4 ms·
I would add boilerplate getters/setters to the list. Almost always, a simple public field works just fine.
by lukev 14y ago
I would add boilerplate getters/setters to the list. Almost always, a simple public field works just fine.
- delinka 14y agoUsing a public field removes one of the major benefits of object-oriented design. Don't misunderstand me: in many cases, really all you need is a collection of related fields and making them public is indeed OK - like a struct in C. But I tend to err on the side of safety with my fields - private member, public accessors - while I work out my modeling and refactoring. When the design settles, then I can relax access if it's OK. And when something changes in the design (atomicity requirements, immutability, etc) I already have most of the boilerplate in place. Mostly though, I keep my accessors. On a related note, do Java IDEs not provide boilerplate code? I'm more an Objective-C guy and the language now supports "here's a property" and "create the accessors" alongside my needs for custom ivar names, custom setters, etc. Even if Java the language doesn't have similar features, I'd expect IDEs to give you this kind of boilerplate stuff.
- nekgrim 14y agoEclipse has a "Generate Getters/Setters" option. You choose the variables, and voilà!
- lukev 14y agoThey do allow code generation, and that's precisely the problem. You end up with these ridiculously bloated files, most of the code of which hasn't ever even been looked at by a human. But generating getters and setters based on fields is putting the cart before the horse. You're right, it is very important for your classes to have a stable, clean public API that's distinct from the private implementation. But if that public API is intended to expose data at the field level, then just expose the fields without confusing the issue. If you don't want to expose the fields, then don't. Having private-but-not-really fields with a lot of auto-generated getters and setters doesn't help you provide a clean, small API: instead, it bloats the public API. Also, it obfuscates what's actually happening... is a getter just a simple data value, or is it doing a bunch of complicated shit behind the scenes? And if it is doing a bunch of complicated shit, just make it a regular method on the public API, not a getter that's logically tied to a field that the client knows is there. TL;DR: Fields are fields, methods are methods, auto-generating getters/setters blurs the line in unhelpful ways.
- danieldk 14y agoExcept when you want to change behavior in the future, e.g. adding a check to the getter or doing more than simply setting a value in the setter. If you started out with getters/setters in the first place, you can do this without changing the API and ABI.
- nikolavp 14y agoWell if you are changing the behaviour of the getter or the setter then you are already changing the public API contract. I would rather want a compile time error instead of a silently not changing value in a setter for example after a library upgrade
- delinka 14y agoChanging the underlying implementation is not changing the API contract. The API makes no guarantees about where your arguments are shipped off to nor where the return value came from. It simply says "you give me X, Y, Z and I'll return you M" and that's it. This is the very reason for specified APIs: the underlying implementation changes (for caching, efficiency, new storage models, etc) and external code goes on its merry way doing what it did before-- running.
- jpatte 14y agoif that public API is intended to expose data at the field level > That doesn't make a lot of sense. An API is an interface, which in this case exposes data. The fact that this data is held by objects at the field level as nothing to do with the purpose of the API: it's an implementation concern. The consumers of this API do not, and should not, need to know whether a field or anything else is used to provide the requested data. If the public API gets bloated when using getters/setters then blame Java, not this basic encapsulation principle. is a getter just a simple data value, or is it doing a bunch of complicated shit behind the scenes? > As you said, and as a rule of thumb, never do a bunch of complicated shit inside a getter: always expose a method for this operation. Just because getters exist does not mean methods should disappear.
- cageface 14y agoJava IDEs are leagues ahead of Xcode when it comes to refactoring and code generation.
- nl 14y agoExcept that a lot of reflection-based Java code relies on the Javabean property pattern (getters & setters) by default. You can often customize this (it is Java after all!) but sometimes it's better to just go with the expected standard in the language.
- UK-AL 14y agoGood luck adding Validation at a later date... And the fact many libraries rely on the pattern. Java rely needs properties...