Develop Reference

Private prototype methods that can share scope and access the instance

I'm looking for a pattern that both allows me to create a private scope that my function prototype has access to and I need to be able to access the instance from within that scope.
For example, this is how I am currently achieving "private methods" (disregard what the code actually does, just look at the structure.)
function InfoPreview() {
this.element = document.createElement('div');
}
//Private Methods
InfoPreview.prototype.__newLine = function () {
this.element.appendChild(createElement({tagName:'br'}));
};
InfoPreview.prototype.__padLeft = function(level) {
var padding = createElement({tagName: 'span'});
this.element.appendChild(padding);
$(padding).width(level * 10);
};
InfoPreview.prototype.__print = function(string) {
var span = createElement({ tagName: 'span', textContent: string });
this.element.appendChild(span);
this.element.style["margin-right"]='10px';
};
InfoPreview.prototype.__puts = function(string) {
this.__print(string);
this.__newLine();
};
//Public Methods
InfoPreview.prototype.update = function(info) {
$(this.element).empty();
for (var record in info) {
this.__puts(record);
}
};
Notice that I am not creating private methods at all, just utilizing a naming convention. Additionally notice that I have no way to cache chain-lookups, such as this.element.
I would like to create a private scope by utilizing a revealing module pattern, like this:
InfoPreview.prototype = (function() {
var self = this, //<- `this` is actually the global object now.
el = self.element;
var newLine = function () {
el.appendChild(createElement({tagName:'br'}));
};
var padLeft = function(level) {
var padding = createElement({tagName: 'span'});
el.appendChild(padding);
$(padding).width(level * 10);
};
var print = function(string) {
var span = createElement({ tagName: 'span', textContent: string });
el.appendChild(span);
el.style["margin-right"]='10px';
};
var puts = function(string) {
print(string);
newLine();
};
var update = function(info) {
$(el).empty();
for (var record in info) {
puts(record);
}
};
return {
update: update
};
})();
The above approach doesn't work however, because the value of this within the IIFE is the global object, not the instance. I need a way to access the instance.

Is there any downside of using a constructor pattern?
function Foo(constructorArg) {
/* private variables */
var privVar = 'I am private',
cArg = constructorArg;
/* public variables */
this.pubVar = 'I am public';
/* private function */
function privFunc() {
return 'I am a private function';
}
/* public function */
this.publicFunc = function() {
return 'I am a public function and I call privVar->"' + privVar + '" and privFunc->"' + privFunc() + '"';
}
}
var foo = new Foo('something');
console.log('foo.pubVar', foo.pubVar); //ok
console.log('foo.publicFunc()', foo.publicFunc()); // ok
console.log('foo.privVar', foo.privVar); // undefined
console.log('foo.privFunc', foo.privFunc()); //error
Why you should use it (as requested in comments):
Simply put, because it is the only (sane) way of creating a "true private scope", which was your question.
The alternative is using a convention which tell developers what properties and methods are private, usually by prefixing them with an underscore _, which you already implemented but disliked.
Note that constructor and prototype are different things and enable you to do different stuff. Nothing prevents you from mixing both up.
Memory usage
Regarding memory usage, in modern js engines, such as Google's V8 JavaScript Engine, the constructor pattern might actually be faster.
V8 has hidden types created internally for objects at runtime; objects with the same hidden class can then use the same optimized generated code.
For example:
function Point(x, y) {
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
}
var p1 = new Point(11, 22);
var p2 = new Point(33, 44);
// At this point, p1 and p2 have a shared hidden class
p2.z = 55;
// warning! p1 and p2 now have different hidden classes!
Prototype chaining always require two lookups, so it might even be a tiny inny LITTLE bit slower. Note: Can't back up on this, jsperf.com is down!
Constructor pattern is dirty (sic)
Performance was my reason. I hadn't realized that. However it still feels dirty to me
I don't know why you feel the constructor pattern is dirty. Maybe it's because it has some "specifics", limitations and potential pitfalls you should be aware
this can mean different things
It's easy to forget the new keyword causing weird and hard to debug bugs due to shared state
You can't easily split your object across multiple files (without resorting to a build tool or some 3rd party injector)
However, 1 and 2 are also true for prototype declaration style so...
if you feel this is not adequate, you might want to look at the module pattern.

Within each function, you will have access to the this value you want.
var Example = function() {};
Example.prototype = (function() {
var privateUpdate = function() {
document.getElementById('answer').innerHTML = this.foo;
}
return {
update: privateUpdate
}
})();
var e = new Example();
e.foo = 'bar';
e.update();
<div id="answer"></div>

As a variant on what Pointy is suggesting, you can try this pattern;
infoPreview.prototype = (function() {
var self = null;
var update = function(info) {
....
};
var firstUpdate = function(info) {
self = this;
functions.update = update;
update(info);
}
var functions = {
update: firstUpdate
};
return functions;
})();

Maybe something like that, without prototyping :
https://jsfiddle.net/ynwun1xb
var Fn = function(el) {
this.el = el;
var myMethod = function() {
console.log('do something in method with element', this.el);
}.bind(this);
return {
myPublicMethod: function() {
return myMethod();
}
}
}
var instancedFn = new Fn('first instance element')
.myPublicMethod()
;
var instancedFn2 = new Fn('second instance element')
.myPublicMethod()
;

function object inheritance using jquery's extend

I'm trying to simulate inheritance using jquery extend but as far as I could test, it works only with objects.
What I'm trying to accomplish is:
var baseDefinition = function() {
var self = this;
self.calc1 = function() {
return "something1";
}
self.calc2 = function() {
return "something2";
}
self.myObject = {
propA = 100;
propB = 200;
};
}
var derivedDefinition = function() {
var self = this;
self.calc2 = function() {
return "something different from base";
}
self.myObject = {
propB = 400;
};
}
var instance = $.extend(true, {}, baseDefinition, derivedDefinition);
So I would hope to create a new instance from base definition where the derived definitions would be applied to the base ones but neither definitions would be "touched". Is it possible?
I was hoping to avoid any prototype so basicaly I would like to call instance.calc1 or instance.calc2 without knowing wether it was overriten or not.
Edit:
In my example I didn't include any object properties which was what led me to use jquery's extend function. Although both answers solve inner functions "inheritance", it doesn't (obviously) merge object properties like extend does. As a possible solution I'm thinking after I create my instance to loop through the properties of the instance and apply jquery's extend on them. Although this seems inefficient to me, I don't know if you can advise me on another course of action.

JQuery extend does not create an inheritance hierarchy, so changes you make to base definition AFTER you extend would not be reflected in derived definition. Here's how you can extend the base definition in a way that does reflect later changes down the inheritance hierarchy using Javascript prototypal inheritance:
var baseDefinition = function() {};
baseDefinition.prototype.calc1 = function() {
return "something1";
};
baseDefinition.prototype.calc2 = function() {
return "something2";
};
var derivedDefinition = function() {};
derivedDefinition.prototype = Object.create(baseDefinition.prototype);
derivedDefinition.prototype.calc2 = function() {
return "something different from base";
};
var instance = new derivedDefinition();
instance.calc1(); // something1
instance.calc2(); // something different from base

$.extend only works on already existing objects, not on function which will instantiate objects in the (far?) future:
var instance = $.extend(true, {}, new baseDefinition(), new derivedDefinition());
However, you could of course design an extend function that works for constructors and that returns a function:
function extendConstr() {
var fns = arguments;
return function newConstr(){
var self = {};
for (var i=0; i<fns.length; i++)
fns[i].apply(self, arguments);
return self;
}
}
var extendedFunction = extendConstr(baseDefinition, derivedDefinition);
var instance = extendedFunction();
console.log(instance); // has `calc1` and overwritten `calc2`
Btw, without an extend function you could've done that already manually in the derived constructor:
function derivedDefinition() {
baseDefinition.call(this/*, arguments */);
this.calc2 = function() {
return "something different from base";
}
}
console.log(new derivedDefinition) // has a `calc1` as well

Crockford's Prototypical Inheritance - Usage

I've been building a small JS framework for use at my job, and I'd like to employ Douglas Crockford's prototypical inheritance patterns. I think I get the general idea of how the prototype object works, but what isn't clear is the way in which I would use this pattern beyond the simplest example.
I'll flesh it out to the point that I understand it.
(function () {
'use strict';
var Vehicles = {};
Vehicles.Vehicle = function () {
this.go = function () {
//go forwards
};
this.stop = function () {
//stop
};
};
Vehicles.Airplane = Object.create(Vehicles.Vehicle());
}());
So now my Vehicles.Airplane object can go() and stop(), but I want more. I want to add takeOff() and land() methods to this object. I could just use ugly dot notation afterwards:
Vehicles.Airplane.takeOff = function () {
//take off stuff
}
But that seems wrong, especially if I were to add many methods or properties. The question asked at here seems to be very similar to mine, but the answer doesn't quite ring true for me. The answer suggests that I should build an object literal before using Object.create, and that I should pass that object literal into the create method. In the example code given, however, it looks like their new object inherits nothing at all now.
What I'm hoping for is some syntax similar to:
Vehicles.Airplane = Object.create(Vehicles.Vehicle({
this.takeOff = function () {
//takeOff stuff
};
this.land = function () {
//land stuff
};
}));
I know this syntax will break terribly with Object.create right now, because of course I'm passing Vehicle.Vehicle a function rather than an object literal. That's beside the point. I'm wondering in what way I should build new properties into an object that inherits from another without having to list them out one at a time with dot notation after the fact.
EDIT:
Bergi, after some anguished thought on the topic, I think I really want to go with what you described as the "Classical Pattern". Here is my first stab at it (now with actual code snippets rather than mocked up hypotheticals - You even get to see my crappy method stubs):
CS.Button = function (o) {
o = o || {};
function init(self) {
self.domNode = dce('a');
self.text = o.text || '';
self.displayType = 'inline-block';
self.disabled = o.disabled || false;
self.domNode.appendChild(ctn(self.text));
if (o.handler) {
self.addListener('click', function () {
o.handler(self);
});
}
}
this.setText = function (newText) {
if (this.domNode.firstChild) {
this.domNode.removeChild(this.domNode.firstChild);
}
this.domNode.appendChild(ctn(newText));
};
init(this);
};
CS.Button.prototype = Object.create(CS.Displayable.prototype, {
constructor: {value: CS.Button, configurable: true}
});
CS.Displayable = function (o) { // o = CS Object
o = o || {};
var f = Object.create(new CS.Element(o));
function init(self) {
if (!self.domAnchor) {
self.domAnchor = self.domNode;
}
if (self.renderTo) {
self.renderTo.appendChild(self.domAnchor);
}
}
//Public Methods
this.addClass = function (newClass) {
if (typeof newClass === 'string') {
this.domNode.className += ' ' + newClass;
}
};
this.addListener = function (event, func, capture) {
if (this.domNode.addEventListener) {
this.domNode.addEventListener(event, func, capture);
} else if (this.domNode.attachEvent) {
this.domNode.attachEvent('on' + event, func);
}
};
this.blur = function () {
this.domNode.blur();
};
this.disable = function () {
this.disabled = true;
};
this.enable = function () {
this.disabled = false;
};
this.focus = function () {
this.domNode.focus();
};
this.getHeight = function () {
return this.domNode.offsetHeight;
};
this.getWidth = function () {
return this.domNode.offsetWidth;
};
this.hide = function () {
this.domNode.style.display = 'none';
};
this.isDisabled = function () {
return this.disabled;
};
this.removeClass = function (classToRemove) {
var classArray = this.domNode.className.split(' ');
classArray.splice(classArray.indexOf(classToRemove), 1);
this.domNode.className = classArray.join(' ');
};
this.removeListener = function () {
//Remove DOM element listener
};
this.show = function () {
this.domNode.style.display = this.displayType;
};
init(this);
};
CS.Displayable.prototype = Object.create(CS.Element.prototype, {
constructor: {value: CS.Displayable, configurable: true}
});
I should be quite clear and say that it's not quite working yet, but mostly I'd like your opinion on whether I'm even on the right track. You mentioned "instance-specific properties and methods" in a comment in your example. Does that mean that my this.setText method and others are wrongly placed, and won't be available to descendant items on the prototype chain?
Also, when used, it seems that the order of declaration now matters (I can't access CS.Displayable.prototype, because (I think) CS.Button is listed first, and CS.Displayable is undefined at the time that I'm trying to reference it). Is that something I'll just have to man up and deal with (put things in order of ancestry in the code rather than my OCD alphabetical order) or is there something I'm overlooking there as well?

Vehicles.Airplane = Object.create(Vehicles.Vehicle());
That line is wrong. You seem to want to use new Vehicles.Vehicle - never call a constructor without new!
Still, I'm not sure which pattern you want to use. Two are coming to my mind:
Classical Pattern
You are using constructor functions just as in standard JS. Inheritance is done by inheriting the prototype objects from each other, and applying the parent constructor on child instances. Your code should then look like this:
Vehicles.Vehicle = function () {
// instance-specific properties and methods,
// initialising
}
Vehicles.Vehicle.prototype.go = function () {
//go forwards
};
Vehicles.Vehicle.prototype.stop = function () {
//stop
};
Vehicles.Airplane = function() {
// Vehicles.Vehicle.apply(this, arguments);
// not needed here as "Vehicle" is empty
// maybe airplane-spefic instance initialisation
}
Vehicles.Airplane.prototype = Object.create(Vehicles.Vehicle.prototype, {
constructor: {value:Vehicles.Airplane, configurable:true}
}); // inheriting from Vehicle prototype, and overwriting constructor property
Vehicles.Airplane.prototype.takeOff = function () {
//take off stuff
};
// usage:
var airplane = new Vehicles.Airplace(params);
Pure Prototypical Pattern
You are using plain objects instead of constructor functions - no initialisation. To create instances, and to set up inheritance, only Object.create is used. It is like having only the prototype objects, and empty constructors. instancof does not work here. The code would look like this:
Vehicles.Vehicle = {
go: function () {
//go forwards
},
stop: function () {
//stop
}
}; // just an object literal
Vehicles.Airplane = Object.create(Vehicles.Vehicle); // a new object inheriting the go & stop methods
Vehicles.Airplane.takeOff = function () {
//take off stuff
};
// usage:
var airplane = Object.create(Vehicles.Airplane);
airplane.prop = params; // maybe also an "init" function, but that seems weird to me

You got Object.create wrong. The first argument should be an object (maybe that's why people suggested you pass a literal).
In your first example, you're actually passing undefined:
Vehicles.Airplane = Object.create(Vehicles.Vehicle()); // the function call will
// return undefined
The following would work, but it's not very Crockford-ish:
Vehicles.Airplane = Object.create(new Vehicles.Vehicle());
The way I believe Crockford would do it (or, at least, wouldn't complain of):
var Vehicles = {};
Vehicles.Vehicle = {
go : function() {
// go stuff
},
stop : function() {
// go stuff
}
};
Vehicles.Airplane = Object.create(Vehicles.Vehicle, {
takeOff : {
value : function() {
// take-off stuff
}
},
land : {
value: function() {
// land stuff
}
}
});
Note that Vehicles.Vehicle is just a literal, which will be used as the prototype for other objects. When we call Object.create, we pass Vehicles.Vehicle as the prototype, and takeOff and land will be own properties of Vehicles.Airplane. You may then call Object.create again, passing Vehicles.Airplane as the prototype, if you want to create e.g. a Boeing.
The own properties passed as the second parameter are packed in an object that contains a representation of their property descriptors. The outer keys are the names of your properties/methods, and each one points to another object containing the actual implementation as the value. You may also include other keys like enumerable; if you don't they'll take the default values. You can read more about descriptors on the MDN page about Object.defineProperty.

Javascript apply — Inheriting classes

The code below is adapted from this answer
function MessageClass() {
var self = this;
this.clickHander = function(e) { self.someoneClickedMe = true; };
var _private = 0;
this.getPrivate = function() { return _private; };
this.setPrivate = function(val) { _private = val; };
}
ErrorMessageClass.prototype = new MessageClass();
function ErrorMessageClass() {
MessageClass.apply(this, arguments);
}
var errorA = new ErrorMessageClass();
var errorB = new ErrorMessageClass();
errorA.setPrivate('A');
errorB.setPrivate('B');
console.log(errorA.getPrivate());
console.log(errorB.getPrivate());
The original post did not have the MessageClass.apply(this, arguments); since the purpose was to show how inheritance can go wrong in Javascript.
My question is, is saying: ErrorMessageClass.prototype = new MessageClass(); before the ErrorMessageClass constructor has even been declared bad practice? My understanding is that calling undeclared identifiers like that causes a silent declaration to occur, with the result being placed on the global window object, which I understand is bad.
Is this form:
function ErrorMessageClass() {
MessageClass.apply(this, arguments);
}
ErrorMessageClass.prototype = new MessageClass();
considered to be better practice? This link shows the code written as it was originally above, which is why I even tried it. Does this blogger know something I don't (quite likely)?
EDIT
Lots of great info in the answers below, but I did want to highlight this link which really explains things perfectly

Usually, to avoid this confusion, you would just attach the prototype after, but as Adam Rackis pointed out, function declarations are hoisted, like var statements.
However, you should not instantiate the base object as the prototype. If your base object takes arguments, what are you supposed to use? Use an empty "surrogate" constructor
// Used to setup inheritance
function surrogate () {};
function MessageClass() {
var self = this;
this.clickHander = function(e) { self.someoneClickedMe = true; };
var _private = 0;
this.getPrivate = function() { return _private; };
this.setPrivate = function(val) { _private = val; };
}
// The key steps to creating clean inheritance
surrogate.prototype = MessageClass;
// Sets up inheritance without instantiating a base class object
ErrorMessageClass.prototype = new surrogate();
// Fix the constructor property
ErrorMessageClass.prototype.constructor = ErrorMessageClass
function ErrorMessageClass() {
MessageClass.apply(this, arguments);
}
There's much more to be said. http://js-bits.blogspot.com/2010/08/javascript-inheritance-done-right.html

It works because function declarations are evaluated first. If you tried to move these classes under an object literal "namespace" the first version would fail.
I personally find the second method to be much easier to read - also, don't forget to set the sub-class' prototype.constructor property back to itself. Personally, I use an inherits() method on the Function prototype which wraps up essentially the type of code you're using here.

attach get/set function to objects property in js

I essentially have an object:
var foo = function() {
this.setting = false;
this.refresh = function() { ... };
}
let a = new foo();
a.setting = true; // a.refresh() is triggered
I need to trigger refresh anytime .setting is written to. I feel like it has something to do with bind, but I couldn't quite get it.

You could use JavaScript getters and setters. See the MDC documentation on the subject and John Resig's blog post on the subject. Note that not all browsers support this.
var Foo = function()//constructor
{
this._settings = false;//hidden variable by convention
this.__defineGetter__("settings", function(){
return _settings;//now foo.settings will give you the value in the hidden var
});
this.__defineSetter__("settings", function(s){
_settings = s;//set the hidden var with foo.settings = x
this.refresh();//trigger refresh when that happens
});
this.refresh = function(){
alert("Refreshed!");//for testing
}
}
var a = new Foo();//create new object
a.settings = true;//change the property
//a.refresh() is triggered
Try it!

You need to use a getter and a setter for your object. One way is to use getter/setter functions directly:
var foo = function()
{
this.setting = false;
this.getSetting = function() { return this.setting; }
this.setSetting = function(val) { this.setting = val; this.refresh(); }
this.refresh = function()
{...}
}
If you want to use foo.setting transparently as an attribute, there are language constructs for that, but unfortunately they are not interoperable across browsers. In somewhat of a throwback to 3 years ago, there's one method supported by Mozilla, Safari, Chrome and Opera and another method for Internet Explorer. This is the standard method:
http://robertnyman.com/2009/05/28/getters-and-setters-with-javascript-code-samples-and-demos/
IE9 has something else, and I'm not sure if it even works for non-DOM objects.

Are you looking for a setting setter? Something like this?
// renamed settings property with underscore
this._settings = false;
this.settings = function(s) {
if(s !== undefined) {
this._settings = s;
this.refresh();
}
return this._settings;
};
...
var f = new foo();
f.setSettings(mySettings);
I tend to combine my getter and setter into one method in JavaScript since it's so easy to do. The downside to this is _settings is still public on your object and anyone can directly write to it. The only way to hide it is to use a closure, which requires a totally different approach to creating your objects.

If you aren't limited with old browsers you may try to use the approach described here

I don't why you are trying to use the "new" operator, you will be better using the object literal. Now, if you are looking similar to, let's say, C# properties, you could do something like this:
var myObject = function(){
//Private Members
var myProperty = '';
//Privileged Setter
this.setMyProperty = function(value){
myProperty = value;
};
//Privileged Getter
this.getMyProperty = function(){
return myProperty;
}
}
var MyNewObject = new myObject();
MyNewObject.setMyProperty("Hello, World!");
MyNewObject.getMyProperty();
For more info, I recommend this: http://www.crockford.com/javascript/private.html

I know this is an old question that has already been answered, but I'd like to provide a solution that takes advantage of JavaScript's latest syntax.
Define a class with a getter and setter:
class Foo {
constructor() {
this._setting = false;
}
get setting() {
return this._setting;
}
set setting(value) {
this._setting = value;
this.refresh();
}
refresh() {
console.log("refresh!");
}
}
let foo = new Foo();
foo.setting = true; // foo.refresh() is called