We Keep Coding

When to use a local access modifier? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
What is the difference between public, protected, package-private and private in Java?
(30 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
While working in intelliJ I was recommended to make a method be localized - by removing the access modifier. I realized I don't really know which modifier to use and when and would like some clarification.
I read this post: What is the difference between Public, Private, Protected, and Nothing?
and as that's for C#, although they're similar, I wanted to make sure it's not too different.
I also read the Javadoc post here: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/accesscontrol.html
and was still a bit skeptical.
Thanks in advanced!

Access modifiers help with the OOP principle of encapsulation. If you create a well-written class anyone will be able to use it without knowing all the internal details of how it works. When you define a method as public any code that uses your class will have access to that method. You only want to expose methods the end user of your class will need. If it's a helper method that's does some internal calculation relevant only inside your class, declare it as private. It will cut down on the methods available to the end user and make your class much easier to use. Here's an example:
Public Class Car {
private int speed;
private float fuelNeeded;
private float afRatio = 14.7;
public void speedUp { speed++; }
public void speedDown { speed--; }
public float getFuelNeeded {
calculateFuelNeeded(speed);
return fuelNeeded;
}
private void calculateFuelNeeded (int speed) {
// Do some complex calculation
fuelNeeded = someValue / afRatio;
}
}
Anyone who creates a Car object will have three methods available, speedUp, speedDown, and getFuelNeeded. calculateFuelNeeded is only used internally by the class, so there's no reason for the user to see it. This way they don't need to know how the amount is calculated, or when the method needs to be called, or what values it sets internally. They just get the value easily with getFuelNeeded();
When declaring variables, it is usually always correct to declare them private, having a public get() and set() method for any that need to be accessed from outside the class. The main reason for this is to prevent an outside user from setting the value something invalid. In our Car class, afRatio needs to be nonzero because we are using it as a divisor. If we declare it as public, a user could easily write this code:
Car car = new Car();
car.afRatio = 0;
someFloat = car.getFuelNeeded();
Of course this would cause our class to throw an ArithmeticException for divison by zero. However, if we did this:
private afRatio = 14.7;
public void setAfRatio(float ratio) {
if(ratio <= 0)
throw new IllegalArgumentException("A/F ratio must be greater than zero");
afRatio = ratio;
}
This allows us to check user given parameters and ensure our variables don't get set to some invalid value.

Better to change parent's field or override getter?

Let's say I have a Projectile class which acts as a base class for all projectiles in my game. This contains default values for maximum speed, gravity coefficient, bounce coefficient, etc.
public abstract class Projectile {
protected float maxSpeed = 100.0f;
protected float gravityCoefficient = 1.0f;
protected float bounceCoefficient = 1.0f;
...
}
I then have a bunch of subclasses, each of which may choose to override some of these default values.
Which is the better approach here?
1. Set field values in child constructor
public class Arrow {
public Arrow(){
super();
maxSpeed = 200.0f;
}
}
2. Make child override getter
public class Arrow {
public float getMaxSpeed(){
return 200.0f;
}
}
I am inclined to say that the first approach is better, since it means the field can be accessed directly without the need for any extra function calls. However, it does mean that the value is set twice during object creation, once by the parent and once by the child.
Am I missing anything here? Is there, perhaps, another approach?

Intuitively, the maximum speed of any particular projectile is unlikely to vary over its lifetime (even in the case where different instances of the same type can have different maximum speeds), therefore I would favour a final field for it. I would also favour making it final - I very rarely use non-private fields, other than for genuine constants.
As you have some state (the field) for Projectile, I would avoid allowing the confusion of having the maximum speed has revealed by getMaxSpeed differing from the field.
I would probably design it like this:
public abstract class Projectile {
private final float maxSpeed;
protected Projectile(float maxSpeed) {
this.maxSpeed = maxSpeed;
}
// Only if you really need this...
protected Projectile() {
this(200f);
}
public final getMaxSpeed() {
return maxSpeed;
}
}
public class Arrow extends Projectile {
public Arrow() {
super(100f);
}
}
The gravity coefficient and bounce coefficient may be treated in a similar way - or if all of these really act as "the same values for every instance of a particular type" you could introduce a new class to represent these constants, which separates the varying state of instances of a type from the constant restrictions/coefficients - and each instance could just have a final reference to an instance of that new class. Unfortunately Java (and at least some similar languages) don't really model this kind of hierarchy well. It's always an annoyance :(

you should have a setter and use it, that is what setters are for. It will allow you to keep the field private. The other benefit is that using Java Bean convention will allow you to use libraries such as Apache Commons BeanUtils to populate and manipulate your Objects. You will also be able to persist your data in DB or file.
public abstract class Projectile {
private float maxSpeed = 100.0f; // default
protected void setMaxSpeed(float newSpeed) {
maxSpeed = newSpeed;
}
}
public class Arrow extends Projectile {
public Arrow() {
super();
setMaxSpeed(200.0f); // arrow specific values
}
}

First approach. Declare a method named modifyDefaults() in your abstract base class. Implement it in each class and call in the constructor so that whenever someone sees abstract class, it can be concluded that you will be modifying defaults in children.
Or just hand over responsibility of Projectile creation to a projectileFactory if there are only a few deciding parameters.

Your inclination towards the first answer should be. It does clearly state the following:
The child class has it's responsibility of creating it's own instance variables (properties)
Overriding of getter, though sounds good at certain views, doesn't usually give a good maintainability. Constructor clearly states the extra set of property defaults whatsoever very cleanly.
I'm not sure about your design, but if you have your super class which doesn't have state of it's own, try making it abstract and the design changes completely than we discussed in that case (option 2 might be considered that time).

For java, compiler optimization and JIT optimization are of great importance for the improvement of performance.
The second piece of code will be much more easier to be optimized with no worry of extra operations.

Java: When to use attributes, when to use method parameters?

I tried googling and searching for this question but somehow couldn't find anything relevant about it. I'm wondering if there is a bbest-practise guide on when to use attributes in a class and when not, but rather use parameters to the single methods.
Many cases are clear to me, e.g.
public class Dog
{
private name;
public setName(...) {....}
}
But sometimes it's not clear to me what's better to use.
E.g. the following, either use:
public class calculation
XYZ bla;
public calculation(XYZ something)
{
this.bla = something;
}
public void calc1()
{
// some calculations with this.bla
}
public void calc1()
{
// some more calculations with this.bla
}
public XYZ getBla()
{
return this.bla;
}
}
or maybe do:
public class calculation
public calculation() {}
public static XYZ calc1(XYZ bla) // maybe static, if not dependant on other attributes/instance-variables etc
{
// some calculations with bla
return bla;
}
public static XYZ calc1() // maybe static, if not dependant on other attributes/instance-variables etc
{
// some more calculations with bla
return bla;
}
}
I mean you can argue for both cases. I see advantages and maybe disadvantages for both different styles, but somehow I prefer the second one as far as long as there are not too many arguments/parameters needed. Sure, if I need many many more attributes etc., then the first one will be better, simpler etc. because I dont need to pass so many parameters to the method...
Just a question of personal style?
Or how to decide for one approach?
Thanks
EDIT: A better example: I'm curently doing much image processing and the question would be wether to store the image internally in the state of the object or not. I'm currently NOT doing it because I'm using static methods, and psasing the image itself I to each method:
public class ImageProcessing
{
/**
*
*/
public static Mat cannyEdges(Mat I, int low, int high)
{
// ...
return I;
}
public static Mat cannyEdges(Mat I)
{
return ImageProcessing.cannyEdges(I, ContourDetection.CANNY_LOWTHRES, ContourDetection.CANNY_HIGHTHRES);
}
/**
*
*/
public static Mat getHoughLines(Mat Edges, ...some_conf_vars...)
{
// ...
return I;
}
}
and then I'm calling it from the outside like this e.g.:
// here: read image to I...
Mat edges = ImageProcessing.cannyEdges(I, 20, 100);
Mat lines = ImageProcessing.getHoughLines(I);
// draw lines...
question is: Does I belong to the state of the object? Would it make sense to convert to non-static and then use for example:
// here: read image to I...
ImageProcessing IP = new ImageProcessing(I);
IP.cannyEdges(20, 100); // CHANGE OF cannyEdges: Also save `edges` internally as property!?
IP.calcHoughLines(); // also save the lines internally maybe?
Mat lines = IP.getLines();
// draw lines...
is this nicer?
The question arising is then again: Should I for example store the result of getHoughLines() (i.e. the lines) internally or should I directly return it to the caller!?

I can use some examples:
public class Multiplier {
private int number;
public Multiplier(int number) {
this.number = number;
}
public int multiply(int other) {
return number * other;
}
}
This class could be instantiated like:
Multiplier multiplyByTwo = new Multiplier(2);
I could use it to multiply many elements on a list by 2.
But I could need to multiply pairs of numbers. So the following class could be what I neeed:
public class Multiplier {
public static int multiply(int number, int other) {
return number * other;
}
}
I could make it static since no state is needed.
This example could be used like this on a list:
for (int x:listOfInts) {
print(Multiplier.multiply(x * 2));
}
But probably in this specific case the 1st example was nicer.
for (int x:listOfInts) {
print(multiplyByTwo(x));
}
or even nicer used with a Java 8 ''map''
If I need to get the elements of the multiplication and the result at many points in my code i could do.
class Multiplier {
private int x;
private int y;
public int multiply() {
return x * y;
}
// getters and setters for x and y
}
In this last case I may consider not adding setters and pass x, y in the constructor.
Every structure could be used in some specific cases.

It's not entirely a question of personal style. But nevertheless, I assume that this topic might be slightly controversial (opinion-based) and thus not perfectly suited for a Q/A-site.
However, the obvious question is: Does an object of the respective class really carry a state? That is, is there any benefit in having the state represented by an instance? If the sole purpose of the instance is to be an accumulator of variables that are modified with a sequence of set... calls and a final call to an execute() method, then there is usually no real justification for such an instance - except for avoiding to have a static method with "many" parameters.
I think that the advantages of static methods outweigh most of the potential clumsiness of calling a method with "many" parameters. One of the most important ones is probably that the approach with static methods doesn't increase the state space. Every field is another dimension in the state space, and documenting state space properly can be hard. Static methods enforce a more "functional" programming style: They don't have any side-effects, and thus, are thread-safe (which is becoming increasingly important).
(Note: All this refers to static methods that are not related to any static state - that should be avoided anyhow. And of course, this refers to methods that are not involved in or aiming at anything related to polymorphism).
And after all, one can easily call any static method from anywhere - even from within an instance method, and pass in some fields as parameters. The opposite is not so easy: When you want to call a method that depends on many instance fields, it can be a hassle when you first have to create an object and set the fields appropriately (still not knowing whether it is in a valid state to call the method). I also see the default methods of Java 8 as a nice application case where static utility methods come in handy: The default method may easily delegate to the utility method, because no state is involved.

There are a few reasons I'd go with the first option, i.e. an object with state over static functions, particularly for complex calculations but also for simpler ones.
Objects work better for the command pattern.
Objects work better for the strategy pattern.
Static methods can turn unit tests into a nightmare.
Static is an anti-pattern in OOP because it breaks polymorphism, with the side-effect that related techniques will break with it, e.g. open/closed, mocking, proxies, etc.
That's my 2c at least.
The weird part of your first example is that those calcX methods don't say anything about idempotency, so it's unclear what this.bla is when it's being manipulated. For complex computations with optional settings, an alternative is to construct an immutable object using a builder pattern, and then offer calcX methods that return the result based on fixed object state and parameters. But the applicability of that really depends on the use case, so YMMV.
Update: With your new code, a more OOP approach would be to decorate Mat. Favouring delegation over inheritance, you'd get something like
public class MyMat
{
private Mat i;
public MyMat(Mat i) {
this.i = i;
}
public Mat getBackingMat() {
return this.i;
}
public MyMat cannyEdges(int low, int high)
{
// ...
return new MyMat(I); // lets you chain operations
}
public MyMat cannyEdges()
{
return new MyMat(ImageProcessing.cannyEdges(I, ContourDetection.CANNY_LOWTHRES, ContourDetection.CANNY_HIGHTHRES));
}
public MyMat getHoughLines(...some_conf_vars...)
{
// ...
}
}
MyMat myMat = new MyMat(I);
lines = myMat.cannyEdges(20, 100).calcHoughLines();
This is just a guess, cause I have no idea what those things mean. :)

When not to use static:
If the result that will be returned is dependent on other variables (state) that make up your "calculation" class then static cannot be used.
However, if you are simply doing calculations on a variable, as the example implies, static is probably the way to go as it requires less code (For example to perform calc1 and then calc2 on a variable by the first method you would have to do:
calculation calc = new calculation(x)
calc.calc1();
calc.calc2();
XYZ y = calc.getBla();
while with the second example you could do
static import ...calculation.*;
...
XYZ y = calc2(calc1(x));

Java getter vs this

This is a very generic scenario, where I am setting a variable using setter function and using the variable only locally.
class Main {
private String str;
public Main(String value)
setStr(value);
}
private String getStr() {
return str;
}
private void setStr(String str) {
this.str = str;
}
public void display() {
//METHOD1
System.out.println(getStr());
//METHOD2
System.out.println(this.str);
}
}
What would be the better practise to follow between the two METHOD1/2 in display function, basically what would be the better way of using "str" variable.
Does it even make sense to have private getter/setter functions?
Ivard

If the getter is private, and doesn nothing more than returning a private variable, it isn't needed, IMHO (i.e. I prefer the second method of accessing it).
But if the getter was public and not final, and could thus be redefined by a subclass, then you'd have to decide if you want to get the potentially overridden value returned by the getter, or if you want the value of the private field in the display method.

Here should be at least one comment with Yes.
By providing new abstraction barrier you can separate data accessors and data presentation. For example, lets look at complex number class. Which can be implemented as
class ComplexNumber {
private final double realPart;
private final double imaginaryPart;
ComplexNumber(double realPart, double imaginaryPart) {
this.realPart = realPart;
this.imaginaryPart = imaginaryPart;
}
public double getRealPart() {
return realPart;
}
public double getImaginaryPart() {
return imaginaryPart;
}
}
or in polar expressions form
class ComplexNumber {
private final double r;
private final double angle;
ComplexNumber(double r, double angle) {
this.r = r;
this.angle = angle;
}
public double getR() {
return r;
}
public double getAngle() {
return angle;
}
}
Presume that you should implement basic operation like +-/*. What presentation model should you choose? For addition and subtraction standard model preferable, but for multiplication and division polar form preferable. So you can create getters for both form. And implement add/_sub_ like you have standard model and div/_mult_ like with polar form. This operation wouldn't depend from your actual data presentation. For change presentation you should change getters. Thats all. In Java world it's called self encapsulation.

For simple cases you'd just use this.str. For more complex cases, you might want to inherit from such a class, and have getStr() be implemented in a subclass perhaps it would lazily get the string from a file/database. Then these methods would't be private though.
For trivial cases where you just assign and fetch a private member, not really. For more complex cases where you might need to do additional logic, it'd make sense to confine that logic to one place. As with 1., it would make sense if you want sub classes to override the methods as welll.

Unless you have a side effects in your public getter which you desire I would consider always using this for consistency unless inheritance is assumed.
It doesn't make sence at all to me to employ private accessors. A routine should typically only do one thing and preferably without side effects. Creating a private getter
without side effects only creates useless redundancy.
with side effects basically proves that either the method is doing too much or is poorly named
Using this might also make refactoring easier [1].
[1] Refactoring a private variable gives less impact than refactoring a method. If you later decide to change the contract, e.g., by no longer providing a getter routine you will get less to refactor. Besides, many editors highlight all occurences of a variable when pointing the cursor to it, which is lost when hiding its use in a sub-routine.

No, it's not useful to have private getter/setter methods. If they were public or otherwise overridible by subclasses though it would be a different story. Should a subclass override your getter/setter, it could change the way the display() method functions.

(no) Properties in Java?

So, I have willfully kept myself a Java n00b until recently, and my first real exposure brought about a minor shock: Java does not have C# style properties!
Ok, I can live with that. However, I can also swear that I have seen property getter/setter code in Java in one codebase, but I cannot remember where. How was that achieved? Is there a language extension for that? Is it related to NetBeans or something?

There is a "standard" pattern for getters and setters in Java, called Bean properties. Basically any method starting with get, taking no arguments and returning a value, is a property getter for a property named as the rest of the method name (with a lowercased start letter). Likewise set creates a setter of a void method with a single argument.
For example:
// Getter for "awesomeString"
public String getAwesomeString() {
return awesomeString;
}
// Setter for "awesomeString"
public void setAwesomeString( String awesomeString ) {
this.awesomeString = awesomeString;
}
Most Java IDEs will generate these methods for you if you ask them (in Eclipse it's as simple as moving the cursor to a field and hitting Ctrl-1, then selecting the option from the list).
For what it's worth, for readability you can actually use is and has in place of get for boolean-type properties too, as in:
public boolean isAwesome();
public boolean hasAwesomeStuff();

I am surprised that no one mentioned project lombok
Yes, currently there are no properties in java. There are some other missing features as well.
But luckily we have project lombok that is trying to improve the situation. It is also getting more and more popular every day.
So, if you're using lombok:
#Getter #Setter int awesomeInteger = 5;
This code is going to generate getAwesomeInteger and setAwesomeInteger as well. So it is quite similar to C# auto-implemented properties.
You can get more info about lombok getters and setters here.
You should definitely check out other features as well.
My favorites are:
val
NoArgsConstructor, RequiredArgsConstructor, AllArgsConstructor
Logs!
Lombok is well-integrated with IDEs, so it is going to show generated methods like if they existed (suggestions, class contents, go to declaration and refactoring).
The only problem with lombok is that other programmers might not know about it. You can always delombok the code but that is rather a workaround than a solution.

"Java Property Support" was proposed for Java 7, but did not make it into the language.
See http://tech.puredanger.com/java7#property for more links and info, if interested.

The bean convention is to write code like this:
private int foo;
public int getFoo() {
return foo;
}
public void setFoo(int newFoo) {
foo = newFoo;
}
In some of the other languages on the JVM, e.g., Groovy, you get overridable properties similar to C#, e.g.,
int foo
which is accessed with a simple .foo and leverages default getFoo and setFoo implementations that you can override as necessary.

public class Animal {
#Getter #Setter private String name;
#Getter #Setter private String gender;
#Getter #Setter private String species;
}
This is something like C# properties. It's http://projectlombok.org/

You may not need for "get" and "set" prefixes, to make it look more like properties, you may do it like this:
public class Person {
private String firstName = "";
private Integer age = 0;
public String firstName() { return firstName; } // getter
public void firstName(String val) { firstName = val; } // setter
public Integer age() { return age; } // getter
public void age(Integer val) { age = val; } //setter
public static void main(String[] args) {
Person p = new Person();
//set
p.firstName("Lemuel");
p.age(40);
//get
System.out.println(String.format("I'm %s, %d yearsold",
p.firstName(),
p.age());
}
}

Most IDEs for Java will automatically generate getter and setter code for you if you want them to. There are a number of different conventions, and an IDE like Eclipse will allow you to choose which one you want to use, and even let you define your own.
Eclipse even includes automated refactoring that will allow you to wrap a property up in a getter and setter and it will modify all the code that accesses the property directly, to make it use the getter and/or setter.
Of course, Eclipse can only modify code that it knows about - any external dependencies you have could be broken by such a refactoring.

My Java experience is not that high either, so anyone feel free to correct me. But AFAIK, the general convention is to write two methods like so:
public string getMyString() {
// return it here
}
public void setMyString(string myString) {
// set it here
}

From Jeffrey Richter's book CLR via C#: (I think these might be the reasons why properties are still not added in JAVA)
A property method may throw an exception; field access never throws an exception.
A property cannot be passed as an out or ref parameter to a method; a field can.
A property method can take a long time to execute; field access always completes
immediately. A common reason to use properties is to perform thread synchronization,
which can stop the thread forever, and therefore, a property should not be
used if thread synchronization is required. In that situation, a method is preferred.
Also, if your class can be accessed remotely (for example, your class is derived from
System.MarshalByRefObject), calling the property method will be very slow, and
therefore, a method is preferred to a property. In my opinion, classes derived from
MarshalByRefObject should never use properties.
If called multiple times in a row, a property method may return a different value each
time; a field returns the same value each time. The System.DateTime class has a readonly
Now property that returns the current date and time. Each time you query this
property, it will return a different value. This is a mistake, and Microsoft wishes that
they could fix the class by making Now a method instead of a property. Environment’s
TickCount property is another example of this mistake.
A property method may cause observable side effects; field access never does. In other
words, a user of a type should be able to set various properties defined by a type in
any order he or she chooses without noticing any different behavior in the type.
A property method may require additional memory or return a reference to something
that is not actually part of the object’s state, so modifying the returned object has no
effect on the original object; querying a field always returns a reference to an object
that is guaranteed to be part of the original object’s state. Working with a property
that returns a copy can be very confusing to developers, and this characteristic is frequently
not documented.

If you're using eclipse then it has the capabilities to auto generate the getter and setter method for the internal attributes, it can be a usefull and timesaving tool.

I'm just releasing Java 5/6 annotations and an annotation processor to help this.
Check out http://code.google.com/p/javadude/wiki/Annotations
The documentation is a bit light right now, but the quickref should get the idea across.
Basically it generates a superclass with the getters/setters (and many other code generation options).
A sample class might look like
#Bean(properties = {
#Property(name="name", bound=true),
#Property(name="age,type=int.class)
})
public class Person extends PersonGen {
}
There are many more samples available, and there are no runtime dependencies in the generated code.
Send me an email if you try it out and find it useful!
-- Scott

There is no property keyword in java (like you could find it in C#) the nearest way to have 1 word getter/setter is to do like in C++:
public class MyClass
{
private int aMyAttribute;
public MyClass()
{
this.aMyAttribute = 0;
}
public void mMyAttribute(int pMyAttributeParameter)
{
this.aMyAttribute = pMyAttributeParameter;
}
public int mMyAttribute()
{
return this.aMyAttribute;
}
}
//usage :
int vIndex = 1;
MyClass vClass = new MyClass();
vClass.mMyAttribute(vIndex);
vIndex = 0;
vIndex = vClass.mMyAttribute();
// vIndex == 1

As previously mentioned for eclipse, integrated development environment (IDE) often can create accessor methods automatically.
You can also do it using NetBeans.
To create accessor methods for your class, open a class file, then Right-click anywhere in the source code editor and choose the menu command Refactor, Encapsulate Fields.
A dialog opens. Click Select All, then click Refactor.
Voilà,
Good luck,

For me the problem is two fold:
All these extra methods {get*/set*} cluttering up the class code.
NOT being able to treat them like properties:
public class Test {
private String _testField;
public String testProperty {
get {
return _testField;
}
set {
_testField = value;
}
}
}
public class TestUser {
private Test test;
public TestUser() {
test = new Test();
test.testProperty = "Just something to store";
System.out.printLn(test.testProperty);
}
}
This is the sort of easy assignment I would like to get back to using. NOT having to use 'method' calling syntax. Can anyone provide some answers as to what happened to Java?
I think that the issue is also about the unnecessary clutter in the code, and not the 'difficulty' of creating the setters/getters. I consider them as ugly-code. I like what C# has. I don't understand the resistance to adding that capability to Java.
My current solution is to use 'public' members when protection is not required:
public class IntReturn {
public int val;
}
public class StringReturn {
public String val;
}
These would be used to return value from say a Lambda:
StringReturn sRtn = new StringReturn()
if(add(2, 3, sRtn)){
System.out.println("Value greater than zero");
}
public boolean add(final int a, final int b, final StringReturn sRtn){
int rtn = a + b;
sRtn.val = "" + rtn;
return rtn > 0; // Just something to use the return for.
}
I also really don't like using a method call to set or get an internal value from a class.
If your information is being transferred as 'immutable', then the new Java record could be a solution. However, it still uses the setter/getter methodology, just without the set/get prefixes.