Is the follwing true: Java getters and setters are just methods.
I know they are implemented to manipulate or get the value of private ... attributes/fields. But is it okay to call them methods?
Yes it's okay they are just methods!
Technically, from the language and VM point of view, yes, they are just methods.
Some libraries and frameworks, however recognize their special nature. For example, JPA may be used to map “properties” by annotating either fields or methods. Beans Binding library uses them to access properties, so if you have a getText() / setText() pair on some object, then you can bind the “text” property to some other property of some other object (you'll still have to do the addPropertyChangeListener magic, though). But this is just a “convention over configuration” phenomena combined with the power of Reflection.
As per JLS,
A method declares executable code that can be invoked, passing a fixed number of values as arguments.
And this criterias satisfies to getters and setters as well; so we can say the are "methods" in java language.
Luckily I was able to pull Craig Larman's "Applying UML and Patterns" book section in google. As quoted
Accessing methods retrieve(accessor method) or set(mutator method)
attributes. In some languages such as Java it is a common idiom to
have an accessor and mutator for each attribute, and to declare all
attributes private(to enforce data encapsulation). The methods are
excluded in the class diagram because of the high noise-to-value ratio
they generate."
Java Getters and Setters are accessor methods. So, yes, they are methods.
Many programmers (Java or otherwise) may feel annoyed at constantly writing getXXX() and setXXX(type t) for all of their private fields, especially if they are basically just one line methods. For this case, there are some annotation libraries (like Lombak) that generate these through the power of metaprogramming and Java annotations and reflection.
However, there are many reasons to explicitly write getters/setters. A good list can be found here. But I really like this answer, too.
Yes, essentially they are methods.
The standard definition for a Java method is as follows;
A method is a set of code which is referred to by name and can be called (invoked) at any point in a program simply by utilizing the method's name.
-https://mathbits.com/MathBits/Java/Methods/Lesson1.htm
So you can consider methods as small programs within a class itself that allows us to fulfill specific tasks, which is also exactly what getters and setters do.
Related
Java 14 introduced records feature. Record creates getter with the same name as field, so one would write print(person.name()) for example. But old Java bean convention dictates that one should name this method as getName().
Using both styles in the same code base does not look very nice. Migrating everything to records is not possible, as they are too limited to replace all use-cases.
Is there any official or semi-official guidelines how to name getters and setters after Java 14 in new code?
Quote from JEP 359:
It is not a goal to declare "war on boilerplate"; in particular, it is not a goal to address the problems of mutable classes using the JavaBean naming conventions.
My understanding, based on the same document is that records are transparent holders for shallowly immutable data.
That being said:
Records are not the place to look for getters/setters syntactical sugar, as they are not meant to replace JavaBeans.
I strongly agree with you that JavaBeans are too verbose. Maybe an additional feature (called beans instead of records) could be implemented - very similar behavior with the records feature but that would permit mutability. In that case, records and beans would not be mutually exclusive.
As it has been mentioned, records are in preview mode. Let's see what the feedback from community would be.
All in all, IMHO they are a step forward... I wrote this example set where you can see a code reduction to ~15% LOC from standard JavaBeans.
Also, note that records behave like normal classes: they can be declared top level or nested, they can be generic, they can implement interfaces (from the same document). You can actually partly simulate JavaBeans (only getters would make sense, though) by extracting an interface containing the getters - however that would be a lot of work and not a really clean solution...
So, based on the logic above, to address your question, no - I didn't see any (semi)official guideline for getters and setters and I don't think that there is a motivation for it right now because, again, records are not a replacement for JavaBeans...
The record spec is now "final" as of Java 17 and this naming convention discrepancy has unfortunately not been addressed. I stumbled upon it when attempting to leverage Records as shallow holder classes to implement interfaces part of an existing domain model.
Whilst this isn't as neat a solution as I'd like, Records can have methods, so you could add "legacy" getters to your record, as in the following (contrived but simple) example.
public interface Nameable {
public String getName();
}
public record Person(String name) implements Nameable {
public String getName() {
return name; // or return name();
}
}
At least this allows client code to continue to use that tried and tested (over 20 years old) convention, which - let's face it - is used far more than in pure JavaBeans context.
You could say that the language designers have lived up to their remit of "not declaring war on boilerplate"
I stumbled up this when researching naming conventions for my project. Looking at the "recent" additions to the std lib (e.g. Path, FileSystem, HttpRequest, ...) the only more-or-less "pattern" I could detect was that .prop() implies direct, unmodified access to the field value, and thus existance of the field with that very type.
Whereas "getXXX" conveys that you cannot/should not assume the existence of a field. This property might be calculated, direct field access or read-only wrapped (e.g. List.copyOf) or converted.
So my conclusion is: if you want to communicate "structure" or enforce the precence of fields use .prop(). In all other cases stick to getXXX as it is more flexible (implementers can be entity classes, records or service classes.
Btw: I am aware that there are big offenders to this logic even in the jdk. e.g. BigDecimal that's why I focused on more recent additions.
In Java records, object fields must be private and final.
So there is just one kind of getter and one kind of setter possible.
In Java classes, object fields may be private or public.
In the latter type of field, one can get or set them simply by adding a period and the field name, e.g.
Employee emp = new Employee(); // Nullary constructor
emp.name = "John Schmidt"; // Setter
. . .
. . .
if (emp.name != "Buddy") // Getter
{
emp.bonus = 100.00;
}
Non-private fields are used a lot in Android apps to save memory and time extracting data. But there's no reason not to use them in Java where it's safe to do so.
Now, if you change away from the usual way in Java classes to something like that used in record types, e.g.
String name = emp.name(); // New getter convention for private field
you have a serious risk of confusion by code readers who might misinterpret this as a non-private object field.
And if you change the record getter to what is used in Java objects, i.e.
obj.getField()
then there is a risk of confusion by coder reviewers and possibly a compiler may treat it as a Java object, depending on execution decision criteria.
In short, it's a different type of object to the normal Java class or enum. Its accessors indicate this new type unambiguously.
That's how I see it anyhow.
Maybe someone on the Java development committee may be able to enlighten us further.
I've just discovered that reading and writing any private field of any object could be done without any accessor, but using reflection.
So, my question is: in the case of an application which uses no third technology (e.g. EL) but JAVA, if I need a POJO that contains let say 20 fields, is it more interesting to implement 40 accessors, or to use reflection to access them? I guess some pros and cons, but any experience or feedback would be great :)
You can, but it wouldn't be very maintainable, so: don't do it. The advantages of using getter/setter to access members is, that you are able to hide the accessor, initialize lazy and you will be able to refactor easily (e.g. with IDEA or Eclipse).
You can access object fields and methods using reflection, but you should not.
This article lists at least 2 measurable reasons why not:
Performance. Accessing object methods/fields using reflection is slower than accessing via accessors.
Security restrictions
And the greatest drawback is non-maintainability, quoting from the article below:
A more serious drawback for many applications is that using reflection
can obscure what's actually going on inside your code. Programmers
expect to see the logic of a program in the source code, and
techniques such as reflection that bypass the source code can create
maintenance problems.
It's generally better to access your fields through getters, even if you're using reflection to figure out what fields are available. You can just as easily figure out what getters are available via reflection and call those getter methods. This allows you to:
1) Dynamically figure out what data is available.
2) Explicitly state which fields should be made available and which fields should be private.
3) Explicitly override a getter's behavior to suit your needs.
In most normal cases, reflection is used for figuring out what data is available on an object. You should not use reflection as a general replacement for getters and setters. Otherwise, your code will become truly unmaintainable.
Reflection is only good for specific use cases where one needs to do magic on objects without being able to assume a lot about their structure. Specifically, if your JVM uses a SecurityManager, it might very well prevent code to set privates through reflection.
You could look at this other question for more information about the security manager.
It's well known that Python classes cannot have truly private members. The not-as-obvious implication of this is that Java classes' privates are made public to Jython. (Hide thy nakedness, Java!)
So, when using Jython, and accessing a Java classes' privates that would usually be exposed to other Java classes through getters and setters, do you bother to use those methods? Or do you just access the privates directly?
The more pertinent question would be, should you use the getters and setters? If there are side-effects of the methods, then the answer would undoubtedly be 'yes', but if the methods are just there because someone thought that a putting getters and setters everywhere is The Right Thing to do (IMO it's not, just make the damn thing public), then is there any reason to bother with all of Java's extra ceremony?
Although Jython can make non-public Java members accessible from everywhere, this is a feature that must be enabled explicitly. This alone is reason enough for me to honor the visibility of Java classes, otherwise you are risking works on my machine problems.
More principially, you should use the provided property accessors for classes that are not under your control unless you have a very good reason not to: You never know if future versions of the class will do more than just the bare minimum in their getters/setters.
Jython has the nice feature of hiding the accessor methods of JavaBean properties. Jython converts x.foo += 5 into x.setFoo(x.getFoo() + 5. Because usually the backing field of a property has the same name as the property itself, you may have confused this feature with "Jython makes the backing field accessible" even if it does not. I would definitively use this property-accessed-like-fields syntax of Jython: it makes your code more concise and easier to read.
This question already has answers here:
Why use getters and setters/accessors?
(37 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I have seen member variables given a private modifier and then using getter/setter methods just to set and get the values of the variable (in the name of standardization).
Why not then make the variable public itself (Other than cases like spring framework which depends on getter/setters for IOC etc). It serves the purpose.
In C# I have seen getter/setter with Capitalization of the member variable. Why not make the variable public itself?
In order to get a stable API from the first shot. The Java gurus thought that if later on, you might want to have some extra logic when setting/getting an instance member, you don't want to break existing API by replacing public fields with public methods. This is the main reason in Java.
In the case of C#, public properties are used instead of public fields because of binary interface compatibility. Someone asked a similar question right here, on SO.
So, it's all about encapsulating some logic while still preserving interface for... future proofing.
Even back in 2003 it was known that getter and setter methods are evil.
Because interfaces only allow for specifying methods, not variables. Interfaces are the building stones of API's.
Hence, to access a field through an interface, you need to have the getter and setter.
This is done so you can change the getter or setter implementation in your public API after you release it. Using public fields, you wouldn't be able to check values for validity.
Encapsulation
You also mentioned C# properties. These are really just getters/setters under the hood, but with a more concise syntax.
It's part of encapsulation: abstracting a class's interface (the "getters" and "setters") from its implementation (using an instance variable). While you might decide to implement the behaviour through direct access to an instance variable today, you might want to do it differently tomorrow. Say you need to retrieve the value over the network instead of storing it locally—if you have encapsulated the behaviour, that's a trivial change. If other objects are relying on direct access to an instance variable, though, you're stuck.
The most and foremost use for getters and setters in Java is to annoy the developers. The second most important use is to clutter the code with useless noise. Additionally, it forces you to use a different name for the same thing, depending on where you are (inside or outside the class). Not to forget the added ambiguity (do you call the getter inside the class or do you use the field directly?) Next, they are used to allow access to private data but that's just a minor side effect ;)
In other programming languages, the compiler will generate them for you (unless, of course, you provide your own implementations). In Delphi, for example, you have read and write modifiers for fields (just like private, static or final in Java). The define if you'll have a getter or setter generated for you.
Unlike the Delphi guys, the Java guys wanted everything to be explicit. "If it's not in the source, it's not there". So the only solution was to force people to write all the getters and setters manually. Even worse, people have to use a different name for the same thing.
Getters and setters may very well be the greatest lie ever told. They are considered a sign of good design, while the opposite is true. New programmers should be taught proper encapsulation, not to write dumb data carrier classes that contain nothing but getters and setters.
(The idea that you need getters and setters to future-proof your code if you want to change the implementation later on is an obvious case of YAGNI. But that is really beside the point.)
The most common reason is a poor understanding of encapsulation. When the developer believes that encapsulating stuff really just means getters & setters rather than encapsulating behavour.
The valid reasons for having getters/setters are:
1) You are making a generic¹ object such as JComponent. By using a getter/setter rather than direct access to the variable means that you can do some pre-processing on said variable first (such as validate it is with a set range) or change the underlying implementation (switching from an int to a BigInteger without changing the public API).
2) Your DI framework does not support ctor injection. By having just a setter you can ensure that the variable is only set once.
3) (Ties in with #1) To allow tools to interact with your object. By using such a simple convention then GUI tools can easily get all the settings for a given component. An example of this would be the UI builder in NetBeans.
¹ Of the not-Generic type. Bad word to use I know, please suggest an alternative.
Having a setter allows you
perform validation
to fire a property changed event if the new value is different from the previous value
In the case in question there is no need for getter and setter if the value is simply read or written.
Well,
OOP. ;)
Or to be a little more precise:
Getters and Setters are used to provide a defined interface to a classes
properties. Check the OOP link, it describes the concepts more in detail...
K
You'd need encapsulate those attributes if there are constraints for example or to make general validity checks or post events on changes or whatever. The basic use is hiding the attribute from the "outer world".
Some Java frameworks require them (JavaBeans I think).
-- Edit
Some posters are trying to say this is about encapsulation. It isn't.
Encapsulation is about hiding the implementation details of your object, and exposing only relevant functions.
Providing a get/set that does nothing but set a value does not accomplish this at all, and the only reason for them is:
Perform some additional validation before set/get
Get the variable from somewhere else
Integrate with frameworks (EJB)
There are several reasons:
Some Java APIs rely on them (e.g. Servlet API);
making non-final variable public is considered to be a bad style;
further code support: if sometime in future you`ll need to perform some actions before each access/mutation (get/set) of the variable, you will have less problems with it.
In C# constructions like
public int Age
{
get
{
return (int)(today() - m_BirthDate);
}
}
are are just syntactic sugar.
property idea is core in OOP (Object oriented programming). But problem is that Java introduce them not in core of language (syntax / JVM), but (probably few years later??? historics of Java say better) as convention: pair of consistent getters/setter is property in bean, concept of property is in libraries, not in core.
This generate problem in few libraries, framework. Is single getter a read only property or not? That is the question. I.e.in JPA entities if You want implement classic method (algorithm) beggining with "get" like getCurrentTine() is the best mark by #Transient to disable interpretation like property having value.
In other words, I like very much property concept in C# designed 10 years later and better. BTW C# property has getter/setter too, but sometimes/partially hidden, visible at low level debugging. Free from question "why getter" etc ...
In Java world is interesting to read about Groovy concept of property (hidden getter/setter in different way than C#) http://www.groovy-lang.org/objectorientation.html#_fields_and_properties
EDIT: from real life, every java object has getClass() method, tools from java.beans.BeanInfo package report this as property "class", but this not true. It isn't property (readonly property) in full sense. I imagine properties like C# (with his internal hidden name get_Something1) hasn't conflict with "functional" GetSomething2()
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 months ago.
Improve this question
I am writing some immutable types in Java and wonder about how to name the accessor methods.
The Java Bean specification says that the names of accessors should be getX or isX, but since the fields are final, there is no setter and the fields are more like attributes than properties.
There for I'd prefer naming the getter methods like:
public T x()
rather than
public T getX()
Please note as an example:
public int java.lang.String#length()
(Which might have been specified so early in the Java history, so the conventions where not there yet.)
The immutable objects expose means to create modified versions of themselves through methods which I've tried to name like a verb rather than MyObject MyObject#setX(), this should limit the risk of the user calling setX() and think that the object has changed. So: MyObject MyObject#shine(newShineLevel).
This is not always possible easy though. How would you name a method for adjusting an endpoint in a rectangle other than Rectangle.setUpperLeft()? Rectangle.adjustUpperLeft maybe, but now we're just moving away from the conventions.
I guess the question is relevant for all languages, but this questions concern Java in particular.
If these classes may be used with any reflection based framework then you are better off staying with the getX convention. For example, accessing properties in JSPs and other templating systems via an expression "x.y" requires that the object have a method getY().
In my opinion, the get prefix is really only mandatory if you're writing a bean. There are lots of examples of where get is not used. not only String.length(). You find it in the primitive wrapper classes (intValue(), doubleValue(), booleanValue(), ...), enums (name() and ordinal()) and collections (size()), and the way annotations were design also seems to encourage the get-less style. (Josh Bloch covers the subject in Effective Java, and advocates the more readable get-less style unless you're actually writing a bean.)
So: Use the get prefix and your object can be used as a bean. Ditch it, and your code gets easier to read. It's up to you to decide what you think is more important.
Even for immutable types, the convention getX() still stands. Some examples:
java.lang.Integer.getInteger()
java.lang.Boolean.getBoolean()
It is true that there are also many examples such as java.lang.String.length(), but the common convention is to use getX. Just as mentioned in the answer below, it is crucial to separate between an atomic get operation, and a method which does some calculations on the data.
Also worth mentioning that plain java beans in many frameworks depend on the fact that getters/setters are conveniently named getX and setX.
The convention in Java for accessing properties of a class -- including immutable classes -- is to use the get and set prefixes so I would recommend using public final T getX().
The reason the length() method on a String isn't called getLength() is because there is no property called length on the String class.
I'd stick with the "get" convention simply because so many other tools work with it. Jakara Commons BeanUtils for example. Lots of tools/libraries will work by default if you have the right naming, but require configuration if you've deviated from the bean accessors convention.
I'm not disagreeing with you reasoning for deviating, I just think you're probably better off in the long run sticking with the get/set convention.
It's a good idea to use get--never mandatory, but people will automatically know what it's for.
Get does not imply that you have that as a member variable, in fact it's supposed to hide that fact. It can easily be giving access to a computed value.
size(), length(), etc were created before Borland found they needed the get/set concept to implement their GUI builder (I'm not sure exactly who came up with the idea, but that was the reason).
intValue, doubleValue etc are not getters, they are converters and therefore are named differently.
Now, all that said, if you really want to use x or getX it is your choice. getters and setters are no longer needed for most decent toolsets, they will use annotations instead--just be ready for a few people to take a few extra seconds typing "get" followed by "ctrl-space" and not finding what they are after.