Question: Coming from Java, I'm wondering if a Java best practice applies to JavaScript.

In Java, there's a separation of interface and implementation, and mixing them up is considered a bad practice. By the same token, it is recommended to hide implementation details of your library from end developers.

For example, log4J is one of the most popular logging libraries out there but it is recommended to write code to the slf4j library or the Commons Logging library that "wraps" log4j. This way, if you choose to switch to another logging framework such as logback, you can do so without changing your code. Another reason is that you, as a user of a logging library, how logging is done is none of your concern, as long as you know what logging does.

So back to JavaScript, most non-trivial web applications have their own custom JavaScript libraries, many of which use open source libraries such as jQuery and dojo. If a custom library depends on, say jQuery, not as an extension, but as implementation, do you see the need to add another layer that wraps jQuery and makes it transparent to the rest of JavaScript code?

For example, if you have the foo library that contains all your custom, front-end logic, you'd introduce the bar library that just wraps jQuery. This way, your foo library would use the bar library for jQuery functions, but it is totally oblivious to jQuery. In theory, you could switch to other libraries such as dojo and google web toolkit without having a big impact on the foo library.

Do you see any practical value in this? Overkill?

Answer: 
There are a lot of good answers here, but one thing I don't see mentioned is feature sets. If you try to write a library to wrap the functionality provided by, say, jQuery, but you want to be able to easily swap out for something like prototype, you have a problem. The jQuery library doesn't provide all the features prototype provides, and prototype doesn't provide all the features jQuery provides. On top of that, they both provide their features in radically different ways (prototype extends base objects -- that's damn near impossible to wrap). 

In the end, if you tried to wrap these libraries in some code that adds 'abstraction' to try to make them more flexible, you're going to lose 80% of what the frameworks provided. You'll lose the fancy interfaces they provide (jQuery provides an awesome $('selector') function, prototype extends base objects), and you'll also have to decide if you want to leave out features. If a given feature is not provided by both frameworks, you have to either ditch it or reimplement it for the other framework. This is a big can of worms. 

The whole problem stems from the fact that Java is a very inflexible language. A library provides functionality, and that's it. In JavaScript, the language itself is insanely flexible, and lets you do lots of crazy things (like writing a library, and assigning it to the `$` variable). The ability to do crazy things lets developers of javascript libraries provide some really creative functionality, but it means you can't just find commonalities in libraries and write an abstraction. I think writing javascript well requires a significant change in perspective for a Java developer.
There are good arguments calling this development practice - wrapping in order to switch later - into question in any language.

A good quote by Oren Eini, from his [writeup on wrapping ORMs](http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2010/07/30/the-false-myth-of-encapsulating-data-access-in-the-dal.aspx):

> 
> Trying to encapsulate to make things
>  easier to work with, great. Trying to
>  encapsulate so that you can switch
>  OR/Ms? Won’t work, will be costly and
>  painful.
> 
> 
>