I was rather thinking of the case where you just put a get and a set methods. Those are the only 2 properties exposed and all the rest is "protected".
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Scott Sauyet <[email protected]> wrote: > xavierm02 wrote: >> I'm doing a lib of my own, mostly to learn more about JavaScript and one of >> the things I like is having a minimum of things available from outside my >> objects. >> Therefore, I use getters and setters. > > Right off the bat, I don't follow how this means having a minimum of > things available from outside an object. If you have an object `foo` > with one property `bar`, how does using `foo.getBar` and `foo.setBar` > minimize your surface area? If your setters and getters do nothing > more than setting and getting a property, you haven't encapsulated > private data, and you have actually increased the size of the > interface exposed by your object. > > As a learning exercise for the language, the techniques you discuss > might be useful. But I'm not sure I really see the real-world > application of them. > > -- Scott > > -- > 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] > -- 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]
