Develop Reference

Writing JS Prototypes, should all functions use the Prototype object?

I'm beginning to learn more about writing JS using the Prototype object, but I want to make sure I don't pick up any bad habits from other developers. My understanding of using Prototype is to create public methods for your instance. For example:
var module = new Module();
module.method();
But I see a lot of developers creating all their code inside the Prototype object, things that I would consider "private". Is this bad practice or considered okay? It just means I can then do:
module.privateFn();
Do they know this? Is that okay? Any help appreciated. I've been looking through the source code on GitHub to try establish the best way forward, here's a script that uses Prototypes for everything (for instance attachEvent which they clearly want privately kept):
https://github.com/WickyNilliams/headroom.js/blob/master/dist/headroom.js
Much appreciated, I want to make sure I develop using the correct implementations.

First of all you don't need to write modules using prototype. Think like if you writing something like a class you should use prototypes. And also it's important to where define your methods. Defining methods on prototype object and defining them in constructor function is totally different things!
Let's see a sample class definition with using methods defined in constructor:
var Dog = (function () {
var Dog = function (age, name) {
var that = this;
this.age = age;
this.name = name;
this.sayHi = function () {
console.log('Warf! Im ' + that.name); // meaning of "this" changed!!!
};
this.anotherMethod = function () {};
};
return Dog;
}());
var puppy = new Dog(1, 'puppy'); // sayHi and anotherMethod created
var sirius = new Dog(1, 'sirius'); // sayHi and anotherMethod recreated
sirius.sayHi = function () { console.log('Yohalolop!'); };
puppy.sayHi(); // -> 'Warf! Im puppy'
sirius.sayHi(); // -> 'Yohalolop!'
So there is some problems with the above example, firstly methods are defined like any other instance variables. Actually yeah you define them as instance variable and this means this functions are recreated for every instance object you create. I guess you have mentioned you can't use this keyword in your method definitions. This is error prone and there is a chance to forget that and use this keyword by mistaken. There are some times you can use methods as instance variables of course like variable callbacks.
Let's see a sample class definition with prototype object:
var Dog = (function () {
var Dog = function (age, name) {
this.age = age;
this.name = name;
};
// sayHi method defined only once in prototype
Dog.prototype.sayHi = function () {
console.log('Warf! Im ' + this.name; // we can use this keyword
};
// anotherMethod defined only once in protoype
Dog.prototype.anotherMethod() {
};
return Dog;
}());
var puppy = new Dog(1, 'puppy');
var sirius = new Dog(1, 'sirius'); // sirius and puppy sharing same prototype object
puppy.sayHi(); // -> 'Warf! Im puppy'
sirius.sayHi(); // -> 'Warf! Im sirius'
// remember puppy and sirius sharing same prototype object
Dog.prototype.sayHi = function () {
console.log('Yohalolop');
};
puppy.sayHi(); // -> 'Yohalolop'
sirius.sayHi(); // -> 'Yohalolop'
As an answer to your question about private functions, it is more complicated. Yes you can use private functions even you define your methods on prototype, but there are some concerns about testing. Usage of them is up to you. I prefer to don't use. Let me show some examples.
var Calculator = (function () {
var Calculator = function () {
this.importantNumber = 2;
};
// There is unfortunately no native implementation
// for private methods but you can mimic them with
// unaccessible functions and binding.
var someExtremeComputations = function () {
return 40 + this.importantNumber; // this keyword points to instance because of binding
};
Calculator.prototype.getMeaningOfLife = function () {
var result = someExtremeComputations.call(this); // we bind function to instance
return result;
};
return Calculator;
}());
This is the one of the examples how you can define private methods in javascript. The problem with private functions, they can't be tested. There is no way to test someExtremeComputations method.
Some people (includes me) use prefixed underscore naming convention for private methods. So they are actually public methods but if someone calling them or overriding they were warned by prefixed underscore. After all we can test private methods since they are public in real.
var Calculator = (function () {
var Calculator = function () {
this.importantNumber = 2;
};
// private method's name prefixed by an underscore to warn
// other developers to be careful about that or not to use.
Calculator.prototype._someExtremeComputations = function () {
return 40 + this.importantNumber;
};
Calculator.prototype.getMeaningOfLife = function () {
var result = this.someExtremeComputations(); // no need to bind
return result;
};
return Calculator;
}());

Explaining this with a few words is impossible. A generally good pattern is to construct methods through prototypes when you want to optimize your code. A good guideline is to only put the most essential data in the memory, using prototypes is critical for this since the prototyped variables and methods isn't injected into the memory until you request them.
When it comes yo your example there are no prototypes.
Simple example
// new object
var Dog = function() {
var that = this;
// add a property
that.name = "Fido";
// add a method
that.getName = function() {
return that.name;
};
};
// ... all the above is stored in memory directly
// Requires to be constructed
var dogObj = new Dog();
console.log(dogObj.getName()); // Fido
delete Dog.name // false
typeof Dog.name // "string"
delete dogObj.name // true
typeof dogObj.name // "undefined"
typeof Dog.name // "string" (still there)
// Will be available in the dogObj (after you call it)
dog.prototype.first = "first";
// Will be available in the dogObj (after you call it)
dog.prototype.second = function() {
return "second";
}
// Will not be available in dogObj
dog.third = "third";

What are some idiomatic ways to create custom Javascript objects

I am creating a custom object to be used in some internal applications where I work. I researched some ways to go about doing this - and this is what I came out with.
function ISGrader(text)
{
this.text = text;
this.printInfo = function(){
alert("Object working " + text);
}
this.putGrade = function(score)
{
alert(score);
}
}
I believe this shows constructor-type functionality, as well as some simple starter methods that I will build on.
Is the above good practice or is there another way that is more standard?

I prefer a pattern similar to the one below. You can think of it as a 4-step approach:
(function(parent) {
// 1. Declare private variables and functions that will be
// accessible by everybody within the scope of this
// function, but not outside of it.
var doSomethingAwesome = function() { .. }; // private function
var coolInteger = 42; // private variable
// 2. Create the constructor function
function ISGrader() {
..
}
// 3. Create shared public methods on the prototype object.
// These will be created only once, and shared between all objects
// which is more efficient that re-creating each method for each object.
ISGrader.prototype.printInfo = function() { .. };
ISGrader.prototype.putGrade = function(score) { .. };
// 4. Expose the constructor to the outside world.
parent.ISGrader = ISGrader;
})(window);
The reason why everything is enclosed inside a self-executing anonymous function is to ensure the private variables we create inside don't leak outside to the enclosing scope, and to basically keep things clean.
Another benefit of declaring the constructor like this is that you can change the parent object easily from say window to a further namespaced object by changing a single word.

I prefer this pattern (IIFE), but it is purely opinion:
var ISGrader = (function (text) {
// anything declared here is "private"
var printInfo = function() {
alert("Object working " + text);
};
var putGrade = function (score) {
alert(score);
};
// put "publicly" accesible things in the returned object
return {
text: text,
printInfo: printInfo,
putGrade: putGrade
};
})(text);

It is always recommended to do it using `prototype'. This way you can also inherit it's properties and create new one.
var ISGrader = function(text) {
this.text = text;
var _privateVar = text;
this.updatePrivateVar = function(newText) {
_privateVar = newText;
alert("private variable updated");
}
}
ISGrader.prototype.text = "";
ISGrader.prototype.printInfo = function() {
alert("Object working " + this.text);
}
ISGrader.prototype.putGrade = function(score) {
alert(score);
}
var isGrader = new ISGrader("hello");
isGrader.printInfo();
// Inherit and create a new definition
var ISGrader2 = function() {}
ISGrader2.prototype = new ISGrader();
var isGrader2 = new ISGrader("hello2");
isGrader2.printInfo();
isGrader2.updatePrivateVar("hello3");
demo : http://jsfiddle.net/rkspP/3/

While not really an answer, I recommend Douglas Crockford's book JavaScript: The Good Parts as it does a good job of introducing you to the "good parts" of the language and discusses the pros and cons of the different ways to create objects in JavaScript.
You can also review this resource if you're just looking for an explanation of member visibility in JavaScript objects: http://javascript.crockford.com/private.html

If you are planning on creating multiple ISGrader objects on a single page, it's more memory efficient to stick the functions in a prototype object assigned to ISGrader like this:
function ISGrader(text) {
this.text = text;
}
ISGrader.prototype = {
printInfo: function() {
alert("Object working " + this.text);
},
putGrade: function(score) {
alert(score);
}
}

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.

Javascript OOP best practices? [closed]

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
I'm sick of seeing dozens of different ways of doing object oriented programming in Javascript. Can anyone just tell me which technique I should use considering I want to work on a large scale project and I want my code to be future proof?

These are just a few quick guidelines I've come up with, if anyone else has anything meaningful to add, I've set this answer as a community wiki so it should be easy enough for you to edit.
Namespace your objects to ensure they will never conflict with third party JavaScript libraries.
window['Andrew']['JS'] = {
addEvent: function(el,evName) {/*Stuff*/},
Rectangle: function(width,height) {/*Stuff*/}
};
So then you would create a rectangle object by using:
var myRect = new Andrew.JS.Rectangle(14,11);
And then your code will never interfere with, or be interfered by anybody else's Rectangle.
Use a consistent naming strategy, specifically:
Object names should be capitalized, everything else (variables, functions) should begin with a lower case character i.e.
var myRect = new Andrew.JS.Rectangle(14,11);
document.write(myRect.getArea());
Ensure everything is meaningful, i.e. verbs for methods, nouns + adjectives for parameters.
Make sure all methods and parameters are relevant to the object they belong to. e.g.
In this example, the area of the rectangle can be converted to square feet using the method inSquareFeet().
myRect.getAreaObject().inSquareFeet();
Make sure inSquareFeet is a method of the object returned by getAreaObject() and not a method of Andrew.JS.Rectangle
Use constructors, or more specifically, try as hard as possible to make sure that an object doesn't need any further initialization to be used once it has been constructed, so instead of:
var Person = function()
{
this.name = "";
this.sayHello = function ()
{
alert(this.name + " says 'Hello!'");
return this;
}
}
var bob = new Person();
bob.name = "Bob Poulton";
bob.sayHello();
try:
var Person = function(name)
{
this.name = name;
this.sayHello = function ()
{
alert(this.name + " says 'Hello!'");
return this;
}
}
var bob = new Person("Bob Poulton");
bob.sayHello();

I always use John resig's:
http://ejohn.org/blog/simple-javascript-inheritance/
It's simple and doesn't require any frameworks to function.

Because you are working on a large scale project i would suggestion a javascript framework like mootools http://mootools.net/.
It has a good class and inheritance structure.

My ideal Object for OOP is like using an Instance method with prototypes:
Example:
var Users = function()
{
var _instance;
this.prototype.getUsername = function(){/*...*/}
this.prototype.getFirstname = function(){/*...*/}
this.prototype.getSecurityHash = function(){/*...*/}
/*...*/
/*Static Methods as such*/
return { /*Return a small Object*/
GetInstance : function()
{
if(_instance == null)
{
_instnance = new Users(arguments);
}
return _instnance; //Return the object
},
New: function()
{
_instnance = null; //unset It
return this.GetInstnace(arguments);
}
}
}
Then I would always use like:
Firstname = Users.GetInstance('Robert','Pitt').getFirstname();
Username = Users.GetInstance().getUsername(); //Returns the above object.
Me = Users.New('Robert',null); //Deletes the above object and creates a new instance.
Father = Users.New('Peter','Piper'); //New Object
Me.AddFather(Father); //Me Object.
And that's the kind of road i go down when it comes to building a JavaScript OO Style architecture.

just for your information, i think YUI provides few great tutorials on this topic

//Create and define Global NameSpace Object
( function(GlobalObject, $, undefined)
{
GlobalObject.Method = function()
{
///<summary></summary>
}
GlobalObject.Functionality = {};
}) (GlobalObject = GlobalObject || {}, jQuery);
//New object for specific functionality
( function(Events, $, undefined)
{
//Member Variables
var Variable; // (Used for) , (type)
// Initialize
Events.Init = function()
{
///<summary></summary>
}
// public method
Events.PublicMethod = function(oParam)
{
///<summary></summary>
///<param type=""></param>
}
// protected method (typically define in global object, but can be made available from here)
GlobalObject.Functionality.ProtectedMethod = function()
{
///<summary></summary>
}
// internal method (typically define in global object, but can be made available from here)
GlobalObject.InternalMethod = function()
{
///<summary></summary>
}
// private method
var privateMethod = function()
{
///<summary></summary>
}
}) (GlobalObject.Funcitonality.Events = GlobalObject.Funcitonality.Events || {}, jQuery )
// Reusable "class" object
var oMultiInstanceClass = function()
{
// Memeber Variables again
var oMember = null; //
// Public method
this.Init = function(oParam)
{
oMember = oParam;
for ( n = 1; i < oMemeber.length; i += 1 )
{
new this.SubClass.Init(oMember[i]); // you get the point, yeah?
}
}
this.Subclass = function()
{
this.Init = function() { }
}
}
The strength to this is that it initializes the Global object automatically, allows you to maintain the integrity of your code, and organizes each piece of functionality into a specific grouping by your definition.
This structure is solid, presenting all of the basic syntactical things you would expect from OOP without the key words.
There are even some ingenious ways to set up interfaces as well. If you choose to go that far, a simple search will give you some good tutorials and tips.
Even setting up intellisense is possible with javascript and visual studio, and then defining each piece and referencing them makes writing javascript cleaner and more manageable.
Using these three methods as needed by your situation helps keep the global namespace clean, keep your code organized and maintains separation of concerns for each object.. if used correctly. Remember, Object Oriented Design is of no use if you don't utilize the logic behind using objects!

function foo() {
var bar = function() { console.log("i'm a private method"); return 1; };
var iAmAPrivateVariable = 1;
return {
publicMethod: function() { alert(iAmAPrivateVariable); },
publicVariable: bar()
}
}
//usage
var thing = foo()
This is a functional approach, and has a great deal more going for it (such as encapsulation) then anything else you are going to see
In a general way, you shouldn't be doing OO in javascript, it isn't that great a language for it for a great many reasons. Think scheme with squiggly brackets and semi-colons, and you will start writing the language like the pros do. That being said, sometime OO is a better fit. In those cases, the above is typically the best bet
to bring inheritance into the mix
function parent() {
return { parentVariable: 2 };
}
function foo() {
var bar = function() { console.log("i'm a private method"); return 1; };
var iAmAPrivateVariable = 1;
me = parent();
me.publicMethod = function() { alert(iAmAPrivateVariable); };
me.publicVariable = bar();
return me;
}
This makes things a tad more complected, but accomplishes the desired end result while still taking a functional approach to OO concepts (in this case, using decorator functions instead of real inheritance). What I like about the whole approach is we are still really treating objects the way they are intended to be in this kind of language -- a property bag you can attach stuff to at will.
Another note is this is wildly different then what you will see most of the time in most of the jobs you will ever work at, and often is very hard to explain a) what is going on, and b) why it is a good idea to coworkers.

I use such a pattern and recommend to you to use it too:
function Person(firstname, lastname, age)
{
var self = this;
var _ = {};
// Private members.
var firstname = firstname;
var lastname = lastname;
var age = age || 'unknown';
// Private methods.
function first_letter_to_uppercase(str) {
return str.charAt(0).toUpperCase() + str.substr(1);
}
// Public members and methods.
_.get_age = function()
{
return age;
}
_.get_name = function()
{
return first_letter_to_uppercase(firstname) + ' ' +
first_letter_to_uppercase(lastname);
}
return _;
}
var p = new Person('vasya', 'pupkin', 23);
alert("It's " + p.get_name() + ', he is ' + p.get_age() + ' years old.')

You can try with a simple, usefull and quick object:
var foo = {
foo1: null,
foo2: true,
foo3: 24,
foo4: new Array(),
nameOfFunction1: function(){
alert("foo1");
},
nameOfFunction2: function(){
alert("foo2");
},
}
To use this, you have to create an instance of this object and use like a object in java:
foo.nameOfFunction2();
Also you can check this link to other solution: http://www.javascriptkit.com/javatutors/oopjs.shtml
I hope that answer your question.

Encapsulation in javascript

I need to create simple reusable javascript object publishing several methods and parameterized constructor. After reading through several "OOP in JavaScript" guides I'm sitting here with an empty head. How on the Earth can I do this?
Here my last non-working code:
SomeClass = function(id) {
this._id = id;
}
(function() {
function intFun() {
return this._id;
}
SomeClass.prototype.extFun = function() {
return incFun();
}
})();

This is my usual approach:
MyClass = function(x, y, z) {
// This is the constructor. When you use it with "new MyClass(),"
// then "this" refers to the new object being constructed. So you can
// assign member variables to it.
this.x = x;
...
};
MyClass.prototype = {
doSomething: function() {
// Here we can use the member variable that
// we created in the constructor.
return this.x;
},
somethingElse: function(a) {
}
};
var myObj = new MyClass(1,2,3);
alert(myObj.doSomething()); // this will return the object's "x" member
alert(myObj.x); // this will do the same, by accessing the member directly
Normally the "this" keyword, when used in one of the object's methods, will refer to the object itself. When you use it in the constructor, it will refer to the new object that's being created. So in the above example, both alert statements will display "1".
An exception to this rule is when you pass one of your member functions somewhere else, and then call it. For example,
myDiv.onclick = myObj.doSomething;
In this case, JavaScript ignores the fact that "doSomething" belongs to "myObj". As a result, the "this" inside doSomething will point to another object, so the method won't work as expected. To get around this, you need to specify the object to which "this" should refer. You can do so with JavaScript's "call" function:
myDiv.onclick = function() {
myObj.doSomething.call(myObj);
}
It's weird, but you'll get used to it eventually. The bottom line is that, when passing around methods, you also need to pass around the object that they should be called on.

I usually don't worry too much about hiding the internals, although I do prefix them with underscores to mark them as not intended to be used outside the "class". Normally what I will do is:
var MyClass = function() {};
MyClass.prototype = {
_someVar : null,
_otherVar : null,
initialize: function( optionHash ) {
_someVar = optionsHash["varValue"];
_otherVar = optionsHash["otherValue"];
},
method: function( arg ) {
return _someVar + arg;
},
};
And use it as so...
var myClass = new MyClass( { varValue: -1, otherValue: 10 } );
var foo = myClass.method(6);

All vars are private:
SomeClass = function (id) {
var THIS = this; // unambiguous reference
THIS._id = id;
var intFun = function () { // private
return THIS._id;
}
this.extFun = function () { // public
return intFun();
}
}
Use THIS within private methods since this won't equal what you might expect.

From http://learn.jquery.com/code-organization/concepts/#the-module-pattern:
// The module pattern
var feature = (function() {
// private variables and functions
var privateThing = "secret";
var publicThing = "not secret";
var changePrivateThing = function() {
privateThing = "super secret";
};
var sayPrivateThing = function() {
console.log( privateThing );
changePrivateThing();
};
// public API
return {
publicThing: publicThing,
sayPrivateThing: sayPrivateThing
};
})();
feature.publicThing; // "not secret"
// logs "secret" and changes the value of privateThing
feature.sayPrivateThing();
So using returning an object that aliases its "methods" could be another way to do it.
I've read from http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Oracle-Press-Poornachandra-Sarang-ebook/dp/B0079GI6CW that it is always good practice to use getters and setters rather that accessing the variable directly from outside the object, so that would eliminate the need of returning variables by reference.
BTW you could just use this.variable to reference/declare a public variable and var variable to declare a private variable.
I know this is a late answer, but I hope it helps anyone who reads it in the future.