This question already has answers here:
Why Not Use Public Member Functions
(3 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I have question which has been going around in my mind since long.
My Model class should have properties private or public? (Below code is written in PHP but question applies in general for any language)
class Xyz extends Model {
public function __call() {
}
public $description;
public $title;
}
In above example I have public properties $description and $title. Should I make them private?
I update my model as follows
$x = new Xyz();
$x->title('Hello');
$x->description('Blah blah');
$x->save();
I can update and get them by using magic method __call. So why do we need to keep them public? I can make them private. But as I see all the frameworks around keep model properties public.
Any thoughts?
UPDATE:
In answers, everyone is saying follow encapsulation and use private methods. Good but no one has the answer why some PHP frameworks have model properties public ? There should be some reason, isn't it?
As per OOP, we need to follow encapsulation. Please make your properties private and have public accessors and mutators. but, it depends that your accessors and mutators can have other modifiers as well. But, The properties should be always private.
Class fields should always be private. Getters and setters for the fields should be public. Aside from being standard, it is also good to have it this way so that you have the control to do what ever you want to the values that the client classes wants to set to you private fields.
For example, if you want to persist an object to a database, and one column is stated to be not null, and you are not sure if your client class will really return a non-null value, you can handle the null check inside the setter so that the values that you are about to persist to the db contains no null field, as what the table of your db demands.
The fields should always be private as per OOP encapsulation principle. Now the thing is with the getter and setter accessor methods.
The getter is usually safe to make it public. The only downside of it is that you will have to maintain backward compatibility between versions, as this will be part of the public contract of the class. So if the field is something that is part of the implementation rather than interface, than maybe you want to keep it protected.
As for the setter the better question is if to create one or not. If you want to keep your class immutable (or at least some parts of it) with all the advantages and disadvantages that comes from it, then you'll not be creating a setter at all.
You have to make all properties as private in model class and if you have to encapsulate their value then you have to use appropriate getters and setters to get and set their values.
Related
This question already has answers here:
Why use getters and setters/accessors?
(37 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
Why do the data members of POJO classes are private and the getter/setter function are public?
Can someone please give solution for this.
Common approach: access to variables by using getters/setters:
better maintainability
accessibility to private properties only for the defining class (isolation)
used for a different data representation (you might have private data to store the birthdate, but create a getter named getAge()).
It doesn't have to be that way, it's just a pattern and it exists for a reason.
All members of a class should be private by default, so that noone can mess up things from outside or read/write values which are not important by the outside. Additionally some internal stuff can change within your class, and the outside world should not care about it.
To allow access from the 'outside world', be it reading or writing anything should be handled via getters/setters/issers to allow a governed manipulation.
Think of it like a mini API of your class - an interface to your class anyone outside can understand and rely on.
If you want to add any validation or modify any other thing before/after setting value of an object, you can use that validation in setter method. Same applies for getter.
It the basic object-oriented principle i.e only object can communicate through message which is called encapsulation.So indirectly you are not exposing your state to outside.For an example class with one attribute age is there and age can not be negative so in setter you can put a check so your object state will not in bad condition.If you access directly the variable then there is no scope for validation.
The basic principle of the oriented object programming is to encapsulate the members of a class and give access to them only via getters and setters
This question already has answers here:
Why use getters and setters/accessors?
(37 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I had been asked the following question in an interview and i am curious to know the answer.
There are two classes as following,
public class EmployeeA{
public int empId;
}
public class EmployeeB{
private int empId;
public void setEmpId(int empId){this.empId = empId;}
public int getEmpId(){return empId;}
}
There are two classes where one class has a public instance field and other have a private field with getters and setters. In this case, which is better implementation and why?
[I have learned that making instance variable private is the better idea. But in both cases i can modify the value of empId attribute. ]
The one-word answer they're probably looking for is "encapsulation".
By encapsulating the private field value, you have the opportunity to change the logic on how the value is set/retrieved in the future. Say, for example, you want to validate on set and filter on retrieval (get). By encapsulating the value, your creating an API which allows for better maintenance moving forward.
Maybe a bit off-topic, although people usually talk about "encapsulation" when talking about "getter/setter", "getter/setters" are actually still far from proper encapsulation.
This famous "why getter and setter methods are evil" is something worth to read. When we say getters and setters are evil, it doesn't mean that we should expose variable directly. It is about further hiding internal data by providing meaningful behavior in class, instead of providing accessors for properties. Although there are a lot of cases we still need accessors, this is something that worth giving attention when you are designing.
Going back to your question, if it is me, I will answer: providing getters and setters provides a minimal level of encapsulation and allow us to do extra work or derives data when we are setting and getting properties. However, for a proper encapsulation, I would rather design the Employee class to provide proper behaviors, instead of simply acting as a value object which only provides bunch of getters/setters.
The accesssor (getter) and mutator (setter) are JavaBean requirement but not all classes in Java must follow this design pattern. Why not creating this class as immutable by having a constructor that take the id (or even better, a static factory). You can then provide an accessor for the the id. That is generally not a good idea to be able to change the id of an object, if the id is used in a Map as the key and you change it, good luck to retrieve you object... Make the class immutable solve this kind of problem.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Why use getters and setters?
This is a newbie question. Is it very much necessary to use getmethods to access property values? Once the value has been assigned, one can get the values directory. For example, in the below code, displayName() can display firstName value without the help of any getter method. Or it is a standard coding standards that one must have getter and setter method or any other methods which gives that value?
class Test{
private String firstName;
public void setName(String fname){
firstName = fname;
}
public void displayName() {
System.out.println("Your name is " + firstName);
}
}
Tell, Don't Ask is an important principle in object-oriented design. Generally you should tell objects to do things rather than ask them questions. getters/setters every where discourage this practise because you are encouraged to reach inside an object and get to the fields (or even worse reach in and poke things about in the case of setters). This breaks encapsulation and makes your code harder to reason about.
In your particular case, I'd create an object called Name that has a constructor taking the name and single method to display it.
In Your case (to display the display name) it is not neccessary to provide Getter.
But if your want use the field in another class We need to provide the Getter method.
Getter and setters are a part of the standard interface for Java Beans and many frameworks like Hibernate expect them in place. That being said it is of course up to you to decide if and when you need them and for what purpose. They provide access to your private member variables and they can even give you the chance to do more than just plain get and set.
The point of OO software is reuse. This means that other programmers, or you years from now, can use the code for other systems.
When you have private member variables, and use get/set functions, you can change the internal implementation of the function without breaking all the other code that uses it.
Do always use Getter and Setter to access your properties!
You should take a look at this article...
Having private state, encapsulation is good, and in A LOT of cases this is the right thing. Suppose that your class is suppose to be Thread Safe, having public fields you can't ensure that.
On the other hand there are cases when this is useless! Suppose that you access your object only in one package, you are sure you will never export it, then why bother?
I do not have any links to support this, but it's what I do.
I try to avoid public fields if they are not static. So I just use protected and private fields. From within the class, you can access them without get/set, that's completely fine. From outside the class, always try to use get/set.
So your example code is completely fine to me. :)
EDIT: One exception for me is if I create a struct-like container class like this
class Point4D {
public int x1, x2, x3, x4;
}
Then I think that public fields are ok. It would be still better to make them private and name the getters public int x1() etc though. As soon as some methods are introduced to this container that change the state of the instance (like changing the values of x1/x2/x3/x4), I make them private and add get/set.
I am writing a game and I have a class for the input which contains booleans for all the different keys. I create an instance of this class in the main game class. Is it ok for the booleans to be public, or should I access them with accessors?
Instead of having a boolean for each key, it would be more readable and easier to code if you had a private Map<String, Boolean> keyStates, with all keys initialized to false. Then your accessors might be:
public void setPressed(String keyName) {
keyStates.put(keyName, true);
}
public void setReleased(String keyName) {
keyStates.put(keyName, false);
}
public boolean isPressed(String keyName) {
return keyStates.get(keyName);
}
The general reason for having accessor methods rather than public variables is that it allows the class to change its implementation without requiring changes in the classes that interact with its members. For example, with the above, you can now add code to count or log key presses, or change the underlying type of Map used, without exposing any of this to the outside.
This is not personal preference. Encapsulation and Interfaces are integral parts of OO Software Engineering, and are the primary design reasons that the Internet is possible from a technical POV.
Generally I would recommend using getters and setters as it is cleaner, more organized, and more readable. This will also help if you have a lot of different programmers looking at your code. My outlook is to always make your variables private unless you need to expose them for a specific reason. If performance is really an issue in your game then making your variables public will help a little by reducing function calls.
It's mainly a personal taste thing - I'm sure you'll find people arguing on both sides, and I'd say it's not black or white but depends on how "big" the class is.
The rationale for using getters and setters is so that you abstract out the actual representation as a field, in order to give you the freedom to start presenting this as e.g. a derived value without changing your interface. So really it comes down to how valuable the interface to this class is to you.
If it's part of your first-class public interface, then definitely use getters and setters. At the other extreme, if it's a simple data holder like a tuple that's used solely within a single class (e.g. to map database rows before transformation into another class), then I wouldn't hesitate to use fields; there's no real value to the interface as it's only being used internally.
So how many classes/packages would use this class? If it's a private, "local" class then I don't think there's anything wrong with just using the fields, and updating your callers if this ever needs to change.
Accessing fields is much easier to justify if they're final too, which is often the case with this sort of object.
It's not bad, but usually you'll want to encapsulate the state of an object.
Standard practice is to make member variables either protected or private with getters/setters that follow java bean convention. This tends to be somewhat verbose, but there is a very nice library (www.projectlombok.org) out there that generates the getters/setters/constructors/toString/hashCode/equals methods for you.
It is always a good java programming practice to declare the class variables as private and access them with public getter and setter methods unless its really needed to declare them as public .
If you are using an IDE , then its just a click away to generate getters and setters for class variables/member variables .
And now that you have been told over and over to use getter and setters, and because you are in Java (where IDEs help you make getters/setters trivially, and everyone clearly uses them), read over this thread to help add some balance to your usage of them:
Getters and Setters are bad OO design?
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Why use getters and setters?
Yes, It's a very simple thing but I am not finding a good reson for this. I know it is a good practice to make a variable private and providing getter to setter to access that variable. Still Is there any reason other than this ?
Lookup "encapsulation" and "information hiding".
Basically, a class manages data and provides operations on them/ give access to them, but the internal representation of that data should kept private to the class. Like this, a class can change its internal representation without breaking other code.
E.g. consider:
A)
public Date date;
B)
private Date date;
public Date getDate(){...}
public setDate(Date date){...}
Later you choose to use Calendar instead of Date.
In case A) you cannot change the data type without breaking code.
In case B) you can do:
private Calendar calendar;
public Date getDate(){...}
public setDate(Date date){...}
public Calendar getCalendar (){...}
public setCalendar(Calendar calendar){...}
You can provide a conversion in the get/setDate methods. Client code doesn't break.
Another reason you sometimes want to use getter and setter is the use of libraries/
frameworks which base on JavaBeans patterns.
There are many reasons. It is a way to control access(accessors) to the inner workings of your class. Sometimes for example you may want the getter to return a clone of the object or the setter to just copy values on the private object rather than pointing the handler to the new object passed to the setter. Another reason would be to do something before or after you get or set an object without exposing this functionality.
To sum it up:
You give room for future extensions
You close the door to uncontrolled access
Use them only if needed though.
Only provide getters/setters if it is actually needed, don't just do it automatically
A getter/setter hides the internal implementation and in theory gives you a well defined interface and allows you to change the internal implementation without clients having to change their code
If you leave variable public, you can't make sure the object will keep consistent state. In your setters you can for example have some checking like e.g. avoid setting negative number as age.
If you have public variable you drop for example possibility of having listeners since listeners are typically using notifications on setting the variable via setter. There is no chance to track the change when directly changing public variable.
These are some very basic examples but can be found more for sure.