Javascript namespacing convention

Question

wI'm unsure which is the better namespace convention to use.

var App = {}; // global variable, the root of our namespace
(function() {

   App.something = function() {

   }

})();

or

(function() {

   window.App = {}; //global variable, the root of our namespace

   App.something = function() {

   }

})();

window.App and var App are both global variables so both conventions achieve the same outcome, but which is better?

Well, when using `var App = {};`, you **can't** use `delete window.App` later to remove the property. But you **can** when you declare it as `window.App = {};`. But that's really a trivial reason to use one over the other — Ian, Jul 19 '13 at 15:32
node.js give me an error with second block. We talking about javascript. But node.js is javascript :-) — Luca Rainone, Jul 19 '13 at 15:42
@gustavohenke This question could help others who don't know what the difference is. — monsoon, Jul 19 '13 at 15:46

score 3 · Accepted Answer · answered Jul 19 '13 at 15:34

3

The only difference is that in the first variant, App cannot be deleted from window, although it's accessible as a property of the global object. In the second case, delete window.App works. Also, note that you should be attaching your namespace to window, not Window, as JavaScript is case-sensitive, and Window is a constructor.

Other than that, both are basically the same, there is no "better".

answered Jul 19 '13 at 15:34

bfavaretto

71,580
16
111
150

The uppercase on window was a mistake, but thanks for letting me know anyway. Would you say one convention is used more commonly in the js community than the other? – monsoon Jul 19 '13 at 15:39
2

I'm not sure, but the second looks cleaner to me. Another common one is `var App = (function(){ /* return your object from here */ }())` – bfavaretto Jul 19 '13 at 15:42

Javascript namespacing convention

1 Answers1