We Keep Coding

Why creating a method better than declaring variable as a field?

int timeDuration = duration * MONTHS_IN_A_YEAR;
My online instructor said I should declare a method of name getTimeDuration() rather than creating a field of the same name. My question is a why creating a method is more preferable. Thanks.

This could fall into a style war. Folks from some camps will always use getters, while others rarely do so. You will find no single 100% agreed upon answer.
Practically, there will be little difference between a using a getter on a private final variable vs direct access. Good runtime environments will inline getters, making for only a slight additional overhead.
There are several reasons to prefer using a getter: If the value which is being retrieved is to be considered a part of an API; if the value obtained by the getter will be different in subclasses; if you want to place a break point or log or otherwise track calls to access the value; if you want a place to attach documentation of the value obtained by the getter, which would be the getter name and explicit documentation.
On the other hand, adding getters does add (a little) code bloat.

One reason, in future if you set variable as private or it will become private data, you are not allowed to access this variable outside the class boundary. So, the value of value of variable fetch by such getters and in object oriented getters are used for this purpose and came into action. Here getters is method like getTimeDuration().

Some code snippets are called "best practice"s, these are told by experienced people and accepted by developers and programmers because of the reasons like:
more readable code
easy to change for future extending or debugging
better performance
help developers to do better configurations
...
the matter we are talking about (using setter and getter for accessing or modifying fields), has one or some of matters that I have mentioned so it is better for developers to use it.
to talk more specific, by setting a field in a method (which that method is called setter) you can check the user input, put some rules for your code and many more features that some frameworks will give to you as a developer.
accessing the value of a field by a method (which is called getter), might add some abilities in some cases, imagine a situation that you want the user to read the field but not be able to change it. this could be done easily this way.

Checking String parameters corresponding to field names

I'm heavily using Java.lang.Class.getField() method which requires a String variable as an argument. The problem I'm facing is when I change field names, that getField() refers to, Eclipse doesn't warn me that argument points nowhere (since it's String) and I end up having methods working improperly unnoticed.
So far I can see two ways out. It's either using try-catch blocks around every getField() call and running application to see what will be the next line to throw an exception. Fix it and watch out for the next exception. Or it's using Find/Replace feature every time I change a field name to manually look for the String value and replace it. Is there a more friendly (i.e. automatic) way to update String parameters in such cases?
Maybe there's a method (which I fail to find) that accepts a full field path as a non-String argument and returns a Field object? Something like turnToFieldObject(car.speed) returning Field object corresponding to speed field so that Eclipse would automatically check if there's such a field car.speed.
PS
First of all, thank you for your replies.
I can see that a lot of you, guys, suggest that I'm using reflection too much. That's why I feel I need to add extra explanation and would be glad to hear suggestions as well.
I'm doing a research about modeling social evolution and I need the entities to evolve new features that they don't have at the start. And it seemed to me that adding new fields to represent some evolutional changes is better understanding wise than adding new elements to arrays or collections. And the task suggests I shouldn't be able to know what feature will be evolved. That's why I rely so heavily on reflection.

AFAIK, there is no such method. You pass a reference (if it's an object) or value (if it's primitive); all data about the variables that they were originally assigned to is not available at runtime.
This is the huge downside of using reflection, and if you're "heavily" using this feature in such way, you're probably doing something wrong. Why not access the field directly, using getters and setters?
Don't get me wrong, reflection has its uses (for example, when you want to scan for fields with certain annotations and inject their values), but if you're referencing fields or methods by their name using a simple string, you could just as well access fields or methods directly. It implies that you know the field beforehand. If it's private, there is probably a reason why it's encapsulated. You're losing the content assist and refactoring possibilities by overusing reflection.
If you're modeling social evolution, I'd go with a more flexible solution. Adding new fields at runtime is (near?) impossible, so you are basically forced to implement a new class for each entity and create a new object each time the entity "evolves". That's why I suggest you to go with one of these solutions:
Use Map<String, Object> to store entities' properties. This is a very flexible solution which will allow you easily add and remove "fields" at the cost of losing their type data. Checking if the entity has a certain property will be a cheap contains call.
If you really want to stick to a million custom classes, use interfaces with getters and setters in addition to fields. For example, convert private String name to interface Named { String getName(); void setName(String name); }. This is much easier to refactor and does not rely on reflection. A class can implement as many interfaces as you want, so this is pretty much like the field solution, except it allows you to create custom getters/setters with extra logic if desperately needed. And determining if entity has a certain property is a entity instanceof MyInterface call, which is still cheaper than reflection.

I would suggest writing a method that use to get your fields supply it a string and then if the exception is thrown notify whatever needs to be notified that it was not valid and if the exception isn't caught return the field.
Although I do agree with the above that reflection should not be used heavily.

Setting values of an object

Let's say I've got a class called House with the two fields
name
address
Each of these fields has got a getter and a setter.
Now I want another method in the House class called setValues. This method should set the fields with properties from a passed object of a different type.
There would be two ways on how to create this method. First way:
private void setHouse(HouseTransfer transer){
name = transfer.getName();
address = transfer.getAddress();
}
Or the second option:
private void setHouse(HouseTransfer transer){
setName(transfer.getName());
setAddress(transfer.getAddress());
}
Which one is more "best practice"?

At a certain level of granularity, software design is more subjective matter than one of black-and-white absolutes. I do not believe there is an absolute "best practice" here.
That being said, I personally would use the second form. The basic idea of having a setter method is that at some point you might need some some special logic around setting that value (e.g. formatting input, sanitation, validation, etc). So it makes the most sense to always rely on any such logic being in one central place, rather than scattered throughout you code anywhere this variable is set.
If you have a truly trivial example, where the setter is simply setting the value and know absolutely that no other logic will ever be added, then you could certainly use the first form for simplicity. Put there's not real performance hit to the second form, so I personally would just use that.

I would use the individual getters/setters inside of the setHouse method (which is your second option).
The fact that you have setters indicates that there is some kind of encapsulation involved around that operation. Rather than re-write the code to enforce that encapsulation, re-use what you already have.

Jon's answer to that question (Taken from another question about using getters/setters which is not a duplicate to this one)
You don't always need getters/setters, but if you have some, there's usually a good reason why you've implemented them and in that case: use them.

Perhaps if you are getting and setting in two different places you might consider factoring out your getter and setter to a common interface. This can make later customisations easier, right?

Is it in an anti-pattern to always use get and set methods to access a class's own member fields? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Using getters within class methods
(6 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
In Java classes is it considered good or bad practice to access member fields with their getters and setters?
e.g which is better:
public Order {
private Agreement agreement;
public Agreement getAgreement() {
return agreement;
}
public void process() {
//should I use:
getAgreement().doSomething();
//Or:
agreement.doSomething();
}
}
In general I think accessing the field directly is best due to the KISS principle and also someone may override the get method later with unpredictable results.
However my colleagues argue that it is better to keep a layer of abstraction. Is there any consensus on this?

Honestly, in my opinion, it depends on what you're using it for. Personally, when in doubt, I always leave that extra level of abstraction in there just in case I need to override it later in a subclass. Many times have I been saved from the pain of rewriting a class just because I left a getter or a setter open to overriding.
Another thing is that other clients/programmers might need to use your class in a way that you haven't yet thought of, for example, pulling the Agreement class out of a database. In that case, when they override your class, you have made it painless for them (or potentially a future you) to modify how that data is retrieved.
So unless you're absolutely certain that there is only one way to access that field, and that it's 100% direct, it's probably best to decouple the retrieval and modification of values so that at some future point you can save yourself from rewrite hardship.

The core issue here is that direct field access is ineligible for interception by subclass overridden methods, AOP, dynamic proxies and the like. This can be a good or bad thing depending on the case. I would say that using getters and setters internally is not an anti-pattern or a pattern. It is a good or bad thing depending on the situation, and the design of your class.

I think that the public interface of a class represents encapsulation around state and as such even the other workings of the class benefit from that encapsulation.
If you have wrapped a field in a public get method then there is a reason you have done so. Perhaps there is logic within that method to lazy-load the field, or provide an audit trail. Whatever the reason for the method, your class will most likely need that logic as well.

It sounds to me like some people are interpreting this question as being about getters and setters that are used externally; my interpretation of Pablojim's question was that it's about using them within the class, as opposed to the class directly accessing its fields. (Which are private.)
In that light, I'm with Jherico and patros; use direct access from within the class unless there's some reason not to.

Keeping a layer of Abstraction is a good thing in Java.
The problem is that all the code that directly accesses your member variables without the class noticing it isn't under the control of your class.
So the moment you decide to edit your class in a way that one member that is used in a division as an example should never be 0 you have to be able to ensure that this value is only changed in a way that ensures this. So you would add a setter for this method and change the member to private. But now you need to change all the code that is accessing the member without the setter.
If you know you are changing the value from outside the class and only then provide a setter if you don't know make the variable private and if you need access later maybe provide a getter or a setter.
It gets an Anti-Pattern if there are certain methods in other objects that are always using get for a member then performs some calculations and then uses get. This shows that either the member should be in the other class or that the method needs to be in this class.
Having a getter and a setter without thinking about it for every member breaks encapsulation and is not a good design choice. For mor insides read this article

I'm now working on something that makes me in favor of the getters: we're now moving part of our properties into a "property bag", which means you cannot just reference the variable. So in addition of changing the getter, we need to change all the places that reference that variable. It's something to keep in mind.

It depends on what you use your getters and setters for. Generally I use them when I need to sanity check data coming into a class or format data going out. In that respect, I really use getters and setters as an interface layer between this class and other classes that might need access to its data.
I tend to write my internal code such that it knows how to handle data private to this class, so accessing it with its own getters and setters is generally unnecessary and undesired.
It all depends on how you use your getters and setters, though.

My rule of thumb is that if they do anything more complex than just set or return the value, use the setters/getters. Otherwise, it's not needed since you can fix any problems caused by changes to the member variables.

You're right in that it's annoying to do all that extra work for every attribute variable. Why does the language allow something so basic that no one does? There are very compelling reasons for not allowing direct attribute access, however.
I prefer Eiffel's Unified Access Principle. You can never assign to an attribute, and attributes and functions are accessed in the same way:
class EXAMPLE
feature
variable: INTEGER
variable_function: INTEGER
do
result := 4
end
variable_two: INTEGER assign variable_assign
variable_assign (in: INTEGER)
do
variable_two := in
end
end
feature
test
local
test: EXAMPLE
value: INTEGER
do
create test
value := test.variable -- Valid
value := test.variable_function -- Valid and same even though it's a function
test.variable := value -- Invalid
test.variable_two := value -- Valid, an explicit setter is defined
end

I think this is something that needs to be considered on a case by case basis. Using a getter throughout your class code does complicate it, and probably makes it slightly slower. However, it also makes it more extensible and reusable.
What I've usually done is use the getter if I can forsee any reason someone might want to override my getter with another one. If it's something so basic and simple that it would never make sense, I generally don't use getters.
If you write your code to access the variables without the getter, consider making the getter function "final". That way, no one will try to override your code and tear his hair out wondering why it's not working. (Note that Spring and Hibernate proxies might make this a bad idea.)

In order for it to be an anti-pattern, it'd have to be decidedly harmful. I don't see how there can possibly be any harm in defining getters and setters. At most, it is a waste of time (and typing), which makes it pointless, but not an antipattern.

How would you access Object properties from within an object method? [closed]

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
What is the "purist" or "correct" way to access an object's properties from within an object method that is not a getter/setter method?
I know that from outside of the object you should use a getter/setter, but from within would you just do:
Java:
String property = this.property;
PHP:
$property = $this->property;
or would you do:
Java:
String property = this.getProperty();
PHP:
$property = $this->getProperty();
Forgive me if my Java is a little off, it's been a year since I programmed in Java...
EDIT:
It seems people are assuming I am talking about private or protected variables/properties only. When I learned OO I was taught to use getters/setters for every single property even if it was public (and actually I was told never to make any variable/property public). So, I may be starting off from a false assumption from the get go. It appears that people answering this question are maybe saying that you should have public properties and that those don't need getters and setters, which goes against what I was taught, and what I was talking about, although maybe that needs to be discussed as well. That's probably a good topic for a different question though...

This has religious war potential, but it seems to me that if you're using a getter/setter, you should use it internally as well - using both will lead to maintenance problems down the road (e.g. somebody adds code to a setter that needs to run every time that property is set, and the property is being set internally w/o that setter being called).

Personally, I feel like it's important to remain consistent. If you have getters and setters, use them. The only time I would access a field directly is when the accessor has a lot of overhead. It may feel like you're bloating your code unnecessarily, but it can certainly save a whole lot of headache in the future. The classic example:
Later on, you may desire to change the way that field works. Maybe it should be calculated on-the-fly or maybe you would like to use a different type for the backing store. If you are accessing properties directly, a change like that can break an awful lot of code in one swell foop.

I'm fairly surprised at how unanimous the sentiment is that getters and setters are fine and good. I suggest the incendiary article by Allen Holub "Getters And Setters Are Evil". Granted, the title is for shock value, but the author makes valid points.
Essentially, if you have getters and setters for each and every private field, you are making those fields as good as public. You'd be very hard-pressed to change the type of a private field without ripple effects to every class that calls that getter.
Moreover, from a strictly OO point of view, objects should be responding to messages (methods) that correspond to their (hopefully) single responsibility. The vast majority of getters and setters don't make sense for their constituent objects;Pen.dispenseInkOnto(Surface) makes more sense to me than Pen.getColor().
Getters and setters also encourage users of the class to ask the object for some data, perform a calculation, and then set some other value in the object, better known as procedural programming. You'd be better served to simply tell the object to do what you were going to in the first place; also known as the Information Expert idiom.
Getters and setters, however, are necessary evils at the boundary of layers -- UI, persistence, and so forth. Restricted access to a class's internals, such as C++'s friend keyword, Java's package protected access, .NET's internal access, and the Friend Class Pattern can help you reduce the visibility of getters and setters to only those who need them.

It depends on how the property is used. For example, say you have a student object that has a name property. You could use your Get method to pull the name from the database, if it hasn't been retrieved already. This way you are reducing unnecessary calls to the database.
Now let's say you have a private integer counter in your object that counts the number of times the name has been called. You may want to not use the Get method from inside the object because it would produce an invalid count.

PHP offers a myriad of ways to handle this, including magic methods __get and __set, but I prefer explicit getters and setters. Here's why:
Validation can be placed in setters (and getters for that matter)
Intellisense works with explicit methods
No question whether a property is read only, write only or read-write
Retrieving virtual properties (ie, calculated values) looks the same as regular properties
You can easily set an object property that is never actually defined anywhere, which then goes undocumented

Am I just going overboard here?
Perhaps ;)
Another approach would be to utilize a private/protected method to actually do the getting (caching/db/etc), and a public wrapper for it that increments the count:
PHP:
public function getName() {
$this->incrementNameCalled();
return $this->_getName();
}
protected function _getName() {
return $this->name;
}
and then from within the object itself:
PHP:
$name = $this->_getName();
This way you can still use that first argument for something else (like sending a flag for whether or not to used cached data here perhaps).

I must be missing the point here, why would you use a getter inside an object to access a property of that object?
Taking this to its conclusion the getter should call a getter, which should call a getter.
So I'd say inside an object method access a property directly, especially seeing as calling another method in that object (which will just access the property directly anyway then return it) is just a pointless, wasteful exercise (or have I misunderstood the question).

It is better to use the accessor methods, even within the object. Here are the points that come to my mind immediately:
It should be done in the interest of maintaining consistency with accesses made from outside the object.
In some cases, these accessor methods could be doing more than just accessing the field; they could be doing some additional processing (this is rare though). If this is the case, accessing the field directly would mean that you are missing that additional processing, and your program could go awry if this processing is always to be done during those accesses.

If you mean "most encapsulation" by "purist", then I typically declare all my fields as private and then use "this.field" from within the class itself. For other classes, including subclasses, I access instance state using the getters.

The question doesn't require an opinion based answer. It is a subject well covered by computing science for decades from the principle of high cohesion, low coupling and the SOLID principles.
The purist, read correct, OO way is to minimise coupling and maximise cohesions. Therefore both should be avoided and the Law of Demeter followed by using the Tell Don't Ask approach.
Instead of getting the value of the object's property, which tightly couples the two class, use the object as a parameter e.g.
doSomethingWithProperty() {
doSomethingWith( this.property ) ;
}
Where the property was a native type, e.g. int, use an access method, name it for problem domain not the programming domain.
doSomethingWithProperty( this.daysPerWeek() ) ;
These will allow you to maintain encapsulation and any post-conditions or dependent invariants. You can also use the setter method to maintain any pre-conditions or dependent invariants, however don't fall into the trap of naming them setters, go back to the Hollywood Principle for naming when using the idiom.

i've found using setters/getters made my code easier to read. I also like the control it gives when other classes use the methods and if i change the data the property will store.

Private fields with public or protected properties. Access to the values should go through the properties, and be copied to a local variable if they will be used more than once in a method. If and ONLY if you have the rest of your application so totally tweaked, rocked out, and otherwise optimized to where accessing values by going through their assosciated properties has become a bottleneck (And that will never EVER happen, I guarantee) should you even begin to consider letting anything other than the properties touch their backing variables directly.
.NET developers can use automatic properties to enforce this since you can't even see the backing variables at design time.

It depends. It's more a style issue than anything else, and there is no hard rule.

I can be wrong because I'm autodidact, but I NEVER user public properties in my Java classes, they are always private or protected, so that outside code must access by getters/setters. It's better for maintenance / modification purposes. And for inside class code... If getter method is trivial I use the property directly, but I always use the setter methods because I could easily add code to fire events if I wish.

If I don't edit the property, I'll use a public method get_property() unless it's a special occasion such as a MySQLi object inside another object in which case I'll just make the property public and refer to it as $obj->object_property.
Inside the object it's always $this->property for me.

Well, it seems with C# 3.0 properties' default implementation, the decision is taken for you; you HAVE to set the property using the (possibly private) property setter.
I personally only use the private member-behind when not doing so would cause the object to fall in an less than desirable state, such as when initializing or when caching/lazy loading is involved.

I like the answer by cmcculloh, but it seems like the most correct one is the answer by Greg Hurlman. Use getter/setter all the time if you started using them from the get-go and/or you are used to working with them.
As an aside, I personally find that using getter/setter makes the code easier to read and to debug later on.

As stated in some of the comments: Sometimes you should, sometimes you shouldn't. The great part about private variables is that you are able to see all the places they are used when you change something. If your getter/setter does something you need, use it. If it doesn't matter you decide.
The opposite case could be made that if you use the getter/setter and somebody changes the getter/setter they have to analyze all the places the getter and setter is used internally to see if it messes something up.