Develop Reference

Unable to have get and set method in Object Constructor (not in class) in JavaScript? [duplicate]

I recently read about the fact that there is a possibility of defining getters/setters in JavaScript. It seems extremely helpful - the setter is a kind of 'helper' which can parse the value to be set first, before actually setting it.
For example, I currently have this code:
var obj = function(value) {
var test = !!value; // 'test' has to be a boolean
return {
get test() { return test },
set test(value) { test = !!value }
};
};
var instance = new obj(true);
This code always converts value to a boolean. So if you code instance.test = 0, then instance.test === false.
However, for this to work you have to actually return an object, which means that the new instance is not of type obj but just is a plain object. This means that changing the prototype of obj has no effect on instances. For example, this does not work - instance.func is undefined:
obj.prototype.func = function() { console.log(this.value); };
because instance is not of type obj. To get the prototype functions work, I guess I should not return a plain object, but rather not return anything so that instance would just be of type obj, like a regular constructor works.
The problem then is how to implement getters/setters? I can only find articles describing how to add these to an object, not as being part of the constructor of a custom type.
So how do I implement getters/setters in the constructor so as to be able to both use getters/setters and extending the prototype?

You can't do that.
You can set setter/getters for properties of objects though. I advice you use ES5 Object.defineProperties though. of course this only works in modern browsers.
var obj = function() {
...
Object.defineProperties(this, {
"test": {
"get": function() { ... },
"set": function() { ... }
}
});
}
obj.prototype.func = function() { ... }
var o = new obj;
o.test;
o.func();

Usually you want class methods. The answer by #Raynos on May 7, 2011 gets the job done, but it defines an instance method, not a class method.
The following illustrates a class definition with a the getter and setter being part of the class. This definition is a lot like the answer by #Raynos, but with two differences in the code: (1) The "defineProperties()" action has been moved out of the constructor. (2) The argument to "defineProperties()"as been changed from the instance object "this", to the constructor's prototype object.
function TheConstructor(side) {
this.side = side;
}
Object.defineProperties(TheConstructor.prototype, {
area: {
get: function() { return this.side * this.side; }
,set: function(val) { this.side = Math.sqrt(val); }
}
});
// Test code:
var anInstance = new TheConstructor(2);
console.log("initial Area:"+anInstance.area);
anInstance.area = 9;
console.log("modified Area:"+anInstance.area);
Which produces these results:
initial Area:4
modified Area:9
Although usually the distinction between class versus instance
definition is just a matter of style, there is a purpose to
good style, and there is a case where the distinction matters:
the memoized getter. The purpose for a memoized getter is
described here: Smart/self-overwriting/lazy getters
Define the getter at the class level when the memoized value is to
pertain to the entire class. For example, a configuration file
should be read only once; the resulting values should then apply
for the duration of the program. The following sample code
defines a memoized getter at the class level.
function configureMe() {
return 42;
}
Object.defineProperties(TheConstructor.prototype, {
memoizedConfigParam: {
get: function() {
delete TheConstructor.prototype.memoizedConfigParam;
return TheConstructor.prototype.memoizedConfigParam = configureMe();
}
,configurable: true
}
});
// Test code:
console.log("memoizedConfigParam:"+anInstance.memoizedConfigParam);
Produces:
memoizedConfigParam:42
As can be seen in the example, memoized getters have the
characteristic that the getter function deletes itself,
then replaces itself with a simple value that
(presumably) will never change.
Note that 'configurable' must be set to 'true'.
Define the getter at the instance level when the memoized value
depends upon the contents of instance. The definition moves
inside the constructor, and the object of attention is 'this'.
function TheConstructorI(side) {
this.side = side;
Object.defineProperties(this, {
memoizedCalculation: {
get: function() {
delete this.memoizedCalculation;
return this.memoizedCalculation = this.expensiveOperation();
}
,configurable: true
}
});
}
TheConstructorI.prototype.expensiveOperation = function() {
return this.side * this.side * this.side;
}
//Test code:
var instance2 = new TheConstructorI(2);
var instance3 = new TheConstructorI(3);
console.log("memoizedCalculation 2:"+instance2.memoizedCalculation);
console.log("memoizedCalculation 3:"+instance3.memoizedCalculation);
Produces:
memoizedCalculation 2:8
memoizedCalculation 3:27
If you want to guarantee (rather than presume) that the memoized
value will never be changed, the 'writable' attribute needs to
be changed. That makes the code a bit more complicated.
function TheConstructorJ(side) {
this.side = side;
Object.defineProperties(this, {
memoizedCalculation: {
get: function() {
delete this.memoizedCalculation;
Object.defineProperty( this, 'memoizedCalculation'
,{ value : this.expensiveOperation()
,writable : false
});
return this.memoizedCalculation;
}
,configurable: true
}
});
}
TheConstructorJ.prototype.expensiveOperation = function() {
return this.side * this.side * this.side;
}
//Test code:
var instanceJ = new TheConstructorJ(2);
console.log("memoizedCalculation:"+instanceJ.memoizedCalculation);
instanceJ.memoizedCalculation = 42; // results in error
Produces:
memoizedCalculation:8
>Uncaught TypeError: Cannot assign to read only property 'memoizedCalculation' of object '#<TheConstructorJ>'
The OP's original question, from March 7, 2011, presented basic
getter and setter syntax, noted that it worked on an object but
not on 'this', and asked how to define getters and setters within
a constructor. In addition to all the examples above, there is
also a "cheap-shot" way of doing it: create a new object within
the constructor, like the OP did, but then assign the object to
be a member within 'this'. So, the original code would look like
this:
var MyClass = function(value) {
var test = !!value; // 'test' has to be a boolean
this.data = {
get test() { return test },
set test(value) { test = !!value }
};
};
var instance = new MyClass(true);
// But now 'data' is part of the access path
instance.data.test = 0;
console.log(instance.data.test);
Produces:
false
Believe it or not, I have actually run into situations where
this "cheap-shot" is the best solution. Specifically, I used this
technique when I had records from several tables encapsulated within
a single class, and wanted to present a unified view as though
they were a single record called 'data'.
Have fun.
IAM_AL_X

Update for ES6 -- have a look at section 19.3.1 of Alex Rauschmayer's book Exploring ES6 http://exploringjs.com/es6/ch_maps-sets.html#sec_weakmaps-private-data which demonstrates how to use WeakMaps with getters and setters to hold private data. Combining with section 16.2.2.3 http://exploringjs.com/es6/ch_classes.html#leanpub-auto-getters-and-setters would result in something like
# module test_WeakMap_getter.js
var _MyClassProp = new WeakMap();
class MyClass {
get prop() {
return _MyClassProp.get( this );
}
set prop(value) {
_MyClassProp.set( this, value );
}
}
var mc = new MyClass();
mc.prop = 5 ;
console.log( 'My value is', mc.prop );
$ node --use_strict test_WeakMap_getter.js
My value is 5

function Obj(value){
this.value = !!value;
}
Obj.prototype = {
get test () {
return this.value;``
},
set test (value) {
this.value = !!this.value;
}
};
var obj = new Obj(true);

I know this might be extremely late but I figured out a different way to accomplish what you want and for the sake of people, like myself, googling for an answer to this here it is.
function Constructor(input){
this.input = input;
}
Object.__defineGetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "value", function(){
return this.input * 2;
});
var test = new Constructor(5);
alert(test.value) // 10
I've tested this in chrome, safari, mobile safari, firefox and they all work (latest versions of course)

#Alex I see it as more option and more power, programming is art, #Nat share his finding with us, and for that I thank him. Maybe someone want to do it that way.
I'm sure the setter version is the same but just changing that g to a s.
i.g:
function Constructor(input){
this.input = input;
}
Object.__defineGetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "value", function(){
return this.input * 2;
});
Object.__defineSetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "bar", function(foo){
return this.input *= foo;
});
var test = new Constructor(5);
console.log(test.value); // 10
test.bar = 5;
console.log(test.input); //25
With that said, this feature is deprecated, advices to not to use in production coding.

reusable javascript objects, prototypes and scope

MyGlobalObject;
function TheFunctionICanUseRightAwaySingleForAllInstansesAndWithoutInstanse() {
function() {
alert('NO CONSTRUCTOR WAS CALLED');
}
};
The Long-named function must be callable from MyGlobalObject, which in turn must be available as a global (to window) variable in all times after script was loaded. It should support extensibility in accordance with latest standards.
I'm at architectural dilemma of how to built JS base for an application (almost 100% JS).
We need an object i.e. window.MyObject (like a module, like jQuery) so
It can be created with
VAR1
var MyGlobalObjConstructor = function(){
this.GlobalFunctionInObject = function(){
alert('called with MyGlobalObj.GlobalFunctionInObject()');
}
};
window.MyGlobalObj = new MyGlobalObjConstructor();
Is MyGlobalObj extensible? Can I create child objects, which will inherit current state of MyGlobalObj (extended functions/properties MyGlobalObj.NewFunc e.g.)? What is the main difference between using prototype (VAR3)?
By GlobaldFunction I mean single instance for all initialized/instantiated (possibly instantializable) instances..
Or with
VAR2
var MyGlobalObj = {
GlobalFunctionInObject: function...
GlobalFunctionInObject2: function...
};
MyGlobalObj.GlobalFunctionInObject();
// here I lose all hierarchy elements, no prototype,
// can I use GlobalFunctionInObject2 in GlobalFunctionInObject?
Or with
VAR3
var MyGlobalConstuctor = function(){} // already 'well-formed' object
MyGlobalConstuctor.prototype.GlobalFunctionInObject = function...
};
var MyGlobalObj = new MyGlobalConstuctor();
// so I'm sceptical to NEW, because I have ALREADY wrote my functions
// which I expect to be in memory, single instance of each of them,
// so creating MyObject2,3,4 with NEW MyGC() makes no sense to me.
// DO I REALLY HAVE TO USE "MyGlobalConstuctor.prototype." FOR EACH FUNCTION?!!!!
What's the difference defining MyGlobalObj as a function and as an object (result of func or VAR2)?
OR VAR4?
I see in Chrome Debugger both prototype and __proto__ special fields. I've read that that's OK, but why are they not saved in a single prototype?
So, what is the correct/optimal way to implement window.MyObject, so one could MyObject.MyFunction(); What are the differences (pro/contra) of variants 1 2 and 3?

Variation 1 - Mixin
function SomeType() {
var priv = "I'm private";
this.publ = "I'm public";
this.action = function() {
return priv + this.publ;
};
}
var obj = new SomeType();
With this method you are creating a new object every time you call new SomeType(), creating all its methods and adding all this method to the new object. Every time you create an object.
Pros
It looks like classical inheritance so it's easy to understand to Java-C#-C++-etc people.
It can have private variables per instance since you have one function closure per each object you create
It allows multiple inheritance, also known as Twitter-mixins or functional mixins
obj instanceof SomeType will return true
Cons
It consumes more memory as more objects you create because with each object you are creating a new closure and creating each of it's methods again.
Private properties are private, not protected, subtypes can't access them
No easy way to know if a object has some Type as superclass.
Inheritance
function SubType() {
SomeType.call(this);
this.newMethod = function() {
// can't access priv
return this.publ;
};
}
var child = new SubType();
child instanceof SomeType will return false there is no other way to know if child has SomeType methods than look if it has them one by one.
Variation 2 - Object literal with prototyping
var obj = {
publ: "I'm public",
_convention: "I'm public too, but please don't touch me!",
someMethod: function() {
return this.publ + this._convention;
}
};
In this case you are creating a single object. If you are going to need only one instance of this type it can be the best solution.
Pros
It's quick and easy to understand.
Performant
Cons
No privacy, every property is public.
Inheritance
You can inherit a object prototyping it.
var child = Object.create(obj);
child.otherMethod = function() {
return this._convention + this.publ;
};
If you are on a old browser you will need to garantee Object.create works:
if (!Object.create) {
Object.create = function(obj) {
function tmp() { }
tmp.prototype = obj;
return new tmp;
};
}
To know if a object is a prototype of another you can use
obj.isPrototypeOf(child); // true
Variation 3 - Constructor pattern
UPDATE: This is the pattern ES6 classes are sugar syntax of. If you use ES6 classes you are following this pattern under the hood.
class SomeType {
constructor() {
// REALLY important to declare every non-function property here
this.publ = "I'm public";
this._convention = "I'm public too, but please don't touch me!";
}
someMethod() {
return this.publ + this._convention;
}
}
class SubType extends SomeType {
constructor() {
super(/* parent constructor parameters here */);
this.otherValue = 'Hi';
}
otherMethod() {
return this._convention + this.publ + this.otherValue;
}
}
function SomeType() {
// REALLY important to declare every non-function property here
this.publ = "I'm public";
this._convention = "I'm public too, but please don't touch me!";
}
SomeType.prototype.someMethod = function() {
return this.publ + this._convention;
};
var obj = new SomeType();
You can re-assign the prototype insteadd of adding each method if you are not inheriting and remember to re-assign the constructor property:
SomeType.prototype = {
constructor: SomeType,
someMethod = function() {
return this.publ + this._convention;
}
};
Or use _.extend or $.extend if you have underscore or jquery in your page
_.extend(SomeType.prototype, {
someMethod = function() {
return this.publ + this._convention;
}
};
The new keyword under the hood simply does this:
function doNew(Constructor) {
var instance = Object.create(Constructor.prototype);
instance.constructor();
return instance;
}
var obj = doNew(SomeType);
What you have is a function than has no methods; it just has a prototype property with a list of functions, the new operator means to create a new object and use this function's prototype (Object.create) and constructor property as initializer.
Pros
Performant
Prototype chain will allow you to know if a object inherits from some type
Cons
Two-step inheritance
Inheritance
function SubType() {
// Step 1, exactly as Variation 1
// This inherits the non-function properties
SomeType.call(this);
this.otherValue = 'Hi';
}
// Step 2, this inherits the methods
SubType.prototype = Object.create(SomeType.prototype);
SubType.prototype.otherMethod = function() {
return this._convention + this.publ + this.otherValue;
};
var child = new SubType();
You may think it looks like a super-set of Variation 2... and you'll be right. It's like variation 2 but with a initializer function (the constructor);
child instanceof SubType and child instanceof SomeType will return both true
Curiosity: Under the hood instanceof operator does is
function isInstanceOf(obj, Type) {
return Type.prototype.isPrototypeOf(obj);
}
Variation 4 - Overwrite __proto__
When you do Object.create(obj) under the hood it does
function fakeCreate(obj) {
var child = {};
child.__proto__ = obj;
return child;
}
var child = fakeCreate(obj);
The __proto__ property modifies directly the object's hidden [Prototype] property. As this can break JavaScript behaviour, it's not standard. And the standard way is preferred (Object.create).
Pros
Quick and performant
Cons
Non-standard
Dangerous; you can't have a hashmap since the __proto__ key can change the object's prototype
Inheritance
var child = { __proto__: obj };
obj.isPrototypeOf(child); // true
Comment questions
1. var1: what happens in SomeType.call(this)? Is 'call' special function?
Oh, yes, functions are objects so they have methods, I will mention three: .call(), .apply() and .bind()
When you use .call() on a function, you can pass one extra argument, the context, the value of this inside the function, for example:
var obj = {
test: function(arg1, arg2) {
console.log(this);
console.log(arg1);
console.log(arg2);
}
};
// These two ways to invoke the function are equivalent
obj.test('hi', 'lol');
// If we call fn('hi', 'lol') it will receive "window" as "this" so we have to use call.
var fn = obj.test;
fn.call(obj, 'hi', 'lol');
So when we do SomeType.call(this) we are passing the object this to function SomeCall, as you remember this function will add methods to object this.
2. var3: With your "REALLY define properties" do you mean if I use them in functions? Is it a convention? Because getting this.newProperty without it being defined at the same level with other member functions is not a problem.
I mean any property your object will have that is not a function must be defined on the constructor, not on the prototype, otherwise you will face one of the more confusing JS problems. You can see it here, but it's outside of the focus of this question.
3. Var3: what happens if I don't re-assign constructor?
Actually you might not see the difference and this is what makes it a dangerous bug. Every function's prototype object has a constructor property so you can access the constructor from an instance.
function A() { }
// When you create a function automatically, JS does this:
// A.prototype = { constructor: A };
A.prototype.someMethod = function() {
console.log(this.constructor === A); // true
this.constructor.staticMethod();
return new this.constructor();
};
A.staticMethod = function() { };
It's not a best practice because not everybody knows about it, but sometimes it helps. But if you reassign the prototype...
A.prototype = {
someMethod = function() {
console.log(this.constructor === A); // false
console.log(this.constructor === Object); // true
this.constructor.staticMethod();
return new this.constructor();
}
};
A.prototype is a new object, a instance of Object than prototypes Object.prototype and Object.prototype.constructor is Object. Confusing, right? :P
So if you overwrite the prototype and don't reset the "constructor" property, it will refer to Object instead of A, and if you try to use the "constructor" property to access some static method you may get crazy.

I usually settle with returning an object with functions as properties:
var newCat = function (name) {
return {name: name, purr: function () {alert(name + ' purrs')}};
};
var myCat = newCat('Felix');
myCat.name; // 'Felix'
myCat.purr(); // alert fires
You can have inheritance by calling the newCat function and extend the object you get:
var newLion = function (name) {
var lion = newCat(name);
lion.roar = function () {
alert(name + ' roar loudly');
}
return lion;
}
If you want a global cats object:
var cats = (function () {
var newCat = function (name) {
return {
name: name,
purr: function () {
alert(name + ' is purring')
}
};
};
return {
newCat: newCat
};
}());
Now you can call:
var mySecondCat = cats.newCat('Alice');

javascript class inherit from Function class

I like that in javascript, I can create a function, and then add further methods and attributes to that function
myInstance = function() {return 5}
myInstance.attr = 10
I would like to create a class to generate these objects. I assume I have to inherit from the Function base class.
In other words, I would like to:
var myInstance = new myFunctionClass()
var x = myInstance()
// x == 5
But I don't know how to create the myFunctionClass. I have tried the following, but it does not work:
var myFunctionClass = function() {Function.call(this, "return 5")}
myFunctionClass.prototype = new Function()
myInstance = new myFunctionClass()
myInstance()
// I would hope this would return 5, but instead I get
// TypeError: Property 'myInstance' of object #<Object> is not a function
I also tried the more complicated (and more proper?) inheritance method found here: How to "properly" create a custom object in JavaScript?, with no more luck. I have also tried using the util.inherits(myFunctionClass, Function) found in node.js. Still no luck
I have exhausted Google, and therefore feel that I must be missing something fundamental or obvious. Help would be greatly appreciated.

Your trying to inherit from Function. This is a right pain to do. I suggest you do the following instead
Live Example
var Proto = Object.create(Function.prototype);
Object.extend(Proto, {
constructor: function (d) {
console.log("construct, argument : ", d);
this.d = d;
// this is your constructor logic
},
call: function () {
console.log("call", this.d);
// this get's called when you invoke the "function" that is the instance
return "from call";
},
method: function () {
console.log("method");
// some method
return "return from method";
},
// some attr
attr: 42
});
You want to create a prototype object that forms the basis of your "class". It has your generic methods/attributes. It also has a constructor that gets invoked on object construction and a call method that gets invoked when you call the function
var functionFactory = function (proto) {
return function () {
var f = function () {
return f.call.apply(f, arguments);
};
Object.keys(proto).forEach(function (key) {
f[key] = proto[key];
});
f.constructor.apply(f, arguments);
return f;
}
}
A function factory takes a prototype object and returns a factory for it. The returned function when called will give you a new function object that "inherits" from your prototype object.
var protoFactory = functionFactory(proto);
var instance = protoFactory();
Here you create your factory and then create your instance.
However this isn't proper prototypical OO. we are just shallow copying properties of a prototype into a new object. So changes to the prototype will not reflect back to the original object.
If you want real prototypical OO then you need to use a hack.
var f = function () {
// your logic here
};
f.__proto__ = Proto;
Notice how we use the non-standard deprecated .__proto__ and we are mutating the value of [[Prototype]] at run-time which is considered evil.

JS does not allow a constructor to return a function, even though functions are objects. So you cant have an instantiation of a prototype that is itself executable. (Am I right in this? please correct if I'm not, it's an interesting question).
Though you could do a factory function:
var makeCoolFunc = function() {
var f = function() { return 5 };
f.a = 123;
f.b = 'hell yes!'
return f;
};
var func = makeCoolFunc();
var x = func();

You can extend Function and pass the wanted function body as String to the super constructor. The context of the function can be accessed with arguments.callee.
Example for an observable Attribute class:
export default class Attribute extends Function {
constructor(defaultValue){
super("value", "return arguments.callee.apply(arguments);");
this.value = defaultValue;
this.defaultValue = defaultValue;
this.changeListeners = [];
}
apply([value]){
if(value!==undefined){
if(value!==this.value){
var oldValue = this.value;
this.value=value;
this.changeListeners.every((changeListener)=>changeListener(oldValue, value));
}
}
return this.value;
}
clear(){
this.value=undefined;
}
reset(){
this.value=this.defaultValue;
}
addChangeListener(listener){
this.changeListeners.push(listener);
}
removeChangeListener(listener){
this.changeListeners.remove(listener);
}
clearChangeListeners(){
this.changeListeners = [];
}
}
Example usage:
import Attribute from './attribute.js';
var name= new Attribute();
name('foo'); //set value of name to 'foo'
name.addChangeListener((oldValue, newValue)=>{
alert('value changed from ' +oldValue+ ' to ' +newValue);
});
alert(name()); //show value of name: 'foo'
name('baa'); //set value of name to new value 'baa' and trigger change listener

Crockford-style prototypal pattern gotcha; looking for an elegant solution

I often use Crockford's prototypal pattern when writing JavaScript programs. I thought I understood all the "gotchas" involved, but I discovered one I didn't think about before. I'd like to know if anyone has a best practice for handling it.
Here's a simple example:
// Here's the parent object
var MyObject = {
registry: {},
flatAttribute: null,
create: function () {
var o, F = function () {};
F.prototype = this;
o = new F();
return o;
}
};
// instance is an empty object that inherits
// from MyObject
var instance = MyObject.create();
// Attributes can be set on instance without modifying MyObject
instance.flatAttribute = "This is going to be applied to the instance";
// registry doesn't exist on instance, but it exists on
// instance.prototype. MyObject's registry attribute gets
// dug up the prototype chain and altered. It's not possible
// to tell that's happening just by examining this line.
instance.registry.newAttribute = "This is going to be applied to the prototype";
// Inspecting the parent object
// prints "null"
console.log(MyObject.flatAttribute);
// prints "This is going to be applied to the prototype"
console.log(MyObject.registry.newAttribute);
I want to feel safe that any changes that appear to be made to the instance don't propagate up the inheritance change. This is not the case when the attribute is an object and I'm setting a nested property.
A solution is to re-initialize all object attributes on the instance. However, one of the stated advantages of using this pattern is removing re-initialization code from the constructor. I'm thinking about cloning all the object attributes of the parent and setting them on the instance within the create() function:
{ create: function () {
var o, a, F = function () {};
F.prototype = this;
o = new F();
for (a in this) {
if (this.hasOwnProperty(a) && typeof this[a] === 'object') {
// obviously deepclone would need to be implemented
o[a] = deepclone(this[a]);
}
}
return o;
} };
Is there a better way?

There is a very simple solution to ensuring that they are instance variables only, which is to use the this keyword in the constructor.
var MyObject = {
flatAttribute: null,
create: function () {
var o, F = function () {
this.registry = {}
};
F.prototype = this;
o = new F();
return o;
}
};
this ensures that all properties of "instance.registry.*" are local to the instance because the lookup order for javascript opjects is as follows.
object -> prototype -> parent prototype ...
so by adding a variable to the instance in the constructor function named "registry" that will always be found first.
another solution, which I think is more elegant is to not use crockford's (java style) constructors and use a layout that reflects javascripts object system more naturally. most of those gotchas are from the misfit between practice and language.
// instance stuff
var F = function () {
this.registry = {}
};
F.prototype = {
// static attributes here
flatAttribute: null,
methodA: function(){
// code here 'this' is instance object
this.att = 'blah';
}
};
var instanceA = new F();
instanceA.registry['A'] = 'hi';
var instanceB = new F();
instanceB.registry['B'] = 'hello';
instanceA.registry.A == 'hi'; // true
instanceB.registry.B == 'hello'; // true
F.prototype.registry == undefined; // true

Will this give you the expected result? Here I am not using an Object literal, but an instantly instantiated constructor function for the parent object (Base):
var Base = ( function(){
function MyObject(){
this.registry = {},
this.flatAttribute = null;
if (!MyObject.prototype.create)
MyObject.prototype.create = function(){
return new this.constructor();
};
}
return new MyObject;
} )(),
// create 2 instances from Base
instance1 = Base.create(),
instance2 = Base.create();
// assign a property to instance1.registry
instance1.registry.something = 'blabla';
// do the instance properties really belong to the instance?
console.log(instance1.registry.something); //=> 'blabla'
console.log(instance2.registry.something === undefined); //=> true
But it's all a bit virtual. If you don't want to use the new operator (I think that was te whole idea of it), the following offers you a way to do that without the need for a create method :
function Base2(){
if (!(this instanceof Base2)){
return new Base2;
}
this.registry = {},
this.flatAttribute = null;
if (!Base2.prototype.someMethod){
var proto = Base2.prototype;
proto.someMethod = function(){};
//...etc
}
}
//now the following does the same as before:
var instance1 = Base2(),
instance2 = Base2();
// assign a property to instance1.registry
instance1.registry.something = 'blabla';
// do the instance properties really belong to the instance?
console.log(instance1.registry.something); //=> 'blabla'
console.log(instance2.registry.something === undefined); //=> true
Example in a jsfiddle

I always like to keep in mind that object.Create is one option, and not the only way of achieving non-classical inheritance in javascript.
For myself, I always find that Object.create works best when I want to inherit elements from the parent objects prototype chain (i.e. methods that I'd like to be able to apply to the inheriting object).
--
For simple "Own Property" inheritance, Object.create is largely unnecessary. When I want to inherit own properties, i prefer to use the popular Mixin & Extend patterns (which simply copy one object's own properties to another, without worrying about prototype or "new").
In the Stoyan Stefanov book "Javascript Patterns" he gives an example of a deep extend function that does what you're looking for recursively, and includes support for properties that are arrays as well as standard key/value objects:
function extendDeep(parent, child){
var i,
toStr = Object.prototype.toString,
astr = "[object Array]";
child = child || {};
for (i in parent) {
if (parent.hasOwnProperty(i)) {
if (typeof parent[i] === "object") {
child[i] = (toStr.call(parent[i]) === astr) ? [] : {};
extendDeep(parent[i], child[i]);
} else {
child[i] = parent[i];
}
}
}
return child;
}
If you're using jQuery, jQuery.extend() has an optional "deep" argument that lets you extend an object in near-identical fashion.

i think you're using prototypal inheritance to simulate a classic, Object Oriented inheritance.
What are you trying to do is to stop the prototype method lookup which limits its expressiveness, so why using it? You can achieve the same effect by using this functional pattern:
var MyObject = function() {
// Declare here shared vars
var global = "All instances shares me!";
return {
'create': function() {
var flatAttribute;
var register = {};
return {
// Declare here public getters/setters
'register': (function() {
return register;
})(),
'flatAttribute': (function() {
return flatAttribute;
})(),
'global': (function() {
return global;
})()
};
}
};
}();
var instance1 = MyObject.create();
var instance2 = MyObject.create();
instance1.register.newAttr = "This is local to instance1";
instance2.register.newAttr = "This is local to instance2";
// Print local (instance) var
console.log(instance1.register.newAttr);
console.log(instance2.register.newAttr);
// Print global var
console.log(instance1.global);
console.log(instance2.global);
Code on jsFiddle

Getter/setter in constructor

I recently read about the fact that there is a possibility of defining getters/setters in JavaScript. It seems extremely helpful - the setter is a kind of 'helper' which can parse the value to be set first, before actually setting it.
For example, I currently have this code:
var obj = function(value) {
var test = !!value; // 'test' has to be a boolean
return {
get test() { return test },
set test(value) { test = !!value }
};
};
var instance = new obj(true);
This code always converts value to a boolean. So if you code instance.test = 0, then instance.test === false.
However, for this to work you have to actually return an object, which means that the new instance is not of type obj but just is a plain object. This means that changing the prototype of obj has no effect on instances. For example, this does not work - instance.func is undefined:
obj.prototype.func = function() { console.log(this.value); };
because instance is not of type obj. To get the prototype functions work, I guess I should not return a plain object, but rather not return anything so that instance would just be of type obj, like a regular constructor works.
The problem then is how to implement getters/setters? I can only find articles describing how to add these to an object, not as being part of the constructor of a custom type.
So how do I implement getters/setters in the constructor so as to be able to both use getters/setters and extending the prototype?

You can't do that.
You can set setter/getters for properties of objects though. I advice you use ES5 Object.defineProperties though. of course this only works in modern browsers.
var obj = function() {
...
Object.defineProperties(this, {
"test": {
"get": function() { ... },
"set": function() { ... }
}
});
}
obj.prototype.func = function() { ... }
var o = new obj;
o.test;
o.func();

Usually you want class methods. The answer by #Raynos on May 7, 2011 gets the job done, but it defines an instance method, not a class method.
The following illustrates a class definition with a the getter and setter being part of the class. This definition is a lot like the answer by #Raynos, but with two differences in the code: (1) The "defineProperties()" action has been moved out of the constructor. (2) The argument to "defineProperties()"as been changed from the instance object "this", to the constructor's prototype object.
function TheConstructor(side) {
this.side = side;
}
Object.defineProperties(TheConstructor.prototype, {
area: {
get: function() { return this.side * this.side; }
,set: function(val) { this.side = Math.sqrt(val); }
}
});
// Test code:
var anInstance = new TheConstructor(2);
console.log("initial Area:"+anInstance.area);
anInstance.area = 9;
console.log("modified Area:"+anInstance.area);
Which produces these results:
initial Area:4
modified Area:9
Although usually the distinction between class versus instance
definition is just a matter of style, there is a purpose to
good style, and there is a case where the distinction matters:
the memoized getter. The purpose for a memoized getter is
described here: Smart/self-overwriting/lazy getters
Define the getter at the class level when the memoized value is to
pertain to the entire class. For example, a configuration file
should be read only once; the resulting values should then apply
for the duration of the program. The following sample code
defines a memoized getter at the class level.
function configureMe() {
return 42;
}
Object.defineProperties(TheConstructor.prototype, {
memoizedConfigParam: {
get: function() {
delete TheConstructor.prototype.memoizedConfigParam;
return TheConstructor.prototype.memoizedConfigParam = configureMe();
}
,configurable: true
}
});
// Test code:
console.log("memoizedConfigParam:"+anInstance.memoizedConfigParam);
Produces:
memoizedConfigParam:42
As can be seen in the example, memoized getters have the
characteristic that the getter function deletes itself,
then replaces itself with a simple value that
(presumably) will never change.
Note that 'configurable' must be set to 'true'.
Define the getter at the instance level when the memoized value
depends upon the contents of instance. The definition moves
inside the constructor, and the object of attention is 'this'.
function TheConstructorI(side) {
this.side = side;
Object.defineProperties(this, {
memoizedCalculation: {
get: function() {
delete this.memoizedCalculation;
return this.memoizedCalculation = this.expensiveOperation();
}
,configurable: true
}
});
}
TheConstructorI.prototype.expensiveOperation = function() {
return this.side * this.side * this.side;
}
//Test code:
var instance2 = new TheConstructorI(2);
var instance3 = new TheConstructorI(3);
console.log("memoizedCalculation 2:"+instance2.memoizedCalculation);
console.log("memoizedCalculation 3:"+instance3.memoizedCalculation);
Produces:
memoizedCalculation 2:8
memoizedCalculation 3:27
If you want to guarantee (rather than presume) that the memoized
value will never be changed, the 'writable' attribute needs to
be changed. That makes the code a bit more complicated.
function TheConstructorJ(side) {
this.side = side;
Object.defineProperties(this, {
memoizedCalculation: {
get: function() {
delete this.memoizedCalculation;
Object.defineProperty( this, 'memoizedCalculation'
,{ value : this.expensiveOperation()
,writable : false
});
return this.memoizedCalculation;
}
,configurable: true
}
});
}
TheConstructorJ.prototype.expensiveOperation = function() {
return this.side * this.side * this.side;
}
//Test code:
var instanceJ = new TheConstructorJ(2);
console.log("memoizedCalculation:"+instanceJ.memoizedCalculation);
instanceJ.memoizedCalculation = 42; // results in error
Produces:
memoizedCalculation:8
>Uncaught TypeError: Cannot assign to read only property 'memoizedCalculation' of object '#<TheConstructorJ>'
The OP's original question, from March 7, 2011, presented basic
getter and setter syntax, noted that it worked on an object but
not on 'this', and asked how to define getters and setters within
a constructor. In addition to all the examples above, there is
also a "cheap-shot" way of doing it: create a new object within
the constructor, like the OP did, but then assign the object to
be a member within 'this'. So, the original code would look like
this:
var MyClass = function(value) {
var test = !!value; // 'test' has to be a boolean
this.data = {
get test() { return test },
set test(value) { test = !!value }
};
};
var instance = new MyClass(true);
// But now 'data' is part of the access path
instance.data.test = 0;
console.log(instance.data.test);
Produces:
false
Believe it or not, I have actually run into situations where
this "cheap-shot" is the best solution. Specifically, I used this
technique when I had records from several tables encapsulated within
a single class, and wanted to present a unified view as though
they were a single record called 'data'.
Have fun.
IAM_AL_X

Update for ES6 -- have a look at section 19.3.1 of Alex Rauschmayer's book Exploring ES6 http://exploringjs.com/es6/ch_maps-sets.html#sec_weakmaps-private-data which demonstrates how to use WeakMaps with getters and setters to hold private data. Combining with section 16.2.2.3 http://exploringjs.com/es6/ch_classes.html#leanpub-auto-getters-and-setters would result in something like
# module test_WeakMap_getter.js
var _MyClassProp = new WeakMap();
class MyClass {
get prop() {
return _MyClassProp.get( this );
}
set prop(value) {
_MyClassProp.set( this, value );
}
}
var mc = new MyClass();
mc.prop = 5 ;
console.log( 'My value is', mc.prop );
$ node --use_strict test_WeakMap_getter.js
My value is 5

function Obj(value){
this.value = !!value;
}
Obj.prototype = {
get test () {
return this.value;``
},
set test (value) {
this.value = !!this.value;
}
};
var obj = new Obj(true);

I know this might be extremely late but I figured out a different way to accomplish what you want and for the sake of people, like myself, googling for an answer to this here it is.
function Constructor(input){
this.input = input;
}
Object.__defineGetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "value", function(){
return this.input * 2;
});
var test = new Constructor(5);
alert(test.value) // 10
I've tested this in chrome, safari, mobile safari, firefox and they all work (latest versions of course)

#Alex I see it as more option and more power, programming is art, #Nat share his finding with us, and for that I thank him. Maybe someone want to do it that way.
I'm sure the setter version is the same but just changing that g to a s.
i.g:
function Constructor(input){
this.input = input;
}
Object.__defineGetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "value", function(){
return this.input * 2;
});
Object.__defineSetter__.call(Constructor.prototype, "bar", function(foo){
return this.input *= foo;
});
var test = new Constructor(5);
console.log(test.value); // 10
test.bar = 5;
console.log(test.input); //25
With that said, this feature is deprecated, advices to not to use in production coding.