你可以使用jquery mx(在javascriptMVC中使用)，这是一组允许你使用模型、视图和控制器的脚本。我曾在一个项目中使用它，并帮助我创建结构化javascript，由于压缩，脚本大小最小。以控制器为例:

$.Controller.extend('Todos',{
  ".todo mouseover" : function( el, ev ) {
   el.css("backgroundColor","red")
  },
  ".todo mouseout" : function( el, ev ) {
   el.css("backgroundColor","")
  },
  ".create click" : function() {
   this.find("ol").append("<li class='todo'>New Todo</li>"); 
  }
})

new Todos($('#todos'));

如果对视图和模型部分不感兴趣，也可以只使用querymx的控制器端。

我的老板仍然在谈论他们编写模块化代码(C语言)的时代，并抱怨现在的代码是多么糟糕!据说程序员可以在任何框架中编写程序集。总有一种策略可以克服代码组织。最基本的问题是那些把java脚本当作玩具的人，从来没有尝试去学习它。

在我的例子中，我在UI主题或应用程序屏幕的基础上编写js文件，使用适当的init_screen()。使用适当的id命名约定，我确保在根元素级别上没有名称空间冲突。在不引人注目的window.load()中，我根据顶级id将内容绑定起来。

我严格使用java脚本闭包和模式来隐藏所有私有方法。这样做之后，再也没有遇到属性/函数定义/变量定义冲突的问题。然而，当与团队一起工作时，通常很难执行同样的严格性。

按需加载所需的代码。谷歌对他们的Google .loader做了类似的事情

"Write like crazy and just hope it works out for the best?", I've seen a project like this which was developed and maintained by just 2 developers, a huge application with lots of javascript code. On top of that there were different shortcuts for every possible jquery function you can think of. I suggested they organize the code as plugins, as that is the jquery equivalent of class, module, namespace... and the whole universe. But things got much worse, now they started writing plugins replacing every combination of 3 lines of code used in the project. Personaly I think jQuery is the devil and it shouldn't be used on projects with lots of javascript because it encourages you to be lazy and not think of organizing code in any way. I'd rather read 100 lines of javascript than one line with 40 chained jQuery functions (I'm not kidding). Contrary to popular belief it's very easy to organize javascript code in equivalents to namespaces and classes. That's what YUI and Dojo do. You can easily roll your own if you like. I find YUI's approach much better and efficient. But you usualy need a nice editor with support for snippets to compensate for YUI naming conventions if you want to write anything useful.

好的OO + MVC原则对于管理一个复杂的javascript应用程序肯定大有帮助。

基本上，我将我的应用程序和javascript组织成以下熟悉的设计(从我的桌面编程到Web 2.0一直存在)

图像上数值的说明:

Widgets representing the views of my application. This should be extensible and separated out neatly resulting good separation that MVC tries to achieve rather than turning my widget into a spaghetti code (equivalent in web app of putting a large block of Javascript directly in HTML). Each widget communicate via others by listening to the event generated by other widgets thus reducing the strong coupling between widgets that could lead to unmanageable code (remember the day of adding onclick everywhere pointing to a global functions in the script tag? Urgh...) Object models representing the data that I want to populate in the widgets and passing back and forth to the server. By encapsulating the data to its model, the application becomes data format agnostics. For example: while Naturally in Javascript these object models are mostly serialized and deserialized into JSON, if somehow the server is using XML for communication, all I need to change is changing the serialization/deserialization layer and not necessarily needs to change all the widget classes. Controller classes that manage the business logic and communication to the server + occasionally caching layer. This layer control the communication protocol to the server and put the necessary data into the object models Classes are wrapped neatly in their corresponding namespaces. I am sure we all know how nasty global namespace could be in Javascript.

In the past, I would separate the files into its own js and use common practice to create OO principles in Javascript. The problem that I soon found that there are multiple ways to write JS OO and it's not necessarily that all team members have the same approach. As the team got larger (in my case more than 15 people), this gets complicated as there is no standard approach for Object Oriented Javascript. At the same time I don't want to write my own framework and repeat some of the work that I am sure smarter people than I have solved.

jQuery是非常好的Javascript框架，我喜欢它，但随着项目越来越大，我显然需要额外的结构为我的web应用程序，特别是促进标准化OO实践。就我自己而言，经过几次试验，我发现YUI3 Base和Widget (http://yuilibrary.com/yui/docs/widget/和http://yuilibrary.com/yui/docs/base/index.html)基础设施完全满足了我的需要。我使用它们的几个原因。

It provides Namespace support. A real need for OO and neat organization of your code It support notion of classes and objects It gives a standardize means to add instance variables to your class It supports class extension neatly It provides constructor and destructor It provides render and event binding It has base widget framework Each widget now able to communicate to each other using standard event based model Most importantly, it gives all the engineers an OO Standard for Javascript development

与许多观点相反，我不一定要在jQuery和YUI3之间做出选择。这两者可以和平共处。虽然YUI3为我复杂的web应用程序提供了必要的OO模板，但jQuery仍然为我的团队提供了我们都喜欢和熟悉的易于使用的JS抽象。

使用YUI3，我成功地创建了MVC模式，通过分离将Base扩展为模型的类，将Widget扩展为视图的类，当然还有进行必要逻辑和服务器端调用的控制器类。

Widget可以使用基于事件的模型相互通信，并根据预定义的接口侦听事件并执行必要的任务。简单地说，把OO + MVC结构的JS是一个乐趣对我来说。

声明一下，我不是为雅虎工作的!仅仅是一个建筑师在试图解决最初的问题所带来的问题。我认为如果有人找到了等效的OO框架，这也可以。基本上，这个问题也适用于其他技术。感谢所有提出OO原则+ MVC的人，使我们的编程更易于管理。

遵循良好的OO设计原则和设计模式有助于使代码易于维护和理解。 但我最近发现的最好的东西之一是信号和槽，也就是发布/订阅。 看看http://markdotmeyer.blogspot.com/2008/09/jquery-publish-subscribe.html 简单的jQuery实现。

这个想法在其他语言的GUI开发中也得到了很好的应用。当代码中某个重要的事件发生时，你会发布一个全局合成事件，其他对象中的其他方法可能会订阅该事件。 这提供了很好的对象分离。

我认为Dojo(和Prototype?)有这种技术的内置版本。

参见什么是信号和槽?