._db(ip, prv._err);
}
}
// public function w/o access to "prv" variable
log() {
console.log("I'm logging");
}
}
// private variables
this._data = data;
this._err = function(ip) {
console.log("could not connect to "+ip);
}
}
// private function
_db(ip, err) {
if(!!ip) {
console.log("connected to "+ip+", sending data '"+this.data+"'");
return true;
}
else err(ip);
}
}
var test = new Test(10),
ip = "185.167.210.49";
test.connectToDb(ip); // true
test.log(); // I'm logging
test._err(ip); // undefined
test._db(ip, function() { console.log("You have got hacked!"); }); // undefined

are there no private vars in ecma6 classes? [duplicate]

Is it possible to create private properties in ES6 classes?
Here's an example.
How can I prevent access to instance.property?
class Something {
constructor(){
this.property = "test";
}
}
var instance = new Something();
console.log(instance.property); //=> "test"

Private class features is now supported by the majority of browsers.
class Something {
#property;
constructor(){
this.#property = "test";
}
#privateMethod() {
return 'hello world';
}
getPrivateMessage() {
return this.#property;
}
}
const instance = new Something();
console.log(instance.property); //=> undefined
console.log(instance.privateMethod); //=> undefined
console.log(instance.getPrivateMessage()); //=> test
console.log(instance.#property); //=> Syntax error

Update: See others answer, this is outdated.
Short answer, no, there is no native support for private properties with ES6 classes.
But you could mimic that behaviour by not attaching the new properties to the object, but keeping them inside a class constructor, and use getters and setters to reach the hidden properties. Note that the getters and setters gets redefine on each new instance of the class.
ES6
class Person {
constructor(name) {
var _name = name
this.setName = function(name) { _name = name; }
this.getName = function() { return _name; }
}
}
ES5
function Person(name) {
var _name = name
this.setName = function(name) { _name = name; }
this.getName = function() { return _name; }
}

Yes, prefix the name with # and include it in the class definition, not just the constructor.
MDN Docs
Real private properties were finally added in ES2022. As of 2023-01-01, private properties (fields and methods) have been supported in all major browsers for at least a year, but 5-10% of users are still on older browsers [Can I Use].
Example:
class Person {
#age
constructor(name) {
this.name = name; // this is public
this.#age = 20; // this is private
}
greet() {
// here we can access both name and age
console.log(`name: ${this.name}, age: ${this.#age}`);
}
}
let joe = new Person('Joe');
joe.greet();
// here we can access name but not age
Following are methods for keeping properties private in pre-ES2022 environments, with various tradeoffs.
Scoped variables
The approach here is to use the scope of the constructor function, which is private, to store private data. For methods to have access to this private data they must be created within the constructor as well, meaning you're recreating them with every instance. This is a performance and memory penalty, but it may be acceptable. The penalty can be avoided for methods that do not need access to private data by declaring them in the normal way.
Example:
class Person {
constructor(name) {
let age = 20; // this is private
this.name = name; // this is public
this.greet = () => {
// here we can access both name and age
console.log(`name: ${this.name}, age: ${age}`);
};
}
anotherMethod() {
// here we can access name but not age
}
}
let joe = new Person('Joe');
joe.greet();
// here we can access name but not age
Scoped WeakMap
A WeakMap can be used to improve the performance of the above approach, in exchange for even more clutter. WeakMaps associate data with Objects (here, class instances) in such a way that it can only be accessed using that WeakMap. So, we use the scoped variables method to create a private WeakMap, then use that WeakMap to retrieve private data associated with this. This is faster than the scoped variables method because all your instances can share a single WeakMap, so you don't need to recreate methods just to make them access their own WeakMaps.
Example:
let Person = (function () {
let privateProps = new WeakMap();
return class Person {
constructor(name) {
this.name = name; // this is public
privateProps.set(this, {age: 20}); // this is private
}
greet() {
// Here we can access both name and age
console.log(`name: ${this.name}, age: ${privateProps.get(this).age}`);
}
};
})();
let joe = new Person('Joe');
joe.greet();
// here we can access name but not age
This example uses a WeakMap with Object keys to use one WeakMap for multiple private properties; you could also use multiple WeakMaps and use them like privateAge.set(this, 20), or write a small wrapper and use it another way, like privateProps.set(this, 'age', 0).
The privacy of this approach could theoretically be breached by tampering with the global WeakMap object. That said, all JavaScript can be broken by mangled globals.
(This method could also be done with Map, but WeakMap is better because Map will create memory leaks unless you're very careful, and for this purpose the two aren't otherwise different.)
Half-Answer: Scoped Symbols
A Symbol is a type of primitive value that can serve as a property name instead of a string. You can use the scoped variable method to create a private Symbol, then store private data at this[mySymbol].
The privacy of this method can be breached using Object.getOwnPropertySymbols, but is somewhat awkward to do.
Example:
let Person = (() => {
let ageKey = Symbol();
return class Person {
constructor(name) {
this.name = name; // this is public
this[ageKey] = 20; // this is intended to be private
}
greet() {
// Here we can access both name and age
console.log(`name: ${this.name}, age: ${this[ageKey]}`);
}
}
})();
let joe = new Person('Joe');
joe.greet();
// Here we can access joe's name and, with a little effort, age. We can’t
// access ageKey directly, but we can obtain it by listing all Symbol
// properties on `joe` with `Object.getOwnPropertySymbols(joe)`.
Note that making a property non-enumerable using Object.defineProperty does not prevent it from being included in Object.getOwnPropertySymbols.
Half-Answer: Underscores
The old convention is to just use a public property with an underscore prefix. This does not keep it private, but it does do a good job of communicating to readers that they should treat it as private, which often gets the job done. In exchange for this, we get an approach that's easier to read, easier to type, and faster than the other workarounds.
Example:
class Person {
constructor(name) {
this.name = name; // this is public
this._age = 20; // this is intended to be private
}
greet() {
// Here we can access both name and age
console.log(`name: ${this.name}, age: ${this._age}`);
}
}
let joe = new Person('Joe');
joe.greet();
// Here we can access both joe's name and age. But we know we aren't
// supposed to access his age, which just might stop us.
Summary
ES2022: great but not yet supported by all visitors
Scoped variables: private, slower, awkward
Scoped WeakMaps: hackable, awkward
Scoped Symbols: enumerable and hackable, somewhat awkward
Underscores: just a request for privacy, no other downsides

Update: A proposal with nicer syntax is on its way. Contributions are welcome.
Yes, there is - for scoped access in objects - ES6 introduces Symbols.
Symbols are unique, you can't gain access to one from the outside except with reflection (like privates in Java/C#) but anyone who has access to a symbol on the inside can use it for key access:
var property = Symbol();
class Something {
constructor(){
this[property] = "test";
}
}
var instance = new Something();
console.log(instance.property); //=> undefined, can only access with access to the Symbol

The answer is "No". But you can create private access to properties like this:
Use modules. Everything in a module is private unless it's made public by using the export keyword.
Inside modules, use function closure: http://www.kirupa.com/html5/closures_in_javascript.htm
(The suggestion that Symbols could be used to ensure privacy was true in an earlier version of the ES6 spec but is no longer the case:https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2014-January/035604.html and https://stackoverflow.com/a/22280202/1282216. For a longer discussion about Symbols and privacy see: https://curiosity-driven.org/private-properties-in-javascript)

The only way to get true privacy in JS is through scoping, so there is no way to have a property that is a member of this that will be accessible only inside the component. The best way to store truly private data in ES6 is with a WeakMap.
const privateProp1 = new WeakMap();
const privateProp2 = new WeakMap();
class SomeClass {
constructor() {
privateProp1.set(this, "I am Private1");
privateProp2.set(this, "I am Private2");
this.publicVar = "I am public";
this.publicMethod = () => {
console.log(privateProp1.get(this), privateProp2.get(this))
};
}
printPrivate() {
console.log(privateProp1.get(this));
}
}
Obviously this is a probably slow, and definitely ugly, but it does provide privacy.
Keep in mind that EVEN THIS isn't perfect, because Javascript is so dynamic. Someone could still do
var oldSet = WeakMap.prototype.set;
WeakMap.prototype.set = function(key, value){
// Store 'this', 'key', and 'value'
return oldSet.call(this, key, value);
};
to catch values as they are stored, so if you wanted to be extra careful, you'd need to capture a local reference to .set and .get to use explicitly instead of relying on the overridable prototype.
const {set: WMSet, get: WMGet} = WeakMap.prototype;
const privateProp1 = new WeakMap();
const privateProp2 = new WeakMap();
class SomeClass {
constructor() {
WMSet.call(privateProp1, this, "I am Private1");
WMSet.call(privateProp2, this, "I am Private2");
this.publicVar = "I am public";
this.publicMethod = () => {
console.log(WMGet.call(privateProp1, this), WMGet.call(privateProp2, this))
};
}
printPrivate() {
console.log(WMGet.call(privateProp1, this));
}
}

For future reference of other on lookers, I'm hearing now that the recommendation is to use WeakMaps to hold private data.
Here is a more clear, working example:
function storePrivateProperties(a, b, c, d) {
let privateData = new WeakMap;
// unique object as key, weak map can only accept object as key, when key is no longer referened, garbage collector claims the key-value
let keyA = {}, keyB = {}, keyC = {}, keyD = {};
privateData.set(keyA, a);
privateData.set(keyB, b);
privateData.set(keyC, c);
privateData.set(keyD, d);
return {
logPrivateKey(key) {
switch(key) {
case "a":
console.log(privateData.get(keyA));
break;
case "b":
console.log(privateData.get(keyB));
break;
case "c":
console.log(privateData.get(keyC));
break;
case "d":
console.log(privateData.set(keyD));
break;
default:
console.log(`There is no value for ${key}`)
}
}
}
}

Depends on whom you ask :-)
No private property modifier is included in the Maximally minimal classes proposal which seems to have made it into the current draft.
However, there might be support for private names, which does allow private properties - and they probably could be used in class definitions as well.

Using ES6 modules (initially proposed by #d13) works well for me. It doesn't mimic private properties perfectly, but at least you can be confident that properties that should be private won't leak outside of your class. Here's an example:
something.js
let _message = null;
const _greet = name => {
console.log('Hello ' + name);
};
export default class Something {
constructor(message) {
_message = message;
}
say() {
console.log(_message);
_greet('Bob');
}
};
Then the consuming code can look like this:
import Something from './something.js';
const something = new Something('Sunny day!');
something.say();
something._message; // undefined
something._greet(); // exception
Update (Important):
As #DanyalAytekin outlined in the comments, these private properties are static, so therefore global in scope. They will work well when working with Singletons, but care must be taken for Transient objects. Extending the example above:
import Something from './something.js';
import Something2 from './something.js';
const a = new Something('a');
a.say(); // a
const b = new Something('b');
b.say(); // b
const c = new Something2('c');
c.say(); // c
a.say(); // c
b.say(); // c
c.say(); // c

Yes - you can create encapsulated property, but it's not been done with access modifiers (public|private) at least not with ES6.
Here is a simple example how it can be done with ES6:
1 Create class using class word
2 Inside it's constructor declare block-scoped variable using let OR const reserved words -> since they are block-scope they cannot be accessed from outside (encapsulated)
3 To allow some access control (setters|getters) to those variables you can declare instance method inside it's constructor using: this.methodName=function(){} syntax
"use strict";
class Something{
constructor(){
//private property
let property="test";
//private final (immutable) property
const property2="test2";
//public getter
this.getProperty2=function(){
return property2;
}
//public getter
this.getProperty=function(){
return property;
}
//public setter
this.setProperty=function(prop){
property=prop;
}
}
}
Now lets check it:
var s=new Something();
console.log(typeof s.property);//undefined
s.setProperty("another");//set to encapsulated `property`
console.log(s.getProperty());//get encapsulated `property` value
console.log(s.getProperty2());//get encapsulated immutable `property2` value

Completing #d13 and the comments by #johnny-oshika and #DanyalAytekin:
I guess in the example provided by #johnny-oshika we could use normal functions instead of arrow functions and then .bind them with the current object plus a _privates object as a curried parameter:
something.js
function _greet(_privates) {
return 'Hello ' + _privates.message;
}
function _updateMessage(_privates, newMessage) {
_privates.message = newMessage;
}
export default class Something {
constructor(message) {
const _privates = {
message
};
this.say = _greet.bind(this, _privates);
this.updateMessage = _updateMessage.bind(this, _privates);
}
}
main.js
import Something from './something.js';
const something = new Something('Sunny day!');
const message1 = something.say();
something.updateMessage('Cloudy day!');
const message2 = something.say();
console.log(message1 === 'Hello Sunny day!'); // true
console.log(message2 === 'Hello Cloudy day!'); // true
// the followings are not public
console.log(something._greet === undefined); // true
console.log(something._privates === undefined); // true
console.log(something._updateMessage === undefined); // true
// another instance which doesn't share the _privates
const something2 = new Something('another Sunny day!');
const message3 = something2.say();
console.log(message3 === 'Hello another Sunny day!'); // true
Benefits I can think of:
we can have private methods (_greet and _updateMessage act like private methods as long as we don't export the references)
although they're not on the prototype, the above mentioned methods will save memory because the instances are created once, outside the class (as opposed to defining them in the constructor)
we don't leak any globals since we're inside a module
we can also have private properties using the binded _privates object
Some drawbacks I can think of:
less intuitive
mixed usage of class syntax and old school patterns (object bindings, module/function scoped variables)
hard bindings - we can't rebind the public methods (although we can improve this by using soft bindings (https://github.com/getify/You-Dont-Know-JS/blob/master/this%20%26%20object%20prototypes/ch2.md#softening-binding))
A running snippet can be found here: http://www.webpackbin.com/NJgI5J8lZ

A different approach to "private"
Instead of fighting against the fact that private visibility is currently unavailable in ES6, I decided to take a more practical approach that does just fine if your IDE supports JSDoc (e.g., Webstorm). The idea is to use the #private tag. As far as development goes, the IDE will prevent you from accessing any private member from outside its class. Works pretty well for me and it's been really useful for hiding internal methods so the auto-complete feature shows me just what the class really meant to expose. Here's an example:

Oh, so many exotic solutions! I usually don't care about privacy so I use "pseudo privacy" as it's said here. But if do care (if there are some special requirements for that) I use something like in this example:
class jobImpl{
// public
constructor(name){
this.name = name;
}
// public
do(time){
console.log(`${this.name} started at ${time}`);
this.prepare();
this.execute();
}
//public
stop(time){
this.finish();
console.log(`${this.name} finished at ${time}`);
}
// private
prepare(){ console.log('prepare..'); }
// private
execute(){ console.log('execute..'); }
// private
finish(){ console.log('finish..'); }
}
function Job(name){
var impl = new jobImpl(name);
return {
do: time => impl.do(time),
stop: time => impl.stop(time)
};
}
// Test:
// create class "Job"
var j = new Job("Digging a ditch");
// call public members..
j.do("08:00am");
j.stop("06:00pm");
// try to call private members or fields..
console.log(j.name); // undefined
j.execute(); // error
Another possible implementation of function (constructor) Job:
function Job(name){
var impl = new jobImpl(name);
this.do = time => impl.do(time),
this.stop = time => impl.stop(time)
}

WeakMap
supported in IE11 (Symbols are not)
hard-private (props using Symbols are soft-private due to Object.getOwnPropertySymbols)
can look really clean (unlike closures which require all props and methods in the constructor)
First, define a function to wrap WeakMap:
function Private() {
const map = new WeakMap();
return obj => {
let props = map.get(obj);
if (!props) {
props = {};
map.set(obj, props);
}
return props;
};
}
Then, construct a reference outside your class:
const p = new Private();
class Person {
constructor(name, age) {
this.name = name;
p(this).age = age; // it's easy to set a private variable
}
getAge() {
return p(this).age; // and get a private variable
}
}
Note: class isn't supported by IE11, but it looks cleaner in the example.

I came across this post when looking for the best practice for "private data for classes". It was mentioned that a few of the patterns would have performance issues.
I put together a few jsperf tests based on the 4 main patterns from the online book "Exploring ES6":
http://exploringjs.com/es6/ch_classes.html#sec_private-data-for-classes
The tests can be found here:
https://jsperf.com/private-data-for-classes
In Chrome 63.0.3239 / Mac OS X 10.11.6, the best performing patterns were "Private data via constructor environments" and "Private data via a naming convention". For me Safari performed well for WeakMap but Chrome not so well.
I don't know the memory impact, but the pattern for "constructor environments" which some had warned would be a performance issue was very performant.
The 4 basic patterns are:
Private data via constructor environments
class Countdown {
constructor(counter, action) {
Object.assign(this, {
dec() {
if (counter < 1) return;
counter--;
if (counter === 0) {
action();
}
}
});
}
}
const c = new Countdown(2, () => {});
c.dec();
c.dec();
Private data via constructor environments 2
class Countdown {
constructor(counter, action) {
this.dec = function dec() {
if (counter < 1) return;
counter--;
if (counter === 0) {
action();
}
}
}
}
const c = new Countdown(2, () => {});
c.dec();
c.dec();
Private data via a naming convention
class Countdown {
constructor(counter, action) {
this._counter = counter;
this._action = action;
}
dec() {
if (this._counter < 1) return;
this._counter--;
if (this._counter === 0) {
this._action();
}
}
}
const c = new Countdown(2, () => {});
c.dec();
c.dec();
Private data via WeakMaps
const _counter = new WeakMap();
const _action = new WeakMap();
class Countdown {
constructor(counter, action) {
_counter.set(this, counter);
_action.set(this, action);
}
dec() {
let counter = _counter.get(this);
if (counter < 1) return;
counter--;
_counter.set(this, counter);
if (counter === 0) {
_action.get(this)();
}
}
}
const c = new Countdown(2, () => {});
c.dec();
c.dec();
Private data via symbols
const _counter = Symbol('counter');
const _action = Symbol('action');
class Countdown {
constructor(counter, action) {
this[_counter] = counter;
this[_action] = action;
}
dec() {
if (this[_counter] < 1) return;
this[_counter]--;
if (this[_counter] === 0) {
this[_action]();
}
}
}
const c = new Countdown(2, () => {});
c.dec();
c.dec();

Personally I like the proposal of the bind operator :: and would then combine it with the solution #d13 mentioned but for now stick with #d13 's answer where you use the export keyword for your class and put the private functions in the module.
there is one more solution tough which hasn't been mentioned here that follows are more functional approach and would allow it to have all the private props/methods within the class.
Private.js
export const get = state => key => state[key];
export const set = state => (key,value) => { state[key] = value; }
Test.js
import { get, set } from './utils/Private'
export default class Test {
constructor(initialState = {}) {
const _set = this.set = set(initialState);
const _get = this.get = get(initialState);
this.set('privateMethod', () => _get('propValue'));
}
showProp() {
return this.get('privateMethod')();
}
}
let one = new Test({ propValue: 5});
let two = new Test({ propValue: 8});
two.showProp(); // 8
one.showProp(); // 5
comments on it would be appreciated.

I think Benjamin's answer is probably the best for most cases until the language natively supports explicitly private variables.
However, if for some reason you need to prevent access with Object.getOwnPropertySymbols(), a method I've considered using is attaching a unique, non-configurable, non-enumerable, non-writable property that can be used as a property identifier to each object on construction (such as a unique Symbol, if you don't already have some other unique property like an id). Then just keep a map of each object's 'private' variables using that identifier.
const privateVars = {};
class Something {
constructor(){
Object.defineProperty(this, '_sym', {
configurable: false,
enumerable: false,
writable: false,
value: Symbol()
});
var myPrivateVars = {
privateProperty: "I'm hidden"
};
privateVars[this._sym] = myPrivateVars;
this.property = "I'm public";
}
getPrivateProperty() {
return privateVars[this._sym].privateProperty;
}
// A clean up method of some kind is necessary since the
// variables won't be cleaned up from memory automatically
// when the object is garbage collected
destroy() {
delete privateVars[this._sym];
}
}
var instance = new Something();
console.log(instance.property); //=> "I'm public"
console.log(instance.privateProperty); //=> undefined
console.log(instance.getPrivateProperty()); //=> "I'm hidden"
The potential advantage of this approach over using a WeakMap is faster access time if performance becomes a concern.

I believe it is possible to get 'best of both worlds' using closures inside constructors. There are two variations:
All data members are private
function myFunc() {
console.log('Value of x: ' + this.x);
this.myPrivateFunc();
}
function myPrivateFunc() {
console.log('Enhanced value of x: ' + (this.x + 1));
}
class Test {
constructor() {
let internal = {
x : 2,
};
internal.myPrivateFunc = myPrivateFunc.bind(internal);
this.myFunc = myFunc.bind(internal);
}
};
Some members are private
NOTE: This is admittedly ugly. If you know a better solution, please edit this response.
function myFunc(priv, pub) {
pub.y = 3; // The Test object now gets a member 'y' with value 3.
console.log('Value of x: ' + priv.x);
this.myPrivateFunc();
}
function myPrivateFunc() {
pub.z = 5; // The Test object now gets a member 'z' with value 3.
console.log('Enhanced value of x: ' + (priv.x + 1));
}
class Test {
constructor() {
let self = this;
let internal = {
x : 2,
};
internal.myPrivateFunc = myPrivateFunc.bind(null, internal, self);
this.myFunc = myFunc.bind(null, internal, self);
}
};

In fact it is possible using Symbols and Proxies. You use the symbols in the class scope and set two traps in a proxy: one for the class prototype so that the Reflect.ownKeys(instance) or Object.getOwnPropertySymbols doesn't give your symbols away, the other one is for the constructor itself so when new ClassName(attrs) is called, the instance returned will be intercepted and have the own properties symbols blocked.
Here's the code:
const Human = (function() {
const pet = Symbol();
const greet = Symbol();
const Human = privatizeSymbolsInFn(function(name) {
this.name = name; // public
this[pet] = 'dog'; // private
});
Human.prototype = privatizeSymbolsInObj({
[greet]() { // private
return 'Hi there!';
},
revealSecrets() {
console.log(this[greet]() + ` The pet is a ${this[pet]}`);
}
});
return Human;
})();
const bob = new Human('Bob');
console.assert(bob instanceof Human);
console.assert(Reflect.ownKeys(bob).length === 1) // only ['name']
console.assert(Reflect.ownKeys(Human.prototype).length === 1 ) // only ['revealSecrets']
// Setting up the traps inside proxies:
function privatizeSymbolsInObj(target) {
return new Proxy(target, { ownKeys: Object.getOwnPropertyNames });
}
function privatizeSymbolsInFn(Class) {
function construct(TargetClass, argsList) {
const instance = new TargetClass(...argsList);
return privatizeSymbolsInObj(instance);
}
return new Proxy(Class, { construct });
}
Reflect.ownKeys() works like so: Object.getOwnPropertyNames(myObj).concat(Object.getOwnPropertySymbols(myObj)) that's why we need a trap for these objects.

Even Typescript can't do it. From their documentation:
When a member is marked private, it cannot be accessed from outside of its containing class. For example:
class Animal {
private name: string;
constructor(theName: string) { this.name = theName; }
}
new Animal("Cat").name; // Error: 'name' is private;
But transpiled on their playground this gives:
var Animal = (function () {
function Animal(theName) {
this.name = theName;
}
return Animal;
}());
console.log(new Animal("Cat").name);
So their "private" keyword is ineffective.

Coming very late to this party but I hit the OP question in a search so...
Yes, you can have private properties by wrapping the class declaration in a closure
There is an example of how I have private methods in this codepen. In the snippet below, the Subscribable class has two 'private' functions process and processCallbacks. Any properties can be added in this manner and they are kept private through the use of the closure. IMO Privacy is a rare need if concerns are well separated and Javascript does not need to become bloated by adding more syntax when a closure neatly does the job.
const Subscribable = (function(){
const process = (self, eventName, args) => {
self.processing.set(eventName, setTimeout(() => processCallbacks(self, eventName, args)))};
const processCallbacks = (self, eventName, args) => {
if (self.callingBack.get(eventName).length > 0){
const [nextCallback, ...callingBack] = self.callingBack.get(eventName);
self.callingBack.set(eventName, callingBack);
process(self, eventName, args);
nextCallback(...args)}
else {
delete self.processing.delete(eventName)}};
return class {
constructor(){
this.callingBack = new Map();
this.processing = new Map();
this.toCallbacks = new Map()}
subscribe(eventName, callback){
const callbacks = this.unsubscribe(eventName, callback);
this.toCallbacks.set(eventName, [...callbacks, callback]);
return () => this.unsubscribe(eventName, callback)} // callable to unsubscribe for convenience
unsubscribe(eventName, callback){
let callbacks = this.toCallbacks.get(eventName) || [];
callbacks = callbacks.filter(subscribedCallback => subscribedCallback !== callback);
if (callbacks.length > 0) {
this.toCallbacks.set(eventName, callbacks)}
else {
this.toCallbacks.delete(eventName)}
return callbacks}
emit(eventName, ...args){
this.callingBack.set(eventName, this.toCallbacks.get(eventName) || []);
if (!this.processing.has(eventName)){
process(this, eventName, args)}}}})();
I like this approach because it separates concerns nicely and keeps things truly private. The only downside is the need to use 'self' (or something similar) to refer to 'this' in the private content.

Yes totally can, and pretty easily too. This is done by exposing your private variables and functions by returning the prototype object graph in the constructor. This is nothing new, but take a bit of js foo to understand the elegance of it. This way does not use global scoped, or weakmaps. It is a form of reflection built into the language. Depending on how you leverage this; one can either force an exception which interrupts the call stack, or bury the exception as an undefined. This is demonstarted below, and can read more about these features here
class Clazz {
constructor() {
var _level = 1
function _private(x) {
return _level * x;
}
return {
level: _level,
public: this.private,
public2: function(x) {
return _private(x);
},
public3: function(x) {
return _private(x) * this.public(x);
},
};
}
private(x) {
return x * x;
}
}
var clazz = new Clazz();
console.log(clazz._level); //undefined
console.log(clazz._private); // undefined
console.log(clazz.level); // 1
console.log(clazz.public(1)); //1
console.log(clazz.public2(2)); //2
console.log(clazz.public3(3)); //27
console.log(clazz.private(0)); //error

class Something {
constructor(){
var _property = "test";
Object.defineProperty(this, "property", {
get: function(){ return _property}
});
}
}
var instance = new Something();
console.log(instance.property); //=> "test"
instance.property = "can read from outside, but can't write";
console.log(instance.property); //=> "test"

Another way similar to the last two posted
class Example {
constructor(foo) {
// privates
const self = this;
this.foo = foo;
// public interface
return self.public;
}
public = {
// empty data
nodata: { data: [] },
// noop
noop: () => {},
}
// everything else private
bar = 10
}
const test = new Example('FOO');
console.log(test.foo); // undefined
console.log(test.noop); // { data: [] }
console.log(test.bar); // undefined

I found a very simple solution, just use Object.freeze(). Of course the problem is you can't add nothing to the object later.
class Cat {
constructor(name ,age) {
this.name = name
this.age = age
Object.freeze(this)
}
}
let cat = new Cat('Garfield', 5)
cat.age = 6 // doesn't work, even throws an error in strict mode

This code demonstrates private and public, static and non-static, instance and class-level, variables, methods, and properties.
https://codesandbox.io/s/class-demo-837bj
class Animal {
static count = 0 // class static public
static #ClassPriVar = 3 // class static private
constructor(kind) {
this.kind = kind // instance public property
Animal.count++
let InstancePriVar = 'InstancePriVar: ' + kind // instance private constructor-var
log(InstancePriVar)
Animal.#ClassPriVar += 3
this.adhoc = 'adhoc' // instance public property w/out constructor- parameter
}
#PawCount = 4 // instance private var
set Paws(newPawCount) {
// instance public prop
this.#PawCount = newPawCount
}
get Paws() {
// instance public prop
return this.#PawCount
}
get GetPriVar() {
// instance public prop
return Animal.#ClassPriVar
}
static get GetPriVarStat() {
// class public prop
return Animal.#ClassPriVar
}
PrintKind() {
// instance public method
log('kind: ' + this.kind)
}
ReturnKind() {
// instance public function
return this.kind
}
/* May be unsupported
get #PrivMeth(){ // instance private prop
return Animal.#ClassPriVar + ' Private Method'
}
static get #PrivMeth(){ // class private prop
return Animal.#ClassPriVar + ' Private Method'
}
*/
}
function log(str) {
console.log(str)
}
// TESTING
log(Animal.count) // static, avail w/out instance
log(Animal.GetPriVarStat) // static, avail w/out instance
let A = new Animal('Cat')
log(Animal.count + ': ' + A.kind)
log(A.GetPriVar)
A.PrintKind()
A.Paws = 6
log('Paws: ' + A.Paws)
log('ReturnKind: ' + A.ReturnKind())
log(A.adhoc)
let B = new Animal('Dog')
log(Animal.count + ': ' + B.kind)
log(B.GetPriVar)
log(A.GetPriVar) // returns same as B.GetPriVar. Acts like a class-level property, but called like an instance-level property. It's cuz non-stat fx requires instance.
log('class: ' + Animal.GetPriVarStat)
// undefined
log('instance: ' + B.GetPriVarStat) // static class fx
log(Animal.GetPriVar) // non-stat instance fx
log(A.InstancePriVar) // private
log(Animal.InstancePriVar) // private instance var
log('PawCount: ' + A.PawCount) // private. Use getter
/* log('PawCount: ' + A.#PawCount) // private. Use getter
log('PawCount: ' + Animal.#PawCount) // Instance and private. Use getter */

Reading the previous answer i thought that this example can summarise the above solutions
const friend = Symbol('friend');
const ClassName = ((hidden, hiddenShared = 0) => {
class ClassName {
constructor(hiddenPropertyValue, prop){
this[hidden] = hiddenPropertyValue * ++hiddenShared;
this.prop = prop
}
get hidden(){
console.log('getting hidden');
return this[hidden];
}
set [friend](v){
console.log('setting hiddenShared');
hiddenShared = v;
}
get counter(){
console.log('getting hiddenShared');
return hiddenShared;
}
get privileged(){
console.log('calling privileged method');
return privileged.bind(this);
}
}
function privileged(value){
return this[hidden] + value;
}
return ClassName;
})(Symbol('hidden'), 0);
const OtherClass = (() => class OtherClass extends ClassName {
constructor(v){
super(v, 100);
this[friend] = this.counter - 1;
}
})();
UPDATE
now is it possible to make true private properties and methods (at least on chrome based browsers for now).
The syntax is pretty neat
class MyClass {
#privateProperty = 1
#privateMethod() { return 2 }
static #privateStatic = 3
static #privateStaticMethod(){return 4}
static get #privateStaticGetter(){return 5}
// also using is quite straightforward
method(){
return (
this.#privateMethod() +
this.#privateProperty +
MyClass.#privateStatic +
MyClass.#privateStaticMethod() +
MyClass.#privateStaticGetter
)
}
}
new MyClass().method()
// returns 15
Note that for retrieving static references you wouldn't use this.constructor.#private, because it would brake its subclasses. You must use a reference to the proper class in order to retrieve its static private references (that are available only inside the methods of that class), ie MyClass.#private.

Most answers either say it's impossible, or require you to use a WeakMap or Symbol, which are ES6 features that would probably require polyfills. There's however another way! Check out this out:
// 1. Create closure
var SomeClass = function() {
// 2. Create `key` inside a closure
var key = {};
// Function to create private storage
var private = function() {
var obj = {};
// return Function to access private storage using `key`
return function(testkey) {
if(key === testkey) return obj;
// If `key` is wrong, then storage cannot be accessed
console.error('Cannot access private properties');
return undefined;
};
};
var SomeClass = function() {
// 3. Create private storage
this._ = private();
// 4. Access private storage using the `key`
this._(key).priv_prop = 200;
};
SomeClass.prototype.test = function() {
console.log(this._(key).priv_prop); // Using property from prototype
};
return SomeClass;
}();
// Can access private property from within prototype
var instance = new SomeClass();
instance.test(); // `200` logged
// Cannot access private property from outside of the closure
var wrong_key = {};
instance._(wrong_key); // undefined; error logged
I call this method accessor pattern. The essential idea is that we have a closure, a key inside the closure, and we create a private object (in the constructor) that can only be accessed if you have the key.
If you are interested, you can read more about this in my article. Using this method, you can create per object properties that cannot be accessed outside of the closure. Therefore, you can use them in constructor or prototype, but not anywhere else. I haven't seen this method used anywhere, but I think it's really powerful.

See this answer for a a clean & simple 'class' solution with a private and public interface and support for composition

I use this pattern and it's always worked for me
class Test {
constructor(data) {
class Public {
constructor(prv) {
// public function (must be in constructor on order to access "prv" variable)
connectToDb(ip) {
prv._db(ip, prv._err);
}
}
// public function w/o access to "prv" variable
log() {
console.log("I'm logging");
}
}
// private variables
this._data = data;
this._err = function(ip) {
console.log("could not connect to "+ip);
}
}
// private function
_db(ip, err) {
if(!!ip) {
console.log("connected to "+ip+", sending data '"+this.data+"'");
return true;
}
else err(ip);
}
}
var test = new Test(10),
ip = "185.167.210.49";
test.connectToDb(ip); // true
test.log(); // I'm logging
test._err(ip); // undefined
test._db(ip, function() { console.log("You have got hacked!"); }); // undefined

how to create private method in javascript iojs es6 [duplicate]

Is it possible to create private properties in ES6 classes?
Here's an example.
How can I prevent access to instance.property?
class Something {
constructor(){
this.property = "test";
}
}
var instance = new Something();
console.log(instance.property); //=> "test"

Private class features is now supported by the majority of browsers.
class Something {
#property;
constructor(){
this.#property = "test";
}
#privateMethod() {
return 'hello world';
}
getPrivateMessage() {
return this.#property;
}
}
const instance = new Something();
console.log(instance.property); //=> undefined
console.log(instance.privateMethod); //=> undefined
console.log(instance.getPrivateMessage()); //=> test
console.log(instance.#property); //=> Syntax error

Update: See others answer, this is outdated.
Short answer, no, there is no native support for private properties with ES6 classes.
But you could mimic that behaviour by not attaching the new properties to the object, but keeping them inside a class constructor, and use getters and setters to reach the hidden properties. Note that the getters and setters gets redefine on each new instance of the class.
ES6
class Person {
constructor(name) {
var _name = name
this.setName = function(name) { _name = name; }
this.getName = function() { return _name; }
}
}
ES5
function Person(name) {
var _name = name
this.setName = function(name) { _name = name; }
this.getName = function() { return _name; }
}

Yes, prefix the name with # and include it in the class definition, not just the constructor.
MDN Docs
Real private properties were finally added in ES2022. As of 2023-01-01, private properties (fields and methods) have been supported in all major browsers for at least a year, but 5-10% of users are still on older browsers [Can I Use].
Example:
class Person {
#age
constructor(name) {
this.name = name; // this is public
this.#age = 20; // this is private
}
greet() {
// here we can access both name and age
console.log(`name: ${this.name}, age: ${this.#age}`);
}
}
let joe = new Person('Joe');
joe.greet();
// here we can access name but not age
Following are methods for keeping properties private in pre-ES2022 environments, with various tradeoffs.
Scoped variables
The approach here is to use the scope of the constructor function, which is private, to store private data. For methods to have access to this private data they must be created within the constructor as well, meaning you're recreating them with every instance. This is a performance and memory penalty, but it may be acceptable. The penalty can be avoided for methods that do not need access to private data by declaring them in the normal way.
Example:
class Person {
constructor(name) {
let age = 20; // this is private
this.name = name; // this is public
this.greet = () => {
// here we can access both name and age
console.log(`name: ${this.name}, age: ${age}`);
};
}
anotherMethod() {
// here we can access name but not age
}
}
let joe = new Person('Joe');
joe.greet();
// here we can access name but not age
Scoped WeakMap
A WeakMap can be used to improve the performance of the above approach, in exchange for even more clutter. WeakMaps associate data with Objects (here, class instances) in such a way that it can only be accessed using that WeakMap. So, we use the scoped variables method to create a private WeakMap, then use that WeakMap to retrieve private data associated with this. This is faster than the scoped variables method because all your instances can share a single WeakMap, so you don't need to recreate methods just to make them access their own WeakMaps.
Example:
let Person = (function () {
let privateProps = new WeakMap();
return class Person {
constructor(name) {
this.name = name; // this is public
privateProps.set(this, {age: 20}); // this is private
}
greet() {
// Here we can access both name and age
console.log(`name: ${this.name}, age: ${privateProps.get(this).age}`);
}
};
})();
let joe = new Person('Joe');
joe.greet();
// here we can access name but not age
This example uses a WeakMap with Object keys to use one WeakMap for multiple private properties; you could also use multiple WeakMaps and use them like privateAge.set(this, 20), or write a small wrapper and use it another way, like privateProps.set(this, 'age', 0).
The privacy of this approach could theoretically be breached by tampering with the global WeakMap object. That said, all JavaScript can be broken by mangled globals.
(This method could also be done with Map, but WeakMap is better because Map will create memory leaks unless you're very careful, and for this purpose the two aren't otherwise different.)
Half-Answer: Scoped Symbols
A Symbol is a type of primitive value that can serve as a property name instead of a string. You can use the scoped variable method to create a private Symbol, then store private data at this[mySymbol].
The privacy of this method can be breached using Object.getOwnPropertySymbols, but is somewhat awkward to do.
Example:
let Person = (() => {
let ageKey = Symbol();
return class Person {
constructor(name) {
this.name = name; // this is public
this[ageKey] = 20; // this is intended to be private
}
greet() {
// Here we can access both name and age
console.log(`name: ${this.name}, age: ${this[ageKey]}`);
}
}
})();
let joe = new Person('Joe');
joe.greet();
// Here we can access joe's name and, with a little effort, age. We can’t
// access ageKey directly, but we can obtain it by listing all Symbol
// properties on `joe` with `Object.getOwnPropertySymbols(joe)`.
Note that making a property non-enumerable using Object.defineProperty does not prevent it from being included in Object.getOwnPropertySymbols.
Half-Answer: Underscores
The old convention is to just use a public property with an underscore prefix. This does not keep it private, but it does do a good job of communicating to readers that they should treat it as private, which often gets the job done. In exchange for this, we get an approach that's easier to read, easier to type, and faster than the other workarounds.
Example:
class Person {
constructor(name) {
this.name = name; // this is public
this._age = 20; // this is intended to be private
}
greet() {
// Here we can access both name and age
console.log(`name: ${this.name}, age: ${this._age}`);
}
}
let joe = new Person('Joe');
joe.greet();
// Here we can access both joe's name and age. But we know we aren't
// supposed to access his age, which just might stop us.
Summary
ES2022: great but not yet supported by all visitors
Scoped variables: private, slower, awkward
Scoped WeakMaps: hackable, awkward
Scoped Symbols: enumerable and hackable, somewhat awkward
Underscores: just a request for privacy, no other downsides

Update: A proposal with nicer syntax is on its way. Contributions are welcome.
Yes, there is - for scoped access in objects - ES6 introduces Symbols.
Symbols are unique, you can't gain access to one from the outside except with reflection (like privates in Java/C#) but anyone who has access to a symbol on the inside can use it for key access:
var property = Symbol();
class Something {
constructor(){
this[property] = "test";
}
}
var instance = new Something();
console.log(instance.property); //=> undefined, can only access with access to the Symbol

The answer is "No". But you can create private access to properties like this:
Use modules. Everything in a module is private unless it's made public by using the export keyword.
Inside modules, use function closure: http://www.kirupa.com/html5/closures_in_javascript.htm
(The suggestion that Symbols could be used to ensure privacy was true in an earlier version of the ES6 spec but is no longer the case:https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2014-January/035604.html and https://stackoverflow.com/a/22280202/1282216. For a longer discussion about Symbols and privacy see: https://curiosity-driven.org/private-properties-in-javascript)

The only way to get true privacy in JS is through scoping, so there is no way to have a property that is a member of this that will be accessible only inside the component. The best way to store truly private data in ES6 is with a WeakMap.
const privateProp1 = new WeakMap();
const privateProp2 = new WeakMap();
class SomeClass {
constructor() {
privateProp1.set(this, "I am Private1");
privateProp2.set(this, "I am Private2");
this.publicVar = "I am public";
this.publicMethod = () => {
console.log(privateProp1.get(this), privateProp2.get(this))
};
}
printPrivate() {
console.log(privateProp1.get(this));
}
}
Obviously this is a probably slow, and definitely ugly, but it does provide privacy.
Keep in mind that EVEN THIS isn't perfect, because Javascript is so dynamic. Someone could still do
var oldSet = WeakMap.prototype.set;
WeakMap.prototype.set = function(key, value){
// Store 'this', 'key', and 'value'
return oldSet.call(this, key, value);
};
to catch values as they are stored, so if you wanted to be extra careful, you'd need to capture a local reference to .set and .get to use explicitly instead of relying on the overridable prototype.
const {set: WMSet, get: WMGet} = WeakMap.prototype;
const privateProp1 = new WeakMap();
const privateProp2 = new WeakMap();
class SomeClass {
constructor() {
WMSet.call(privateProp1, this, "I am Private1");
WMSet.call(privateProp2, this, "I am Private2");
this.publicVar = "I am public";
this.publicMethod = () => {
console.log(WMGet.call(privateProp1, this), WMGet.call(privateProp2, this))
};
}
printPrivate() {
console.log(WMGet.call(privateProp1, this));
}
}

For future reference of other on lookers, I'm hearing now that the recommendation is to use WeakMaps to hold private data.
Here is a more clear, working example:
function storePrivateProperties(a, b, c, d) {
let privateData = new WeakMap;
// unique object as key, weak map can only accept object as key, when key is no longer referened, garbage collector claims the key-value
let keyA = {}, keyB = {}, keyC = {}, keyD = {};
privateData.set(keyA, a);
privateData.set(keyB, b);
privateData.set(keyC, c);
privateData.set(keyD, d);
return {
logPrivateKey(key) {
switch(key) {
case "a":
console.log(privateData.get(keyA));
break;
case "b":
console.log(privateData.get(keyB));
break;
case "c":
console.log(privateData.get(keyC));
break;
case "d":
console.log(privateData.set(keyD));
break;
default:
console.log(`There is no value for ${key}`)
}
}
}
}

Depends on whom you ask :-)
No private property modifier is included in the Maximally minimal classes proposal which seems to have made it into the current draft.
However, there might be support for private names, which does allow private properties - and they probably could be used in class definitions as well.

Using ES6 modules (initially proposed by #d13) works well for me. It doesn't mimic private properties perfectly, but at least you can be confident that properties that should be private won't leak outside of your class. Here's an example:
something.js
let _message = null;
const _greet = name => {
console.log('Hello ' + name);
};
export default class Something {
constructor(message) {
_message = message;
}
say() {
console.log(_message);
_greet('Bob');
}
};
Then the consuming code can look like this:
import Something from './something.js';
const something = new Something('Sunny day!');
something.say();
something._message; // undefined
something._greet(); // exception
Update (Important):
As #DanyalAytekin outlined in the comments, these private properties are static, so therefore global in scope. They will work well when working with Singletons, but care must be taken for Transient objects. Extending the example above:
import Something from './something.js';
import Something2 from './something.js';
const a = new Something('a');
a.say(); // a
const b = new Something('b');
b.say(); // b
const c = new Something2('c');
c.say(); // c
a.say(); // c
b.say(); // c
c.say(); // c

Yes - you can create encapsulated property, but it's not been done with access modifiers (public|private) at least not with ES6.
Here is a simple example how it can be done with ES6:
1 Create class using class word
2 Inside it's constructor declare block-scoped variable using let OR const reserved words -> since they are block-scope they cannot be accessed from outside (encapsulated)
3 To allow some access control (setters|getters) to those variables you can declare instance method inside it's constructor using: this.methodName=function(){} syntax
"use strict";
class Something{
constructor(){
//private property
let property="test";
//private final (immutable) property
const property2="test2";
//public getter
this.getProperty2=function(){
return property2;
}
//public getter
this.getProperty=function(){
return property;
}
//public setter
this.setProperty=function(prop){
property=prop;
}
}
}
Now lets check it:
var s=new Something();
console.log(typeof s.property);//undefined
s.setProperty("another");//set to encapsulated `property`
console.log(s.getProperty());//get encapsulated `property` value
console.log(s.getProperty2());//get encapsulated immutable `property2` value

Completing #d13 and the comments by #johnny-oshika and #DanyalAytekin:
I guess in the example provided by #johnny-oshika we could use normal functions instead of arrow functions and then .bind them with the current object plus a _privates object as a curried parameter:
something.js
function _greet(_privates) {
return 'Hello ' + _privates.message;
}
function _updateMessage(_privates, newMessage) {
_privates.message = newMessage;
}
export default class Something {
constructor(message) {
const _privates = {
message
};
this.say = _greet.bind(this, _privates);
this.updateMessage = _updateMessage.bind(this, _privates);
}
}
main.js
import Something from './something.js';
const something = new Something('Sunny day!');
const message1 = something.say();
something.updateMessage('Cloudy day!');
const message2 = something.say();
console.log(message1 === 'Hello Sunny day!'); // true
console.log(message2 === 'Hello Cloudy day!'); // true
// the followings are not public
console.log(something._greet === undefined); // true
console.log(something._privates === undefined); // true
console.log(something._updateMessage === undefined); // true
// another instance which doesn't share the _privates
const something2 = new Something('another Sunny day!');
const message3 = something2.say();
console.log(message3 === 'Hello another Sunny day!'); // true
Benefits I can think of:
we can have private methods (_greet and _updateMessage act like private methods as long as we don't export the references)
although they're not on the prototype, the above mentioned methods will save memory because the instances are created once, outside the class (as opposed to defining them in the constructor)
we don't leak any globals since we're inside a module
we can also have private properties using the binded _privates object
Some drawbacks I can think of:
less intuitive
mixed usage of class syntax and old school patterns (object bindings, module/function scoped variables)
hard bindings - we can't rebind the public methods (although we can improve this by using soft bindings (https://github.com/getify/You-Dont-Know-JS/blob/master/this%20%26%20object%20prototypes/ch2.md#softening-binding))
A running snippet can be found here: http://www.webpackbin.com/NJgI5J8lZ

A different approach to "private"
Instead of fighting against the fact that private visibility is currently unavailable in ES6, I decided to take a more practical approach that does just fine if your IDE supports JSDoc (e.g., Webstorm). The idea is to use the #private tag. As far as development goes, the IDE will prevent you from accessing any private member from outside its class. Works pretty well for me and it's been really useful for hiding internal methods so the auto-complete feature shows me just what the class really meant to expose. Here's an example:

Oh, so many exotic solutions! I usually don't care about privacy so I use "pseudo privacy" as it's said here. But if do care (if there are some special requirements for that) I use something like in this example:
class jobImpl{
// public
constructor(name){
this.name = name;
}
// public
do(time){
console.log(`${this.name} started at ${time}`);
this.prepare();
this.execute();
}
//public
stop(time){
this.finish();
console.log(`${this.name} finished at ${time}`);
}
// private
prepare(){ console.log('prepare..'); }
// private
execute(){ console.log('execute..'); }
// private
finish(){ console.log('finish..'); }
}
function Job(name){
var impl = new jobImpl(name);
return {
do: time => impl.do(time),
stop: time => impl.stop(time)
};
}
// Test:
// create class "Job"
var j = new Job("Digging a ditch");
// call public members..
j.do("08:00am");
j.stop("06:00pm");
// try to call private members or fields..
console.log(j.name); // undefined
j.execute(); // error
Another possible implementation of function (constructor) Job:
function Job(name){
var impl = new jobImpl(name);
this.do = time => impl.do(time),
this.stop = time => impl.stop(time)
}

WeakMap
supported in IE11 (Symbols are not)
hard-private (props using Symbols are soft-private due to Object.getOwnPropertySymbols)
can look really clean (unlike closures which require all props and methods in the constructor)
First, define a function to wrap WeakMap:
function Private() {
const map = new WeakMap();
return obj => {
let props = map.get(obj);
if (!props) {
props = {};
map.set(obj, props);
}
return props;
};
}
Then, construct a reference outside your class:
const p = new Private();
class Person {
constructor(name, age) {
this.name = name;
p(this).age = age; // it's easy to set a private variable
}
getAge() {
return p(this).age; // and get a private variable
}
}
Note: class isn't supported by IE11, but it looks cleaner in the example.

I came across this post when looking for the best practice for "private data for classes". It was mentioned that a few of the patterns would have performance issues.
I put together a few jsperf tests based on the 4 main patterns from the online book "Exploring ES6":
http://exploringjs.com/es6/ch_classes.html#sec_private-data-for-classes
The tests can be found here:
https://jsperf.com/private-data-for-classes
In Chrome 63.0.3239 / Mac OS X 10.11.6, the best performing patterns were "Private data via constructor environments" and "Private data via a naming convention". For me Safari performed well for WeakMap but Chrome not so well.
I don't know the memory impact, but the pattern for "constructor environments" which some had warned would be a performance issue was very performant.
The 4 basic patterns are:
Private data via constructor environments
class Countdown {
constructor(counter, action) {
Object.assign(this, {
dec() {
if (counter < 1) return;
counter--;
if (counter === 0) {
action();
}
}
});
}
}
const c = new Countdown(2, () => {});
c.dec();
c.dec();
Private data via constructor environments 2
class Countdown {
constructor(counter, action) {
this.dec = function dec() {
if (counter < 1) return;
counter--;
if (counter === 0) {
action();
}
}
}
}
const c = new Countdown(2, () => {});
c.dec();
c.dec();
Private data via a naming convention
class Countdown {
constructor(counter, action) {
this._counter = counter;
this._action = action;
}
dec() {
if (this._counter < 1) return;
this._counter--;
if (this._counter === 0) {
this._action();
}
}
}
const c = new Countdown(2, () => {});
c.dec();
c.dec();
Private data via WeakMaps
const _counter = new WeakMap();
const _action = new WeakMap();
class Countdown {
constructor(counter, action) {
_counter.set(this, counter);
_action.set(this, action);
}
dec() {
let counter = _counter.get(this);
if (counter < 1) return;
counter--;
_counter.set(this, counter);
if (counter === 0) {
_action.get(this)();
}
}
}
const c = new Countdown(2, () => {});
c.dec();
c.dec();
Private data via symbols
const _counter = Symbol('counter');
const _action = Symbol('action');
class Countdown {
constructor(counter, action) {
this[_counter] = counter;
this[_action] = action;
}
dec() {
if (this[_counter] < 1) return;
this[_counter]--;
if (this[_counter] === 0) {
this[_action]();
}
}
}
const c = new Countdown(2, () => {});
c.dec();
c.dec();

Personally I like the proposal of the bind operator :: and would then combine it with the solution #d13 mentioned but for now stick with #d13 's answer where you use the export keyword for your class and put the private functions in the module.
there is one more solution tough which hasn't been mentioned here that follows are more functional approach and would allow it to have all the private props/methods within the class.
Private.js
export const get = state => key => state[key];
export const set = state => (key,value) => { state[key] = value; }
Test.js
import { get, set } from './utils/Private'
export default class Test {
constructor(initialState = {}) {
const _set = this.set = set(initialState);
const _get = this.get = get(initialState);
this.set('privateMethod', () => _get('propValue'));
}
showProp() {
return this.get('privateMethod')();
}
}
let one = new Test({ propValue: 5});
let two = new Test({ propValue: 8});
two.showProp(); // 8
one.showProp(); // 5
comments on it would be appreciated.

I think Benjamin's answer is probably the best for most cases until the language natively supports explicitly private variables.
However, if for some reason you need to prevent access with Object.getOwnPropertySymbols(), a method I've considered using is attaching a unique, non-configurable, non-enumerable, non-writable property that can be used as a property identifier to each object on construction (such as a unique Symbol, if you don't already have some other unique property like an id). Then just keep a map of each object's 'private' variables using that identifier.
const privateVars = {};
class Something {
constructor(){
Object.defineProperty(this, '_sym', {
configurable: false,
enumerable: false,
writable: false,
value: Symbol()
});
var myPrivateVars = {
privateProperty: "I'm hidden"
};
privateVars[this._sym] = myPrivateVars;
this.property = "I'm public";
}
getPrivateProperty() {
return privateVars[this._sym].privateProperty;
}
// A clean up method of some kind is necessary since the
// variables won't be cleaned up from memory automatically
// when the object is garbage collected
destroy() {
delete privateVars[this._sym];
}
}
var instance = new Something();
console.log(instance.property); //=> "I'm public"
console.log(instance.privateProperty); //=> undefined
console.log(instance.getPrivateProperty()); //=> "I'm hidden"
The potential advantage of this approach over using a WeakMap is faster access time if performance becomes a concern.

I believe it is possible to get 'best of both worlds' using closures inside constructors. There are two variations:
All data members are private
function myFunc() {
console.log('Value of x: ' + this.x);
this.myPrivateFunc();
}
function myPrivateFunc() {
console.log('Enhanced value of x: ' + (this.x + 1));
}
class Test {
constructor() {
let internal = {
x : 2,
};
internal.myPrivateFunc = myPrivateFunc.bind(internal);
this.myFunc = myFunc.bind(internal);
}
};
Some members are private
NOTE: This is admittedly ugly. If you know a better solution, please edit this response.
function myFunc(priv, pub) {
pub.y = 3; // The Test object now gets a member 'y' with value 3.
console.log('Value of x: ' + priv.x);
this.myPrivateFunc();
}
function myPrivateFunc() {
pub.z = 5; // The Test object now gets a member 'z' with value 3.
console.log('Enhanced value of x: ' + (priv.x + 1));
}
class Test {
constructor() {
let self = this;
let internal = {
x : 2,
};
internal.myPrivateFunc = myPrivateFunc.bind(null, internal, self);
this.myFunc = myFunc.bind(null, internal, self);
}
};

In fact it is possible using Symbols and Proxies. You use the symbols in the class scope and set two traps in a proxy: one for the class prototype so that the Reflect.ownKeys(instance) or Object.getOwnPropertySymbols doesn't give your symbols away, the other one is for the constructor itself so when new ClassName(attrs) is called, the instance returned will be intercepted and have the own properties symbols blocked.
Here's the code:
const Human = (function() {
const pet = Symbol();
const greet = Symbol();
const Human = privatizeSymbolsInFn(function(name) {
this.name = name; // public
this[pet] = 'dog'; // private
});
Human.prototype = privatizeSymbolsInObj({
[greet]() { // private
return 'Hi there!';
},
revealSecrets() {
console.log(this[greet]() + ` The pet is a ${this[pet]}`);
}
});
return Human;
})();
const bob = new Human('Bob');
console.assert(bob instanceof Human);
console.assert(Reflect.ownKeys(bob).length === 1) // only ['name']
console.assert(Reflect.ownKeys(Human.prototype).length === 1 ) // only ['revealSecrets']
// Setting up the traps inside proxies:
function privatizeSymbolsInObj(target) {
return new Proxy(target, { ownKeys: Object.getOwnPropertyNames });
}
function privatizeSymbolsInFn(Class) {
function construct(TargetClass, argsList) {
const instance = new TargetClass(...argsList);
return privatizeSymbolsInObj(instance);
}
return new Proxy(Class, { construct });
}
Reflect.ownKeys() works like so: Object.getOwnPropertyNames(myObj).concat(Object.getOwnPropertySymbols(myObj)) that's why we need a trap for these objects.

Even Typescript can't do it. From their documentation:
When a member is marked private, it cannot be accessed from outside of its containing class. For example:
class Animal {
private name: string;
constructor(theName: string) { this.name = theName; }
}
new Animal("Cat").name; // Error: 'name' is private;
But transpiled on their playground this gives:
var Animal = (function () {
function Animal(theName) {
this.name = theName;
}
return Animal;
}());
console.log(new Animal("Cat").name);
So their "private" keyword is ineffective.

Coming very late to this party but I hit the OP question in a search so...
Yes, you can have private properties by wrapping the class declaration in a closure
There is an example of how I have private methods in this codepen. In the snippet below, the Subscribable class has two 'private' functions process and processCallbacks. Any properties can be added in this manner and they are kept private through the use of the closure. IMO Privacy is a rare need if concerns are well separated and Javascript does not need to become bloated by adding more syntax when a closure neatly does the job.
const Subscribable = (function(){
const process = (self, eventName, args) => {
self.processing.set(eventName, setTimeout(() => processCallbacks(self, eventName, args)))};
const processCallbacks = (self, eventName, args) => {
if (self.callingBack.get(eventName).length > 0){
const [nextCallback, ...callingBack] = self.callingBack.get(eventName);
self.callingBack.set(eventName, callingBack);
process(self, eventName, args);
nextCallback(...args)}
else {
delete self.processing.delete(eventName)}};
return class {
constructor(){
this.callingBack = new Map();
this.processing = new Map();
this.toCallbacks = new Map()}
subscribe(eventName, callback){
const callbacks = this.unsubscribe(eventName, callback);
this.toCallbacks.set(eventName, [...callbacks, callback]);
return () => this.unsubscribe(eventName, callback)} // callable to unsubscribe for convenience
unsubscribe(eventName, callback){
let callbacks = this.toCallbacks.get(eventName) || [];
callbacks = callbacks.filter(subscribedCallback => subscribedCallback !== callback);
if (callbacks.length > 0) {
this.toCallbacks.set(eventName, callbacks)}
else {
this.toCallbacks.delete(eventName)}
return callbacks}
emit(eventName, ...args){
this.callingBack.set(eventName, this.toCallbacks.get(eventName) || []);
if (!this.processing.has(eventName)){
process(this, eventName, args)}}}})();
I like this approach because it separates concerns nicely and keeps things truly private. The only downside is the need to use 'self' (or something similar) to refer to 'this' in the private content.

Yes totally can, and pretty easily too. This is done by exposing your private variables and functions by returning the prototype object graph in the constructor. This is nothing new, but take a bit of js foo to understand the elegance of it. This way does not use global scoped, or weakmaps. It is a form of reflection built into the language. Depending on how you leverage this; one can either force an exception which interrupts the call stack, or bury the exception as an undefined. This is demonstarted below, and can read more about these features here
class Clazz {
constructor() {
var _level = 1
function _private(x) {
return _level * x;
}
return {
level: _level,
public: this.private,
public2: function(x) {
return _private(x);
},
public3: function(x) {
return _private(x) * this.public(x);
},
};
}
private(x) {
return x * x;
}
}
var clazz = new Clazz();
console.log(clazz._level); //undefined
console.log(clazz._private); // undefined
console.log(clazz.level); // 1
console.log(clazz.public(1)); //1
console.log(clazz.public2(2)); //2
console.log(clazz.public3(3)); //27
console.log(clazz.private(0)); //error

class Something {
constructor(){
var _property = "test";
Object.defineProperty(this, "property", {
get: function(){ return _property}
});
}
}
var instance = new Something();
console.log(instance.property); //=> "test"
instance.property = "can read from outside, but can't write";
console.log(instance.property); //=> "test"

Another way similar to the last two posted
class Example {
constructor(foo) {
// privates
const self = this;
this.foo = foo;
// public interface
return self.public;
}
public = {
// empty data
nodata: { data: [] },
// noop
noop: () => {},
}
// everything else private
bar = 10
}
const test = new Example('FOO');
console.log(test.foo); // undefined
console.log(test.noop); // { data: [] }
console.log(test.bar); // undefined

I found a very simple solution, just use Object.freeze(). Of course the problem is you can't add nothing to the object later.
class Cat {
constructor(name ,age) {
this.name = name
this.age = age
Object.freeze(this)
}
}
let cat = new Cat('Garfield', 5)
cat.age = 6 // doesn't work, even throws an error in strict mode

This code demonstrates private and public, static and non-static, instance and class-level, variables, methods, and properties.
https://codesandbox.io/s/class-demo-837bj
class Animal {
static count = 0 // class static public
static #ClassPriVar = 3 // class static private
constructor(kind) {
this.kind = kind // instance public property
Animal.count++
let InstancePriVar = 'InstancePriVar: ' + kind // instance private constructor-var
log(InstancePriVar)
Animal.#ClassPriVar += 3
this.adhoc = 'adhoc' // instance public property w/out constructor- parameter
}
#PawCount = 4 // instance private var
set Paws(newPawCount) {
// instance public prop
this.#PawCount = newPawCount
}
get Paws() {
// instance public prop
return this.#PawCount
}
get GetPriVar() {
// instance public prop
return Animal.#ClassPriVar
}
static get GetPriVarStat() {
// class public prop
return Animal.#ClassPriVar
}
PrintKind() {
// instance public method
log('kind: ' + this.kind)
}
ReturnKind() {
// instance public function
return this.kind
}
/* May be unsupported
get #PrivMeth(){ // instance private prop
return Animal.#ClassPriVar + ' Private Method'
}
static get #PrivMeth(){ // class private prop
return Animal.#ClassPriVar + ' Private Method'
}
*/
}
function log(str) {
console.log(str)
}
// TESTING
log(Animal.count) // static, avail w/out instance
log(Animal.GetPriVarStat) // static, avail w/out instance
let A = new Animal('Cat')
log(Animal.count + ': ' + A.kind)
log(A.GetPriVar)
A.PrintKind()
A.Paws = 6
log('Paws: ' + A.Paws)
log('ReturnKind: ' + A.ReturnKind())
log(A.adhoc)
let B = new Animal('Dog')
log(Animal.count + ': ' + B.kind)
log(B.GetPriVar)
log(A.GetPriVar) // returns same as B.GetPriVar. Acts like a class-level property, but called like an instance-level property. It's cuz non-stat fx requires instance.
log('class: ' + Animal.GetPriVarStat)
// undefined
log('instance: ' + B.GetPriVarStat) // static class fx
log(Animal.GetPriVar) // non-stat instance fx
log(A.InstancePriVar) // private
log(Animal.InstancePriVar) // private instance var
log('PawCount: ' + A.PawCount) // private. Use getter
/* log('PawCount: ' + A.#PawCount) // private. Use getter
log('PawCount: ' + Animal.#PawCount) // Instance and private. Use getter */

Reading the previous answer i thought that this example can summarise the above solutions
const friend = Symbol('friend');
const ClassName = ((hidden, hiddenShared = 0) => {
class ClassName {
constructor(hiddenPropertyValue, prop){
this[hidden] = hiddenPropertyValue * ++hiddenShared;
this.prop = prop
}
get hidden(){
console.log('getting hidden');
return this[hidden];
}
set [friend](v){
console.log('setting hiddenShared');
hiddenShared = v;
}
get counter(){
console.log('getting hiddenShared');
return hiddenShared;
}
get privileged(){
console.log('calling privileged method');
return privileged.bind(this);
}
}
function privileged(value){
return this[hidden] + value;
}
return ClassName;
})(Symbol('hidden'), 0);
const OtherClass = (() => class OtherClass extends ClassName {
constructor(v){
super(v, 100);
this[friend] = this.counter - 1;
}
})();
UPDATE
now is it possible to make true private properties and methods (at least on chrome based browsers for now).
The syntax is pretty neat
class MyClass {
#privateProperty = 1
#privateMethod() { return 2 }
static #privateStatic = 3
static #privateStaticMethod(){return 4}
static get #privateStaticGetter(){return 5}
// also using is quite straightforward
method(){
return (
this.#privateMethod() +
this.#privateProperty +
MyClass.#privateStatic +
MyClass.#privateStaticMethod() +
MyClass.#privateStaticGetter
)
}
}
new MyClass().method()
// returns 15
Note that for retrieving static references you wouldn't use this.constructor.#private, because it would brake its subclasses. You must use a reference to the proper class in order to retrieve its static private references (that are available only inside the methods of that class), ie MyClass.#private.

Most answers either say it's impossible, or require you to use a WeakMap or Symbol, which are ES6 features that would probably require polyfills. There's however another way! Check out this out:
// 1. Create closure
var SomeClass = function() {
// 2. Create `key` inside a closure
var key = {};
// Function to create private storage
var private = function() {
var obj = {};
// return Function to access private storage using `key`
return function(testkey) {
if(key === testkey) return obj;
// If `key` is wrong, then storage cannot be accessed
console.error('Cannot access private properties');
return undefined;
};
};
var SomeClass = function() {
// 3. Create private storage
this._ = private();
// 4. Access private storage using the `key`
this._(key).priv_prop = 200;
};
SomeClass.prototype.test = function() {
console.log(this._(key).priv_prop); // Using property from prototype
};
return SomeClass;
}();
// Can access private property from within prototype
var instance = new SomeClass();
instance.test(); // `200` logged
// Cannot access private property from outside of the closure
var wrong_key = {};
instance._(wrong_key); // undefined; error logged
I call this method accessor pattern. The essential idea is that we have a closure, a key inside the closure, and we create a private object (in the constructor) that can only be accessed if you have the key.
If you are interested, you can read more about this in my article. Using this method, you can create per object properties that cannot be accessed outside of the closure. Therefore, you can use them in constructor or prototype, but not anywhere else. I haven't seen this method used anywhere, but I think it's really powerful.

See this answer for a a clean & simple 'class' solution with a private and public interface and support for composition

I use this pattern and it's always worked for me
class Test {
constructor(data) {
class Public {
constructor(prv) {
// public function (must be in constructor on order to access "prv" variable)
connectToDb(ip) {
prv._db(ip, prv._err);
}
}
// public function w/o access to "prv" variable
log() {
console.log("I'm logging");
}
}
// private variables
this._data = data;
this._err = function(ip) {
console.log("could not connect to "+ip);
}
}
// private function
_db(ip, err) {
if(!!ip) {
console.log("connected to "+ip+", sending data '"+this.data+"'");
return true;
}
else err(ip);
}
}
var test = new Test(10),
ip = "185.167.210.49";
test.connectToDb(ip); // true
test.log(); // I'm logging
test._err(ip); // undefined
test._db(ip, function() { console.log("You have got hacked!"); }); // undefined

Develop Reference

JavaScript is the programming language of the Web.

Creating immutable class for Node CommonJS module - javascript

Related

New Instance field syntax [duplicate]

Calculate and define a constant in class constructor

Encapsulation using class in Javascript [duplicate]

are there no private vars in ecma6 classes? [duplicate]

how to create private method in javascript iojs es6 [duplicate]

Categories

Resources