Here is nice article: JavaScript Module Pattern: In-Depth
http://www.adequatelygood.com/2010/3/JavaScript-Module-Pattern-In-Depth On Jan 1, 10:48 am, jemptymethod <[email protected]> wrote: > Please consider the following template. Sure its a little verbose, > but Uncle Bob declare comments to be failures, so I'm trying to > obviate such failure with the identifiers $private and $public. Also > the nested closures allow all state to be hidden with $private, and > for code (e.g. $private.init()) to be executed within the same scope > from which the ($public) interface is returned. > > Feedback appreciated; I merely intend on opening a discussion. Some > or many may disagree with this approach. But is there anything > outright wrong about it? > > var Module = (function() { > var $private = (function() { > var $state = {}; > var $private = {}; > > $private.state = function() {return $state}; > $private.init = function() { > //console.log('$private.init invoked'); > }; > > return $private; > })(); > > return (function() { > $private.init(); > $public = {}; > return $public; > })(); > > })(); -- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
