1
|
# 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/)
|
2
|
|
3
|
A general-purpose utility for associating truly private state with any JavaScript object.
|
4
|
|
5
|
Installation
|
6
|
---
|
7
|
|
8
|
From NPM:
|
9
|
|
10
|
npm install private
|
11
|
|
12
|
From GitHub:
|
13
|
|
14
|
cd path/to/node_modules
|
15
|
git clone git://github.com/benjamn/private.git
|
16
|
cd private
|
17
|
npm install .
|
18
|
|
19
|
Usage
|
20
|
---
|
21
|
**Get or create a secret object associated with any (non-frozen) object:**
|
22
|
```js
|
23
|
var getSecret = require("private").makeAccessor();
|
24
|
var obj = Object.create(null); // any kind of object works
|
25
|
getSecret(obj).totallySafeProperty = "p455w0rd";
|
26
|
|
27
|
console.log(Object.keys(obj)); // []
|
28
|
console.log(Object.getOwnPropertyNames(obj)); // []
|
29
|
console.log(getSecret(obj)); // { totallySafeProperty: "p455w0rd" }
|
30
|
```
|
31
|
Now, only code that has a reference to both `getSecret` and `obj` can possibly access `.totallySafeProperty`.
|
32
|
|
33
|
*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.*
|
34
|
|
35
|
**Create a unique property name that cannot be enumerated or guessed:**
|
36
|
```js
|
37
|
var secretKey = require("private").makeUniqueKey();
|
38
|
var obj = Object.create(null); // any kind of object works
|
39
|
|
40
|
Object.defineProperty(obj, secretKey, {
|
41
|
value: { totallySafeProperty: "p455w0rd" },
|
42
|
enumerable: false // optional; non-enumerability is the default
|
43
|
});
|
44
|
|
45
|
Object.defineProperty(obj, "nonEnumerableProperty", {
|
46
|
value: "anyone can guess my name",
|
47
|
enumerable: false
|
48
|
});
|
49
|
|
50
|
console.log(obj[secretKey].totallySafeProperty); // p455w0rd
|
51
|
console.log(obj.nonEnumerableProperty); // "anyone can guess my name"
|
52
|
console.log(Object.keys(obj)); // []
|
53
|
console.log(Object.getOwnPropertyNames(obj)); // ["nonEnumerableProperty"]
|
54
|
|
55
|
for (var key in obj) {
|
56
|
console.log(key); // never called
|
57
|
}
|
58
|
```
|
59
|
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.
|
60
|
|
61
|
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.
|
62
|
|
63
|
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`.
|
64
|
|
65
|
Rationale
|
66
|
---
|
67
|
|
68
|
In JavaScript, the only data that are truly private are local variables
|
69
|
whose values do not *leak* from the scope in which they were defined.
|
70
|
|
71
|
This notion of *closure privacy* is powerful, and it readily provides some
|
72
|
of the benefits of traditional data privacy, a la Java or C++:
|
73
|
```js
|
74
|
function MyClass(secret) {
|
75
|
this.increment = function() {
|
76
|
return ++secret;
|
77
|
};
|
78
|
}
|
79
|
|
80
|
var mc = new MyClass(3);
|
81
|
console.log(mc.increment()); // 4
|
82
|
```
|
83
|
You can learn something about `secret` by calling `.increment()`, and you
|
84
|
can increase its value by one as many times as you like, but you can never
|
85
|
decrease its value, because it is completely inaccessible except through
|
86
|
the `.increment` method. And if the `.increment` method were not
|
87
|
available, it would be as if no `secret` variable had ever been declared,
|
88
|
as far as you could tell.
|
89
|
|
90
|
This style breaks down as soon as you want to inherit methods from the
|
91
|
prototype of a class:
|
92
|
```js
|
93
|
function MyClass(secret) {
|
94
|
this.secret = secret;
|
95
|
}
|
96
|
|
97
|
MyClass.prototype.increment = function() {
|
98
|
return ++this.secret;
|
99
|
};
|
100
|
```
|
101
|
The only way to communicate between the `MyClass` constructor and the
|
102
|
`.increment` method in this example is to manipulate shared properties of
|
103
|
`this`. Unfortunately `this.secret` is now exposed to unlicensed
|
104
|
modification:
|
105
|
```js
|
106
|
var mc = new MyClass(6);
|
107
|
console.log(mc.increment()); // 7
|
108
|
mc.secret -= Infinity;
|
109
|
console.log(mc.increment()); // -Infinity
|
110
|
mc.secret = "Go home JavaScript, you're drunk.";
|
111
|
mc.increment(); // NaN
|
112
|
```
|
113
|
Another problem with closure privacy is that it only lends itself to
|
114
|
per-instance privacy, whereas the `private` keyword in most
|
115
|
object-oriented languages indicates that the data member in question is
|
116
|
visible to all instances of the same class.
|
117
|
|
118
|
Suppose you have a `Node` class with a notion of parents and children:
|
119
|
```js
|
120
|
function Node() {
|
121
|
var parent;
|
122
|
var children = [];
|
123
|
|
124
|
this.getParent = function() {
|
125
|
return parent;
|
126
|
};
|
127
|
|
128
|
this.appendChild = function(child) {
|
129
|
children.push(child);
|
130
|
child.parent = this; // Can this be made to work?
|
131
|
};
|
132
|
}
|
133
|
```
|
134
|
The desire here is to allow other `Node` objects to manipulate the value
|
135
|
returned by `.getParent()`, but otherwise disallow any modification of the
|
136
|
`parent` variable. You could expose a `.setParent` function, but then
|
137
|
anyone could call it, and you might as well give up on the getter/setter
|
138
|
pattern.
|
139
|
|
140
|
This module solves both of these problems.
|
141
|
|
142
|
Usage
|
143
|
---
|
144
|
|
145
|
Let's revisit the `Node` example from above:
|
146
|
```js
|
147
|
var p = require("private").makeAccessor();
|
148
|
|
149
|
function Node() {
|
150
|
var privates = p(this);
|
151
|
var children = [];
|
152
|
|
153
|
this.getParent = function() {
|
154
|
return privates.parent;
|
155
|
};
|
156
|
|
157
|
this.appendChild = function(child) {
|
158
|
children.push(child);
|
159
|
var cp = p(child);
|
160
|
if (cp.parent)
|
161
|
cp.parent.removeChild(child);
|
162
|
cp.parent = this;
|
163
|
return child;
|
164
|
};
|
165
|
}
|
166
|
```
|
167
|
Now, in order to access the private data of a `Node` object, you need to
|
168
|
have access to the unique `p` function that is being used here. This is
|
169
|
already an improvement over the previous example, because it allows
|
170
|
restricted access by other `Node` instances, but can it help with the
|
171
|
`Node.prototype` problem too?
|
172
|
|
173
|
Yes it can!
|
174
|
```js
|
175
|
var p = require("private").makeAccessor();
|
176
|
|
177
|
function Node() {
|
178
|
p(this).children = [];
|
179
|
}
|
180
|
|
181
|
var Np = Node.prototype;
|
182
|
|
183
|
Np.getParent = function() {
|
184
|
return p(this).parent;
|
185
|
};
|
186
|
|
187
|
Np.appendChild = function(child) {
|
188
|
p(this).children.push(child);
|
189
|
var cp = p(child);
|
190
|
if (cp.parent)
|
191
|
cp.parent.removeChild(child);
|
192
|
cp.parent = this;
|
193
|
return child;
|
194
|
};
|
195
|
```
|
196
|
Because `p` is in scope not only within the `Node` constructor but also
|
197
|
within `Node` methods, we can finally avoid redefining methods every time
|
198
|
the `Node` constructor is called.
|
199
|
|
200
|
Now, you might be wondering how you can restrict access to `p` so that no
|
201
|
untrusted code is able to call it. The answer is to use your favorite
|
202
|
module pattern, be it CommonJS, AMD `define`, or even the old
|
203
|
Immediately-Invoked Function Expression:
|
204
|
```js
|
205
|
var Node = (function() {
|
206
|
var p = require("private").makeAccessor();
|
207
|
|
208
|
function Node() {
|
209
|
p(this).children = [];
|
210
|
}
|
211
|
|
212
|
var Np = Node.prototype;
|
213
|
|
214
|
Np.getParent = function() {
|
215
|
return p(this).parent;
|
216
|
};
|
217
|
|
218
|
Np.appendChild = function(child) {
|
219
|
p(this).children.push(child);
|
220
|
var cp = p(child);
|
221
|
if (cp.parent)
|
222
|
cp.parent.removeChild(child);
|
223
|
cp.parent = this;
|
224
|
return child;
|
225
|
};
|
226
|
|
227
|
return Node;
|
228
|
}());
|
229
|
|
230
|
var parent = new Node;
|
231
|
var child = new Node;
|
232
|
parent.appendChild(child);
|
233
|
assert.strictEqual(child.getParent(), parent);
|
234
|
```
|
235
|
Because this version of `p` never leaks from the enclosing function scope,
|
236
|
only `Node` objects have access to it.
|
237
|
|
238
|
So, you see, the claim I made at the beginning of this README remains
|
239
|
true:
|
240
|
|
241
|
> In JavaScript, the only data that are truly private are local variables
|
242
|
> whose values do not *leak* from the scope in which they were defined.
|
243
|
|
244
|
It just so happens that closure privacy is sufficient to implement a
|
245
|
privacy model similar to that provided by other languages.
|