I have created a Javascript namespace like so:
var MyApp = function() {
return {
someFunction : function(x) {}
alert(MyApp.y);
}
}();
This allows me to do this:
MyApp.someFunction(x);
I would like to be able to do the following:
MyApp.y = "test" so that my someFunction can access this variable Y.
Any ideas on how to solve this? I'd like to keep my NS syntax intact so a solution that works with my example code would be nice.
What you described should work. (Except you have a syntax error and an unused argument x.)
var MyApp = function() {
return {
someFunction : function(x) {
alert(MyApp.y);
}
}
}();
MyApp.y = 'test';
MyApp.someFunction() // alerts 'test'
Another approach is to treat your outer function more like a constructor and pass y as a closure:
var MyApp = (function (y) {
return {
y: y,
someFunction: function () {
alert(MyApp.y); // or alert(this.y)
}
}
} ('test'));
MyApp.someFunction(); // alerts 'test'
I would go with something like this:
var MyApp = function() {
var _y = "default value";
return {
someFunction: function(x) {
console.log(_y);
},
setY: function (y) {
_y = y;
}
}
}();
This will mean that it is safe to call MyApp.someFunction() before assigning a value to y. It also means that the contents of the variable is maintained within the namespace's scope, e.g.
console.log(MyApp._y); // undefined
Here would be how to use it:
MyApp.someFunction(); // "default value"
MyApp.setY("new value");
MyApp.someFunction(); // "new value"
for…in loop or being true when he runs MyApp.hasOwnProperty('_y'). Private members in JavaScript are just variables of the constructor. They're only accessible by private and privileged methods. Ref I'm not against this approach, I just don't see the point of the underscore, and OP doesn't ask for the value to be private.
this.someFunction = function(x) ...instead of thereturnblock. Also at a guess you probably want tonewthat function when you're storing it inMyApp.