We Keep Coding

Is Java breaking its own rules with setter methods that have non-void return types?

I was given to understand that the standard convention was for setters not to return anything. However, the NIO.2 API has a few methods like setOwner, setLastModifiedTime and setAttribute that return Path instances. Are these methods not true setters, or else do not all setters have to have void return types?

The obsolete JavaBean standard (which was meant to help with tooling so that JavaBeans could be automatically handled) may have said something about void setters, but Fluent Builder is aimed at making things easier.
Allowing method chaining makes for nicer code, and as there's no good reason for requiring a void return type from setters, they've chosen to get with the program (no they haven't see comments):
path.setOwner(foo).setLastModifiedTime(bar).setAttribute(baz);
The JDK does have examples of fluent interface in classes like StringBuilder and ProcessBuilder, but they avoid using the setXXX nomenclature (possibly to avoid confusion) even when it would make sense. StringBuilder.append() obviously wouldn't be named setMoreText(), but ProcessBuilder.directory(File) is less obvious than setWorkingDirectory(File) IMHO.

A setter is usually used as an accessor method to change the state of an object. As Kayaman mentioned it can be useful to return the object itself to create a fluent api instead of void - see it as syntactical sugar, when working with these objects.
Nevertheless, in the NIO case, it is a static method of the class "Files" that changes the state of the Path that is given as first argument - so in this case it's no accessor but a "normal" method that has "set" in its name.

Why java.lang.Integer does not expose its private value field?

In my understanding, a public and final field is effectively a read-only field. As such, exposing it wouldn't affect the immutability of java.lang.Integer.
I know that I can access the value through intValue() and the performance shouldn't matter once the JIT kicks in and inlines the method call. But, in general, is there some threading reason or something to not have public final int value in java.lang.Integer?

It is not about threading, but OOP. An int is a value type, Integer is an object. In object-oriented programming (OOP), you should not expose fields of an object, rather create public methods, aka getters and setters.
Even for constants / read-only fields it is a good practice. Think about encapsulation, if you expose a method intValue() you can still make it return the int value, even if the implementation behind it, here the backing field value, changes for some reason or you add additional logic for checks, validation or anything else. As you can see, the backing field is an implementation detail, which should not be visible to the user.

Integer.java extends Number.java which is an abstract class. One of the abstract method is
public abstract int intValue();
Abstraction defines the contacts which implementing class must obey. Hence Integer.java provides the implementation of the method. Now if this method is already present then It becomes an obvious choice to hide the field and just provide intValue() as a method to get the value of the field. Having both accessible would add to confusion.
Another reason is that new versions of Java are regularly rolled out. Language developers try their best for backward compatibility, just imagine today you are using the field and tomorrow it is decided to have some logical operations or checking done before returning the value. Now if the direct field was accessible then it would have been difficult to achieve.

Difference between using a method in a class to return a value and referencing the exact value itself

Let's say I have a separate GUI class that has a public boolean called "guiWait" and also has a boolean method that returns guiWait.
What's the difference between:
while(gui.guiWait)...
and
while(gui.getGuiWait())...

The difference is visibility. When you make guiWait public to be used like the first example, outside callers can modify the value. If you use a method and make the variable private, callers cannot modify the guiWait variable (although they can modify the object it references if it's mutable). Furthermore, if you make a habit of using getters and setters, then later on if you need to add logic to the getting or setting process (such as you need to make the value derived from some other new field), you already have the methods and won't break any caller's code by making the variable private. So it's considered "best practice" to always use getters and setters in Java.

If guiWait is a public boolean, there is no point in having a "getter" method for it. If it were private or protected, then it'd be a different story. The private-getter method is more flexible because you can change the implementation of the "getting" of that variable, and add checks or whatever inside the method. Private getters/setters also make things clearer and establish which things should be seen by other classes and which are only meant to be used inside a single class they are apart of. If you find you do need a getter for a specific member variable (need some kind of verification or checking), which is very common, then it would be inconsistent to do it just for that variable.

The core concept of OOP is encapsulation. The getter and setter methods (eg. your getguiWait() method) are used so that nobody is able to access the internal fields of an object. This way no one else is able to set the internal fields to an inconsistent/abnormal value. By using the "getter" and "setter" methods (and hiding the inner fields by using private), you ensure that anyone willing to set or get a field will have to go through the checks that you have put up. Example Class Cat can have age as its field. In the setter method you would check that the user input value is not negative. If you allow the age field to be public, someone could potentially set it to negative which would make no sense.

Its the pure concept of Data Encapsulation in JAVA.
A language mechanism for restricting access to some of the object's components.
A language construct that facilitates the bundling of data with the methods (or other functions) operating on that data.
http://www.tutorialspoint.com/java/java_encapsulation.htm

What is the point of getters and setters? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Why use getters and setters?
I have read books on Java, saying that it is good to create setters and getters for variables such as x and y. For example:
public int getX(){
return x;
}
public void setX(int x){
this.x = x;
}
But what is the difference from that and
...(shape.x)... // Basically getX()
and
shape.x = 90; // Basically setX()
If setters and getters are better, what practical problems would arise?

Multiple reasons:
If you allow field access like
shape.x = 90
then you cannot add any logic in future to validate the data.
say if x cannot be less than 100 you cannot do it, however if you had setters like
public void setShapeValue(int shapeValue){
if(shapeValue < 100){
//do something here like throw exception.
}
}
You cannot add something like copy on write logic (see CopyOnWriteArrayList)
Another reason is for accessing fields outside your class you will have to mark them public, protected or default, and thus you loose control. When data is very much internal to the class breaking Encapsulation and in general OOPS methodology.
Though for constants like
public final String SOMETHING = "SOMETHING";
you will allow field access as they cannot be changed, for instance variable you will place them with getters, setters.
Another scenario is when you want your Class to be immutable, if you allow field access then you are breaking the immutability of your class since values can be changed. But if you carefully design your class with getters and no setters you keep the immutability intact.
Though in such cases you have to be careful in getter method to ensure you don't give out reference of objects(in case your class have object as instances).
We can use the private variables in any package using getters and setters.

Using getter and setter functions allow for constraints and encapsulation. Lets say x is the radius. shape.x = -10 would not make much sense. Also, if someone tries to set an illegal value, you can print an error, set a default value, or do nothing.
It is good practice to make member variables private so they cannot be modified directly by programs using them.
Mutator functions
Encapsulation

A lot of people have mentioned encapsulating the specifics of the implementation, which to me is the biggest reason to use getters and setters in a class. With this, you also get a lot of other benefits, including the ability to throw out and replace the implementation on a whim without needing to touch every piece of code that uses your class. In a small project, that's not a big benefit, but if your code ends up as a well-used (internal or public) library, it can be a huge benefit.
One specific example: complex numbers in mathematics. Some languages have them as a language or framework feature, others don't. I will use a mutable class as an example here, but it could just as easily be immutable.
A complex number can be written on the form a + bi with real and imaginary parts, lending itself well to [gs]etRealPart and [gs]etImaginaryPart.
However, in some cases it's easier to reason about complex numbers on polar form re^(iθ), giving [gs]etRadius (r) and [gs]etAngle (θ).
You can also expose methods like [gs]etComplexNumber(realPart, imaginaryPart) and [gs]etComplexNumber(radius, angle). Depending on the argument types these may or may not need different names, but then the class' consumer can use either as fits its needs.
The two forms are interchangeable; you can fairly easily convert from one to the other, so which form the class uses for internal storage is irrelevant to consumers of that class. However, consumers may use either form. If you choose the form a+bi for internal representation, and expose that using fields rather than getters and setters, not only do you force the class consumers to use that form, you also cannot later easily change your mind and replace the internal representation with re^(iθ) because that turns out to be easier to implement in your particular scenario. You're stuck with the public API you have defined, which mandates that specifically the real and imaginary parts are exposed using specific field names.

One of the best reasons I can think of for getters and setters is the permanence of a class's API. In languages like python you can access members by their name and switch them to methods later. Because functions behave differently than members in java once you access a property thats it. Restricting its scope later breaks the client.
By providing getters and setters a programmer has the flexibility to modify members and behavior freely as long as the adhere to the contract described by the public API.

Another good reason to user getter and setter can be understand by the following example
public class TestGetterSetter{
private String name ;
public void setName(String name){
this.name = name ;
}
public String getName(){
return this.name ;
}
}
The point of getters and setters is that only they are meant to be used to access the private variable, which they are getting or setting. This way you provide encapsulation and it will be much easier to refactor or modify your code later.
Imagine you use name instead of its getter. Then if you want to add something like a default (say the default name is 'Guest' if it wasn't set before), then you'll have to modify both the getter and the sayName function.
public class TestGetterSetter{
private String name ;
public void setName(String name){
this.name = name ;
}
public String getName(){
if (this.name == null ){
setName("Guest");
}
return this.name ;
}
}
There is no requirement for getters and setter to start with get and set - they are just normal member functions. However it's a convention to do that. (especially if you use Java Beans)

Let's say, hypothetically, you find a library that does a better job of what you have been doing in your own class (YourClass). The natural thing to do at this point is to make YourClass a wrapper interface to that library. It still has a concept of "X" which your client code needs to get or set. Naturally, at this point you pretty much have to write the accessor functions.
If you neglected to use accessor functions and let your client code access YourClass.x directly, you would now have to rewrite all of your client code that ever touched YourClass.x. But if you were using YourClass.getX() and YourClass.setX() from the beginning, you will only need to rewrite YourClass.
One of the key concepts of programming, and especially object oriented programming, is hiding implementation details so that they're not used directly by code in other classes or modules. This way, if you ever change the implementation details (as in the example above), the client code doesn't know the difference and doesn't have to be modified. For all your client code knows, "x" might be a variable, or it might be a value that is calculated on the fly.
This is an oversimplification and doesn't cover all the scenarios where hiding implementation is beneficial, but it is the most obvious example. The concept of hiding implementation details is pretty strongly tied to OOP now, but you can find discussions of it going back decades before OOP was dreamed up. It goes back to one of the core concepts of software development, which is to take a big nebulous problem, and divide it into small well-defined problems which can be solved easily. Accessor functions help keep your small sub-tasks separate and well-defined: The less your classes know about each other's internals, the better.

There are lots of reasons. Here are just a few.
Accessors, getters in particular, often appear in interfaces. You can't stipulate a member variable in an interface.
Once you expose this member variable, you can't change your mind about how it's implemented. For example, if you see a need later to switch to a pattern like aggregation, where you want the "x" property to actually come from some nested object, you end up having to copy that value and try to keep it in sync. Not good.
Most of the time you are much better off not exposing the setter. You can't do that with public fields like x.

Before get into the answer, we gotta know something prior...! "JavaBeans".
JavaBeans are java classes that have properties. For our purpose, think of properties as private instance variables. since they're private, the only way they can be accessed
from outside of their class is through 'methods'in the class.
The methods that change a propertiy's value are called setter methods, and the methods that retrieve a property's value are called getter methods.

I would say that neither the getters/setters nor the public members are good Object Oriented design. They both break OOP Encapsulation by exposing an objects data to the world that probably shouldn't be accessing the properties of the object in the first place.

This is done by applying the encapsulation principle of OOP.
A language mechanism for restricting access to some of the object's components.
This means, you must define the visibility for the attributes and methods of your classes. There are 3 common visibilities:
Private: Only the class can see and use the attributes/methods.
Protected: Only the class and its children can see and use the attributes/methods.
Public: Every class can see and use the attributes/methods.
When you declare private/protected attributes, you are encouraged to create methods to obtain the value (get) and change the value (set). One example about visibility is the [ArrayList][2] class: it has a size property to know the actual size of the inner array. Only the class must change its value, so the code is something like
public class ArrayList<E> {
private int size;
private Object[] array;
public getSize() {
return this.size;
}
public void add(E element) {
//logic to add the element in the array...
this.size++;
}
}
In this example, you can see that the size value can change only inside the class methods, and you can get the actual size by calling it in your code (not mutating it):
public void someMethod() {
List<String> ls = new ArrayList<String>();
//adding values
ls.add("Hello");
ls.add("World");
for(int i = 0; i < ls.size(); i++) {
System.out.println(ls.get(i));
}
}

Getters and setters encapsulate the fields of a class by making them accessible only through its public methods and keep the values themselves private. That is considered a good OO principle.
Granted, it often seems like redundant code if it does nothing more than setting or returning a value. However, setters also allow you to do input validation or cleanup. Having that in one place improves data integrity for your objects,

Because we are using Object oriented programming language.
Here we are using Data hiding and encapsulation.
The variable should not directly accessible from out side world (for achiving data hiding) so we will create it private so
shape.x
is not correct.
Getter and setter method are used to get and set the value of x which is the way to achive encapsulation.

How would i access Object properties an object method?

What is the "correct" way to access an object's properties from within an object method that is not a getter/setter method?

Getter/Setter is the recommended way of accessing properties of an object. Otherwise you to have to use public properties, but public properties are not recommended.

If a classes' properties don't have getters and they are not visible (e.g. not public), that means that the class is designed so that you can't access them. In that case, there is no proper way to access them.
Flipping this around, if you are designing a class and you intend that other classes can access its attributes, you ought to provide getters. You could alternatively declare the attributes to be public, protected or package private, but that makes your abstraction leaky and has a number of undesirable consequences.
If you are asking how one of an object's methods should access its own attributes, the simple answer is whichever way is most convenient. If the class has getters, you could call them. Alternatively, you could just access the attributes directly. The problems of leaky abstraction don't apply in this case because the method accessing the state is inside the abstraction boundary.

This is mostly a matter of preference.
I personally prefer not to use the getters and setters in my object. This increases readability, allows me to change my getters and settings to return copies (of lists mostly) without it changing my own object. If you do something special in your getter then you can make a helper method that is used by both your getter and your other functions. This will go wrong if your classes get too large though (so don't make large classes). I don't like how using a getter setter hides the side effects inside the object (unlike for external users, they should be hidden from any side effects inside the object), when you want to have the side effects, give the private method a clear name indiciting it has them.

First off I'll answer the question as is:
What is the "correct" way to access an object's properties from within an object method that is not a getter/setter method?
When you are within an object, you can reference the properties directly where the method is part of the object. For example:
public class testClass() {
public int x;
private someMethod() {
x = 4;
}
}
To answer the comment:
I think the question can be reformulated: Should I use getters and setters when implementing my object methods? Or should I access member variables directly?
You should always hide the internal data and other implementation details within a class as much as possible; seperating the API from the implementation (a.k.a encapsulation). Encapsulation decouples the modules thereby allowing them to be developed, tested and modified in isolation.
Generally, you should use the lowest access modifier possible (e.g. private, protected, package-private) whilst maintaining functionality for the application you're writing. The benefits of designing and devloping this way is that you can change implementation details without breaking code that uses the modules. If you make everything public, and other people are using your classes, you are forced to support it forever maintaining compatibility - or until they change their implementation that is using your modules.
Instance fields should never be public as you give up the ability to limit the values that can be stored in the field, and if it is a mutable object, you open your object up for misuse (see here). It is important to note too that classes with public mutable fields are not thread-safe. It is also important to note that instance fields that are declared public static final but are mutable objects can also be modified and can be a security risk.
Basically, in public classes - always use accessor methods, not public fields. It allows you to protect your mutable objects from modification outside of the class (be it intentionally or unintentionally) and allows you to change implementation detail later without harming your clients.