# private [![Build Status](https://travis-ci.org/benjamn/private.png?branch=master)](https://travis-ci.org/benjamn/private) [![Greenkeeper badge](https://badges.greenkeeper.io/benjamn/private.svg)](https://greenkeeper.io/)

A general-purpose utility for associating truly private state with any JavaScript object.

Installation
---

From NPM:

    npm install private

From GitHub:

    cd path/to/node_modules
    git clone git://github.com/benjamn/private.git
    cd private
    npm install .

Usage
---
**Get or create a secret object associated with any (non-frozen) object:**
```js
var getSecret = require("private").makeAccessor();
var obj = Object.create(null); // any kind of object works
getSecret(obj).totallySafeProperty = "p455w0rd";

console.log(Object.keys(obj)); // []
console.log(Object.getOwnPropertyNames(obj)); // []
console.log(getSecret(obj)); // { totallySafeProperty: "p455w0rd" }
```
Now, only code that has a reference to both `getSecret` and `obj` can possibly access `.totallySafeProperty`.

*Importantly, no global references to the secret object are retained by the `private` package, so as soon as `obj` gets garbage collected, the secret will be reclaimed as well. In other words, you don't have to worry about memory leaks.*

**Create a unique property name that cannot be enumerated or guessed:**
```js
var secretKey = require("private").makeUniqueKey();
var obj = Object.create(null); // any kind of object works

Object.defineProperty(obj, secretKey, {
  value: { totallySafeProperty: "p455w0rd" },
  enumerable: false // optional; non-enumerability is the default
});

Object.defineProperty(obj, "nonEnumerableProperty", {
  value: "anyone can guess my name",
  enumerable: false
});

console.log(obj[secretKey].totallySafeProperty); // p455w0rd
console.log(obj.nonEnumerableProperty); // "anyone can guess my name"
console.log(Object.keys(obj)); // []
console.log(Object.getOwnPropertyNames(obj)); // ["nonEnumerableProperty"]

for (var key in obj) {
  console.log(key); // never called
}
```
Because these keys are non-enumerable, you can't discover them using a `for`-`in` loop. Because `secretKey` is a long string of random characters, you would have a lot of trouble guessing it. And because the `private` module wraps `Object.getOwnPropertyNames` to exclude the keys it generates, you can't even use that interface to discover it.

Unless you have access to the value of the `secretKey` property name, there is no way to access the value associated with it. So your only responsibility as secret-keeper is to avoid handing out the value of `secretKey` to untrusted code.

Think of this style as a home-grown version of the first style. Note, however, that it requires a full implementation of ES5's `Object.defineProperty` method in order to make any safety guarantees, whereas the first example will provide safety even in environments that do not support `Object.defineProperty`.

Rationale
---

In JavaScript, the only data that are truly private are local variables
whose values do not *leak* from the scope in which they were defined.

This notion of *closure privacy* is powerful, and it readily provides some
of the benefits of traditional data privacy, a la Java or C++:
```js
function MyClass(secret) {
    this.increment = function() {
        return ++secret;
    };
}

var mc = new MyClass(3);
console.log(mc.increment()); // 4
```
You can learn something about `secret` by calling `.increment()`, and you
can increase its value by one as many times as you like, but you can never
decrease its value, because it is completely inaccessible except through
the `.increment` method. And if the `.increment` method were not
available, it would be as if no `secret` variable had ever been declared,
as far as you could tell.

This style breaks down as soon as you want to inherit methods from the
prototype of a class:
```js
function MyClass(secret) {
    this.secret = secret;
}

MyClass.prototype.increment = function() {
    return ++this.secret;
};
```
The only way to communicate between the `MyClass` constructor and the
`.increment` method in this example is to manipulate shared properties of
`this`. Unfortunately `this.secret` is now exposed to unlicensed
modification:
```js
var mc = new MyClass(6);
console.log(mc.increment()); // 7
mc.secret -= Infinity;
console.log(mc.increment()); // -Infinity
mc.secret = "Go home JavaScript, you're drunk.";
mc.increment(); // NaN
```
Another problem with closure privacy is that it only lends itself to
per-instance privacy, whereas the `private` keyword in most
object-oriented languages indicates that the data member in question is
visible to all instances of the same class.

Suppose you have a `Node` class with a notion of parents and children:
```js
function Node() {
    var parent;
    var children = [];

    this.getParent = function() {
        return parent;
    };

    this.appendChild = function(child) {
        children.push(child);
        child.parent = this; // Can this be made to work?
    };
}
```
The desire here is to allow other `Node` objects to manipulate the value
returned by `.getParent()`, but otherwise disallow any modification of the
`parent` variable. You could expose a `.setParent` function, but then
anyone could call it, and you might as well give up on the getter/setter
pattern.

This module solves both of these problems.

Usage
---

Let's revisit the `Node` example from above:
```js
var p = require("private").makeAccessor();

function Node() {
    var privates = p(this);
    var children = [];

    this.getParent = function() {
        return privates.parent;
    };

    this.appendChild = function(child) {
        children.push(child);
        var cp = p(child);
        if (cp.parent)
            cp.parent.removeChild(child);
        cp.parent = this;
        return child;
    };
}
```
Now, in order to access the private data of a `Node` object, you need to
have access to the unique `p` function that is being used here.  This is
already an improvement over the previous example, because it allows
restricted access by other `Node` instances, but can it help with the
`Node.prototype` problem too?

Yes it can!
```js
var p = require("private").makeAccessor();

function Node() {
    p(this).children = [];
}

var Np = Node.prototype;

Np.getParent = function() {
    return p(this).parent;
};

Np.appendChild = function(child) {
    p(this).children.push(child);
    var cp = p(child);
    if (cp.parent)
        cp.parent.removeChild(child);
    cp.parent = this;
    return child;
};
```
Because `p` is in scope not only within the `Node` constructor but also
within `Node` methods, we can finally avoid redefining methods every time
the `Node` constructor is called.

Now, you might be wondering how you can restrict access to `p` so that no
untrusted code is able to call it. The answer is to use your favorite
module pattern, be it CommonJS, AMD `define`, or even the old
Immediately-Invoked Function Expression:
```js
var Node = (function() {
    var p = require("private").makeAccessor();

    function Node() {
        p(this).children = [];
    }

    var Np = Node.prototype;

    Np.getParent = function() {
        return p(this).parent;
    };

    Np.appendChild = function(child) {
        p(this).children.push(child);
        var cp = p(child);
        if (cp.parent)
            cp.parent.removeChild(child);
        cp.parent = this;
        return child;
    };

    return Node;
}());

var parent = new Node;
var child = new Node;
parent.appendChild(child);
assert.strictEqual(child.getParent(), parent);
```
Because this version of `p` never leaks from the enclosing function scope,
only `Node` objects have access to it.

So, you see, the claim I made at the beginning of this README remains
true:

> In JavaScript, the only data that are truly private are local variables
> whose values do not *leak* from the scope in which they were defined.

It just so happens that closure privacy is sufficient to implement a
privacy model similar to that provided by other languages.
