Why is that called a "Module Pattern"? It's just closure?
If it's not appearing on here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_pattern_(computer_science)
.. i wouldn't smoke the crockford crack.
On Feb 17, 7:32 am, "Matthias Reuter" <m...@gweax.de> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I use the module pattern to keep the global object clean. Mostly, my
> modules are completely independant, so I do not use the revealing module
> pattern.
>
> (function () {
>
> function a () {}
> function b () {}
>
> }());
>
> Now the question is, how do I unit-test function a and function b? Somehow
> I need to be able to access these functions, on the other hand I actually
> don't want these to be accessible, otherwise I wouldn't have chosen the
> module pattern.
>
> My first idea was to omit the immediate function which forms the module
> pattern in the source files, and wrap it around the module during the
> build process. Unfortunately, that would mean I would either have to build
> the application everytime I make a change, or I would have to carefully
> prevent variable name collisions during development. Which I don't want,
> that's why I'm using the module pattern.
>
> A different idea was to reveal all inner functions, if some global debug
> object is set:
>
> (function () {
>
> function a () {}
> function b () {}
>
> if (typeof _debug !== "undefined") {
> _debug.addModule({
> "a" : a,
> "b" : b
> }, this);
> }
>
> }());
>
> Now I'm not too happy about that approach either. So do you have any ideas
> how to test functions within a module?
>
> Matt
--
To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@jsmentors.com/
To search via a non-Google archive, visit here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@googlegroups.com/
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jsmentors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
