Develop Reference

Convert Calls to undefined function in javascript [duplicate]

In Ruby I think you can call a method that hasn't been defined and yet capture the name of the method called and do processing of this method at runtime.
Can Javascript do the same kind of thing ?

method_missing does not fit well with JavaScript for the same reason it does not exist in Python: in both languages, methods are just attributes that happen to be functions; and objects often have public attributes that are not callable. Contrast with Ruby, where the public interface of an object is 100% methods.
What is needed in JavaScript is a hook to catch access to missing attributes, whether they are methods or not. Python has it: see the __getattr__ special method.
The __noSuchMethod__ proposal by Mozilla introduced yet another inconsistency in a language riddled with them.
The way forward for JavaScript is the Proxy mechanism (also in ECMAscript Harmony), which is closer to the Python protocol for customizing attribute access than to Ruby's method_missing.

The ruby feature that you are explaining is called "method_missing" http://rubylearning.com/satishtalim/ruby_method_missing.htm.
It's a brand new feature that is present only in some browsers like Firefox (in the spider monkey Javascript engine). In SpiderMonkey it's called "__noSuchMethod__" https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/NoSuchMethod
Please read this article from Yehuda Katz http://yehudakatz.com/2008/08/18/method_missing-in-javascript/ for more details about the upcoming implementation.

Not at the moment, no. There is a proposal for ECMAScript Harmony, called proxies, which implements a similar (actually, much more powerful) feature, but ECMAScript Harmony isn't out yet and probably won't be for a couple of years.

You can use the Proxy class.
var myObj = {
someAttr: 'foo'
};
var p = new Proxy(myObj, {
get: function (target, methodOrAttributeName) {
// target is the first argument passed into new Proxy, aka. target is myObj
// First give the target a chance to handle it
if (Object.keys(target).indexOf(methodOrAttributeName) !== -1) {
return target[methodOrAttributeName];
}
// If the target did not have the method/attribute return whatever we want
// Explicitly handle certain cases
if (methodOrAttributeName === 'specialPants') {
return 'trousers';
}
// return our generic method_missing function
return function () {
// Use the special "arguments" object to access a variable number arguments
return 'For show, myObj.someAttr="' + target.someAttr + '" and "'
+ methodOrAttributeName + '" called with: ['
+ Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments).join(',') + ']';
}
}
});
console.log(p.specialPants);
// outputs: trousers
console.log(p.unknownMethod('hi', 'bye', 'ok'));
// outputs:
// For show, myObj.someAttr="foo" and "unknownMethod" called with: [hi,bye,ok]
About
You would use p in place of myObj.
You should be careful with get because it intercepts all attribute requests of p. So, p.specialPants() would result in an error because specialPants returns a string and not a function.
What's really going on with unknownMethod is equivalent to the following:
var unk = p.unkownMethod;
unk('hi', 'bye', 'ok');
This works because functions are objects in javascript.
Bonus
If you know the number of arguments you expect, you can declare them as normal in the returned function.
eg:
...
get: function (target, name) {
return function(expectedArg1, expectedArg2) {
...

I've created a library for javascript that let you use method_missing in javascript: https://github.com/ramadis/unmiss
It uses ES6 Proxies to work. Here is an example using ES6 Class inheritance. However you can also use decorators to achieve the same results.
import { MethodMissingClass } from 'unmiss'
class Example extends MethodMissingClass {
methodMissing(name, ...args) {
console.log(`Method ${name} was called with arguments: ${args.join(' ')}`);
}
}
const instance = new Example;
instance.what('is', 'this');
> Method what was called with arguments: is this

No, there is no metaprogramming capability in javascript directly analogous to ruby's method_missing hook. The interpreter simply raises an Error which the calling code can catch but cannot be detected by the object being accessed. There are some answers here about defining functions at run time, but that's not the same thing. You can do lots of metaprogramming, changing specific instances of objects, defining functions, doing functional things like memoizing and decorators. But there's no dynamic metaprogramming of missing functions as there is in ruby or python.

I came to this question because I was looking for a way to fall through to another object if the method wasn't present on the first object. It's not quite as flexible as what your asking - for instance if a method is missing from both then it will fail.
I was thinking of doing this for a little library I've got that helps configure extjs objects in a way that also makes them more testable. I had seperate calls to actually get hold of the objects for interaction and thought this might be a nice way of sticking those calls together by effectively returning an augmented type
I can think of two ways of doing this:
Prototypes
You can do this using prototypes - as stuff falls through to the prototype if it isn't on the actual object. It seems like this wouldn't work if the set of functions you want drop through to use the this keyword - obviously your object wont know or care about stuff that the other one knows about.
If its all your own code and you aren't using this and constructors ... which is a good idea for lots of reasons then you can do it like this:
var makeHorse = function () {
var neigh = "neigh";
return {
doTheNoise: function () {
return neigh + " is all im saying"
},
setNeigh: function (newNoise) {
neigh = newNoise;
}
}
};
var createSomething = function (fallThrough) {
var constructor = function () {};
constructor.prototype = fallThrough;
var instance = new constructor();
instance.someMethod = function () {
console.log("aaaaa");
};
instance.callTheOther = function () {
var theNoise = instance.doTheNoise();
console.log(theNoise);
};
return instance;
};
var firstHorse = makeHorse();
var secondHorse = makeHorse();
secondHorse.setNeigh("mooo");
var firstWrapper = createSomething(firstHorse);
var secondWrapper = createSomething(secondHorse);
var nothingWrapper = createSomething();
firstWrapper.someMethod();
firstWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(firstWrapper.doTheNoise());
secondWrapper.someMethod();
secondWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(secondWrapper.doTheNoise());
nothingWrapper.someMethod();
//this call fails as we dont have this method on the fall through object (which is undefined)
console.log(nothingWrapper.doTheNoise());
This doesn't work for my use case as the extjs guys have not only mistakenly used 'this' they've also built a whole crazy classical inheritance type system on the principal of using prototypes and 'this'.
This is actually the first time I've used prototypes/constructors and I was slightly baffled that you can't just set the prototype - you also have to use a constructor. There is a magic field in objects (at least in firefox) call __proto which is basically the real prototype. it seems the actual prototype field is only used at construction time... how confusing!
Copying methods
This method is probably more expensive but seems more elegant to me and will also work on code that is using this (eg so you can use it to wrap library objects). It will also work on stuff written using the functional/closure style aswell - I've just illustrated it with this/constructors to show it works with stuff like that.
Here's the mods:
//this is now a constructor
var MakeHorse = function () {
this.neigh = "neigh";
};
MakeHorse.prototype.doTheNoise = function () {
return this.neigh + " is all im saying"
};
MakeHorse.prototype.setNeigh = function (newNoise) {
this.neigh = newNoise;
};
var createSomething = function (fallThrough) {
var instance = {
someMethod : function () {
console.log("aaaaa");
},
callTheOther : function () {
//note this has had to change to directly call the fallThrough object
var theNoise = fallThrough.doTheNoise();
console.log(theNoise);
}
};
//copy stuff over but not if it already exists
for (var propertyName in fallThrough)
if (!instance.hasOwnProperty(propertyName))
instance[propertyName] = fallThrough[propertyName];
return instance;
};
var firstHorse = new MakeHorse();
var secondHorse = new MakeHorse();
secondHorse.setNeigh("mooo");
var firstWrapper = createSomething(firstHorse);
var secondWrapper = createSomething(secondHorse);
var nothingWrapper = createSomething();
firstWrapper.someMethod();
firstWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(firstWrapper.doTheNoise());
secondWrapper.someMethod();
secondWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(secondWrapper.doTheNoise());
nothingWrapper.someMethod();
//this call fails as we dont have this method on the fall through object (which is undefined)
console.log(nothingWrapper.doTheNoise());
I was actually anticipating having to use bind in there somewhere but it appears not to be necessary.

Not to my knowledge, but you can simulate it by initializing the function to null at first and then replacing the implementation later.
var foo = null;
var bar = function() { alert(foo()); } // Appear to use foo before definition
// ...
foo = function() { return "ABC"; } /* Define the function */
bar(); /* Alert box pops up with "ABC" */
This trick is similar to a C# trick for implementing recursive lambdas, as described here.
The only downside is that if you do use foo before it's defined, you'll get an error for trying to call null as though it were a function, rather than a more descriptive error message. But you would expect to get some error message for using a function before it's defined.

scope Issue seeing object methods

I have tried searching through a lot of S.O. pages but nothing has touched EXACTLY on this top while also NOT USING JQUERY.... I am trying to stick to pure JavaScript as I want to learn it 115% before advancing my current knowledge of JQuery.
I have an object called ScreenResizeTool like this...
function ScreenResizeTool(currImg) {
window.addEventHandler('resize', function() {
listen(currImg);
}, true);
}
and a method like this...
ScreenResizeTool.prototype.listen = function(currImg) {
//Random Code For Resizing
};
My trouble is probably obvious to an experienced JavaScript user but I am having trouble not making this into a messy dirty awful OOP set. I have done various tests to show and prove to myself that the this inside the addEventHandler changes when it becomes bound to the window. This much I assumed before testing but I was able to see that once window.resize event happens the listen method is gone and not a part of the global window variable....
I have also tried adding a this capture such as this.me = this inside the object constructor however it also couldn't see the me variable once it ran. Once the window took the function over it no longer knew anything about the me variable or any reference to my class methods....
I am aware that I could separate this differently but my goal here is to learn how to fully encapsulate and use as many clean OOP structures as possible as I just came from the .NET world and I need it in my life.
I am also aware that I could make messy calls and or store this object or access to the methods inside the window variable but that seems outright wrong to me. I should be able to fully encapsulate this object and have its events and methods all implemented in this class structure.
I also know that the currImg variable is not going to be seen either but lets start small here. I assume once I figure out my incorrect train of thought on scope for JavaScript I should be fine to figure out the currImg problem.
I know there's 1000 JavaScript programmers out there waiting to rip me a new one over asking this simple question but I gotta know...
Thoughts anyone?

this inside a function bound to a DOM Object (like window) will always refer to that object.
this inside a constructor function will always refer to the prototype.
A common practice to circumvent the this issue, as you mentioned, is to cache it in a variable, often called self. Now you want the variables and properties of your object available after instantiation, so what you need is the return keyword, more specifically to return the parent object itself. Let's put that together:
function ScreenResizeTool() {
var self = this;
// method to instantiate the code is often stored in init property
this.init = function() {
window.addEventListener('resize', function() {
self.listen(); // self will refer to the prototype, not the window!
}, true);
};
return this;
}
ScreenResizeTool.prototype.listen = function() { // Dummy function
var h = window.innerHeight, w = window.innerWidth;
console.log('Resized to ' + w + ' x ' + h + '!');
};
Pretty easy huh? So we have our prototype now, but prototypes can't do anything if there's not an instance. So we create an instance of ScreenResizeTool and instantiate it with its init method:
var tool = new ScreenResizeTool();
tool.init();
// every time you resize the window now, a result will be logged!
You could also simply store the listen & init methods as private functions inside your constructor, and return them in an anonymous object:
function ScreenResizeTool() {
var listen = function() { ... };
var init = function() { ... };
// in this.init you can now simply call listen() instead of this.listen()
return {
listen: listen,
init: init
}
}
Check out the fiddle and make sure to open your console. Note that in this case I'd rather use the first function than the second (it does exactly the same) because prototypes are only useful if you have multiple instances or subclasses

The whole concept of this in JavaScript is a nightmare for beginners and in my code I usually try to avoid it as it gets confusing fast and makes code unreadable (IMHO). Also, many people new to JavaScript but experienced in object-oriented programming languages try to get into the whole this and prototype stuff directly though the don't actually need to (google JS patterns like IIFE for example as alternatives).
So looking at your original code:
function ScreenResizeTool(currImg) {
window.addEventHandler('resize', function() {
listen(currImg); // global function listen?
}, true);
}
ScreenResizeTool.prototype.listen = function(currImg) {
//Random Code For Resizing
};
First off, you probably mean addEventListener instead. In its callback you refer to listen but as a global variable which would look for it as window.listen - which doesn't exit. So you could think to do this:
function ScreenResizeTool(currImg) {
window.addEventHandler('resize', function() {
this.listen(currImg); // what's this?
}, true);
}
As you want to use the prototype.listen function of ScreenResizeTool. But this won't work either as the event listener's callback function is called with a different this and not the this that is your function scope.
This is where something comes in which makes most programmers cringe, you have to cache this, examples from code I've seen:
var _this = this;
var that = this;
var _self = this;
Let's just use the latter to be able to refer to the function within the event callback:
function ScreenResizeTool(currImg) {
var _self = this;
window.addEventListener('resize', function() {
_self.listen();
}, true);
}
Now this will actually work and do what you want to achieve: invoke the prototype.listen function of ScreenResizeTool.
See this JSFiddle for a working example: http://jsfiddle.net/KNw6R/ (check the console for output)
As a last word, this problem did not have anything to do with using jQuery or not. It's a general problem of JS. And especially when having to deal with different browser implementations you should be using jQuery (or another such library) to make your own code clean and neat and not fiddle around with multiple if statements to find out what feature is supported in what way.

Javascript - Handle function calls dynamically [duplicate]

In Ruby I think you can call a method that hasn't been defined and yet capture the name of the method called and do processing of this method at runtime.
Can Javascript do the same kind of thing ?

method_missing does not fit well with JavaScript for the same reason it does not exist in Python: in both languages, methods are just attributes that happen to be functions; and objects often have public attributes that are not callable. Contrast with Ruby, where the public interface of an object is 100% methods.
What is needed in JavaScript is a hook to catch access to missing attributes, whether they are methods or not. Python has it: see the __getattr__ special method.
The __noSuchMethod__ proposal by Mozilla introduced yet another inconsistency in a language riddled with them.
The way forward for JavaScript is the Proxy mechanism (also in ECMAscript Harmony), which is closer to the Python protocol for customizing attribute access than to Ruby's method_missing.

The ruby feature that you are explaining is called "method_missing" http://rubylearning.com/satishtalim/ruby_method_missing.htm.
It's a brand new feature that is present only in some browsers like Firefox (in the spider monkey Javascript engine). In SpiderMonkey it's called "__noSuchMethod__" https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/NoSuchMethod
Please read this article from Yehuda Katz http://yehudakatz.com/2008/08/18/method_missing-in-javascript/ for more details about the upcoming implementation.

Not at the moment, no. There is a proposal for ECMAScript Harmony, called proxies, which implements a similar (actually, much more powerful) feature, but ECMAScript Harmony isn't out yet and probably won't be for a couple of years.

You can use the Proxy class.
var myObj = {
someAttr: 'foo'
};
var p = new Proxy(myObj, {
get: function (target, methodOrAttributeName) {
// target is the first argument passed into new Proxy, aka. target is myObj
// First give the target a chance to handle it
if (Object.keys(target).indexOf(methodOrAttributeName) !== -1) {
return target[methodOrAttributeName];
}
// If the target did not have the method/attribute return whatever we want
// Explicitly handle certain cases
if (methodOrAttributeName === 'specialPants') {
return 'trousers';
}
// return our generic method_missing function
return function () {
// Use the special "arguments" object to access a variable number arguments
return 'For show, myObj.someAttr="' + target.someAttr + '" and "'
+ methodOrAttributeName + '" called with: ['
+ Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments).join(',') + ']';
}
}
});
console.log(p.specialPants);
// outputs: trousers
console.log(p.unknownMethod('hi', 'bye', 'ok'));
// outputs:
// For show, myObj.someAttr="foo" and "unknownMethod" called with: [hi,bye,ok]
About
You would use p in place of myObj.
You should be careful with get because it intercepts all attribute requests of p. So, p.specialPants() would result in an error because specialPants returns a string and not a function.
What's really going on with unknownMethod is equivalent to the following:
var unk = p.unkownMethod;
unk('hi', 'bye', 'ok');
This works because functions are objects in javascript.
Bonus
If you know the number of arguments you expect, you can declare them as normal in the returned function.
eg:
...
get: function (target, name) {
return function(expectedArg1, expectedArg2) {
...

I've created a library for javascript that let you use method_missing in javascript: https://github.com/ramadis/unmiss
It uses ES6 Proxies to work. Here is an example using ES6 Class inheritance. However you can also use decorators to achieve the same results.
import { MethodMissingClass } from 'unmiss'
class Example extends MethodMissingClass {
methodMissing(name, ...args) {
console.log(`Method ${name} was called with arguments: ${args.join(' ')}`);
}
}
const instance = new Example;
instance.what('is', 'this');
> Method what was called with arguments: is this

No, there is no metaprogramming capability in javascript directly analogous to ruby's method_missing hook. The interpreter simply raises an Error which the calling code can catch but cannot be detected by the object being accessed. There are some answers here about defining functions at run time, but that's not the same thing. You can do lots of metaprogramming, changing specific instances of objects, defining functions, doing functional things like memoizing and decorators. But there's no dynamic metaprogramming of missing functions as there is in ruby or python.

I came to this question because I was looking for a way to fall through to another object if the method wasn't present on the first object. It's not quite as flexible as what your asking - for instance if a method is missing from both then it will fail.
I was thinking of doing this for a little library I've got that helps configure extjs objects in a way that also makes them more testable. I had seperate calls to actually get hold of the objects for interaction and thought this might be a nice way of sticking those calls together by effectively returning an augmented type
I can think of two ways of doing this:
Prototypes
You can do this using prototypes - as stuff falls through to the prototype if it isn't on the actual object. It seems like this wouldn't work if the set of functions you want drop through to use the this keyword - obviously your object wont know or care about stuff that the other one knows about.
If its all your own code and you aren't using this and constructors ... which is a good idea for lots of reasons then you can do it like this:
var makeHorse = function () {
var neigh = "neigh";
return {
doTheNoise: function () {
return neigh + " is all im saying"
},
setNeigh: function (newNoise) {
neigh = newNoise;
}
}
};
var createSomething = function (fallThrough) {
var constructor = function () {};
constructor.prototype = fallThrough;
var instance = new constructor();
instance.someMethod = function () {
console.log("aaaaa");
};
instance.callTheOther = function () {
var theNoise = instance.doTheNoise();
console.log(theNoise);
};
return instance;
};
var firstHorse = makeHorse();
var secondHorse = makeHorse();
secondHorse.setNeigh("mooo");
var firstWrapper = createSomething(firstHorse);
var secondWrapper = createSomething(secondHorse);
var nothingWrapper = createSomething();
firstWrapper.someMethod();
firstWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(firstWrapper.doTheNoise());
secondWrapper.someMethod();
secondWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(secondWrapper.doTheNoise());
nothingWrapper.someMethod();
//this call fails as we dont have this method on the fall through object (which is undefined)
console.log(nothingWrapper.doTheNoise());
This doesn't work for my use case as the extjs guys have not only mistakenly used 'this' they've also built a whole crazy classical inheritance type system on the principal of using prototypes and 'this'.
This is actually the first time I've used prototypes/constructors and I was slightly baffled that you can't just set the prototype - you also have to use a constructor. There is a magic field in objects (at least in firefox) call __proto which is basically the real prototype. it seems the actual prototype field is only used at construction time... how confusing!
Copying methods
This method is probably more expensive but seems more elegant to me and will also work on code that is using this (eg so you can use it to wrap library objects). It will also work on stuff written using the functional/closure style aswell - I've just illustrated it with this/constructors to show it works with stuff like that.
Here's the mods:
//this is now a constructor
var MakeHorse = function () {
this.neigh = "neigh";
};
MakeHorse.prototype.doTheNoise = function () {
return this.neigh + " is all im saying"
};
MakeHorse.prototype.setNeigh = function (newNoise) {
this.neigh = newNoise;
};
var createSomething = function (fallThrough) {
var instance = {
someMethod : function () {
console.log("aaaaa");
},
callTheOther : function () {
//note this has had to change to directly call the fallThrough object
var theNoise = fallThrough.doTheNoise();
console.log(theNoise);
}
};
//copy stuff over but not if it already exists
for (var propertyName in fallThrough)
if (!instance.hasOwnProperty(propertyName))
instance[propertyName] = fallThrough[propertyName];
return instance;
};
var firstHorse = new MakeHorse();
var secondHorse = new MakeHorse();
secondHorse.setNeigh("mooo");
var firstWrapper = createSomething(firstHorse);
var secondWrapper = createSomething(secondHorse);
var nothingWrapper = createSomething();
firstWrapper.someMethod();
firstWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(firstWrapper.doTheNoise());
secondWrapper.someMethod();
secondWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(secondWrapper.doTheNoise());
nothingWrapper.someMethod();
//this call fails as we dont have this method on the fall through object (which is undefined)
console.log(nothingWrapper.doTheNoise());
I was actually anticipating having to use bind in there somewhere but it appears not to be necessary.

Not to my knowledge, but you can simulate it by initializing the function to null at first and then replacing the implementation later.
var foo = null;
var bar = function() { alert(foo()); } // Appear to use foo before definition
// ...
foo = function() { return "ABC"; } /* Define the function */
bar(); /* Alert box pops up with "ABC" */
This trick is similar to a C# trick for implementing recursive lambdas, as described here.
The only downside is that if you do use foo before it's defined, you'll get an error for trying to call null as though it were a function, rather than a more descriptive error message. But you would expect to get some error message for using a function before it's defined.

Tips for an intermediate javascript programmer to write better code

So I'm a fairly decent javascript programmer and I've just recently finished working on a fairly big web application that involved writing quite a bit of javascript. One of the things I can across when I was debugging my script was that there were some namespace conflicts with my various global variables I used throughout my script. Essentially, my javascript file was structured as such:
global var a
global var b
global var c
function1(){}
function2(){}
function3(){}
with a jQuery document on-ready function to bind various events to buttons in my html and call my functions as event handler callbacks.
Some people recommended encapsulating my entire script in one gigantic function to prevent any scope-related errors. I couldn't quite figure out exactly what that would entail. Any tips are appreciated as I am about to create another web app that will involve quite a bit of AJAX page loads to avoid browser refreshes and DOM manipulation bound to various events. Thanks!

I recommend reading the jQuery plugin authoring guide (I also recommend you consider using jQuery if you are not)
http://docs.jquery.com/Plugins/Authoring
BTW this been asked many times (not a criticism for re-asking)
jQuery: Global Variable Namespace Problem
Avoiding polluting the global namespace with javascript dependencies
JavaScript Namespace
I also highly recommend you read about jQuery live plugin for register DOM events(I guess its built-in now):
http://api.jquery.com/live/
(this will minimize the nasty need for state management of unbinding and rebinding your DOM nodes).

A similar alternative to Michael's and nnnnnn's version is to do
var YourApp = {
a: 1234,
b: 5678,
function1: function () {
},
etc
};
YourApp is the only global var and its properties can be accessed like
YourApp.function1();
or
YourApp.a;

I like wrapping the contents of each file inside an anonymous function. You can then pass window to this as a parameter and selectively choose what to export from each file.
(function(exports) {
var MyClass = function() {
};
MyClass.prototype.method = function() {
};
// this won't be visible outside this file
var helperFunction = function() {
};
exports.module = exports.module || {};
exports.module.MyClass = MyClass;
})(window);
Also, you can structure it in the following way to use this as the global object instead, if that appeals more to your coding style:
(function() {
this.Thing = function() { };
}).call(window);

I expect to get downvoted from OO purists, but...
A very simple solution to the namespace collisions is to place your variables and functions into a class, even if it doesn't have a working constructor or perform any internal processing of its own.
function YourApp() {} // empty constructor...
YourApp.a = 1234;
YourApp.b = 5678;
YourApp.function1 = function() {};
YourApp.function2 = function() {};
function YourOtherApp() {} // empty constructor...
YourOtherApp.a = 1234;
YourOtherApp.b = 5678;
YourOtherApp.function1 = function() {};
YourOtherApp.function2 = function() {};
// Then you call it like:
YourApp.function1();
// And you have no more namespace collisions with other globals

The quickest first step based on what you have done in the past with lots of global variables and functions is to simply take all of those and make them properties of a single object. That single object is declared as a global variable, but it is your only global variable and is effectively your new namespace and thus you only have to worry about one name potentially clashing with other libraries.
So relating that directly to the example you gave with a, b, etc:
var SNS = {}; // create some namespace object
SNS.a = "something";
SNS.b = "something else";
SNS.c = 17;
SNS.method1 = function(x) {
alert(SNS.a + x);
};
SNS.method2 = function() {
SSN.method1(12); // call another function
};
SNS.SUB = {};
SNS.SUB.property1 = "sub namespace prop 1";
SNS.SUB.method1 = function() {};
// etc.
My example uses 'SNS' for 'some namespace'; I'm sure you can immediately see how that would be pretty easy to apply to the project you just finished. You can probably also see the disadvantage that for your methods to refer to each other and to your variables you have to prefix them all with the name of your object. If you have sub namespaces that gets worse. Fortunately there are ways around that, but I'm declaring them outside the scope of this answer.
Having said all that, something for you to read up on (Google) is the "revealing module pattern" - will help you go a bit more OO (if that's what you want).
A really in-depth answer to your question can be found here: http://enterprisejquery.com/2010/10/how-good-c-habits-can-encourage-bad-javascript-habits-part-1/
Further reading:
http://www.adequatelygood.com/2010/3/JavaScript-Module-Pattern-In-Depth

Ok, we can have private identifiers in javascript, but what about protected ones?

Simple as that, can we emulate the "protected" visibility in Javascript somehow?

Do this:
/* Note: Do not break/touch this object */
...code...
Or a bit of google found this on the first page:
http://blog.blanquera.com/2009/03/javascript-protected-methods-and.html

Sure you can. Here's another example.

What could that possibly mean? You don't have classes.
I suppose you could analyze caller to determine whether it meets some set of criteria for being permitted to call a method. This will be hideously inefficient and your criteria will always be spoofable.

There's an interesting pattern worth mentioning here: a JavaScript contructor function may return any object (not necesserily this). One could create a constructor function, that returns a proxy object, that contains proxy methods to the "real" methods of the "real" instance object. This may sound complicated, but it is not; here is a code snippet:
var MyClass = function() {
var instanceObj = this;
var proxyObj = {
myPublicMethod: function() {
return instanceObj.myPublicMethod.apply(instanceObj, arguments);
}
}
return proxyObj;
};
MyClass.prototype = {
_myPrivateMethod: function() {
...
},
myPublicMethod: function() {
...
}
};
The nice thing is that the proxy creation can be automated, if we define a convention for naming the protected methods. I created a little library that does exactly this: http://idya.github.com/oolib/