Related
This question already has answers here:
Are getters and setters poor design? Contradictory advice seen [duplicate]
(16 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I have been going through clean code book which states that the class should not expose the internal state of its data and only should be exposing the behavior. In case of a very simpl and dumb java bean exposing the internal state which getter's and setters, is it not worth just removing them and make the private members public? Or just treat the class as a data structure?
I don't think so. It depends of the lifetime of your Object and its "exposure" (external modification).
If you're only using it as a data structure, exposing fields in secure way (final) sounds enough:
public class Person {
public final String firstName;
public final String lastName;
public Person(String firstName, String lastName) {
this.firstName = firstName;
this.lastName = lastName;
}
}
The term POJO was intended to distinguish classes from JavaBeans or any other convention. As such a POJO is by definition NOT required to do anything.
I have been going through clean code book which states that the class should not expose the internal state of its data and only should be exposing the behavior.
This is called encapsulation and a good principle.
In case of a very simpl and dumb java bean exposing the internal state which getter's and setters, is it not worth just removing them and make the private members public?
That is an alternative approach. Some projects may forbid this approach while others may encourage it. Personally, I would favour this approach for classes which are encapsulated in some way already e.g. they are package local.
There is a view that some day in some way your class might have additional requirements and changing the "API" will be impossible. This goes against the YAGNI principle and very rarely proves to be the case and when it does has a much lower cost than adding lots of methods which don't do anything.
However, this is not always the case and if you don't use accessor methods you should consider what the impact will be on the project if you have to change it later. Using accessor methods every where means you never need to worry about this.
In summary, if you are pretty sure accessor methods are pointless and it won't be a problem to add them later, I would say you should use your judgement. However if you are not sure if it could be a problem in the future or you don't want to have to worry about it, use accessor methods.
The definition of POJO doesn't mandate getter/setter.
Experimentally, I am not using getter and setter in my current project.
The approach I am taking is this one:
unless necessary, don't provide getter/setter.
So far, I didn't find a case where I really needed get/set.
Some friend told me: "having get/set is helpful if in the future you need xyz"; my reply has been: when -in the future- I need to do so, I will provide the getter and setter; I don't want to anticipate anything.
The objection about incapsulation, that some may raise, is not really a valid one: providing getter and setter breaks incapsulation in the same manner, plus you have additional lines of (useless) code. Bugs may also lay in getter and setters.
This is an example of one of a non-trivial domain class:
public class SSHKey implements IsSerializable {
public Long id;
public Long userId;
public String type;
public String bits;
public String fingerprint;
public String comment;
#SuppressWarnings("unused")
private SSHKey() { // required by gwt-rpc
}
public SSHKey(String text) throws InvalidSSHKeyException {
Ensure.that(text != null, new InvalidSSHKeyException("Invalid Key"));
text = text.trim();
String[] parts = text.split(" ", 3);
Ensure.that(parts.length >= 2,
new InvalidSSHKeyException("Invalid Key"));
type = getType(parts);
Ensure.that(type.equals("ssh-rsa") || type.equals("ssh-dss"),
new InvalidSSHKeyException(
"Key must start with 'ssh-rsa' or 'ssh-dss'"));
bits = getBits(parts);
comment = getComment(parts);
}
private String getBits(String[] parts) {
return parts[1];
}
private String getComment(String[] parts) {
if (parts.length == 3)
return parts[2];
return type + " " + bits.substring(0, min(15, bits.length())) + "...";
}
private String getType(String[] parts) {
return parts[0];
}
}
The constructor takes the responsibility to validate and prepare the data to be manageable. Thus this logic doesn't need to be in a setter/getter.
If I was shown object with public members some years ago, I would probably not like them; maybe I am doing something wrong now, but I am experimenting and so far it is ok.
Also, you need to consider if your class is designed to be extended or not (so, foresee the future is part of the requirements), and if you want your object to be immutable. Those things you can only do with get/set.
If your object must be immutable, and you can avoid the empty constructor, you can just add 'final' to the member instances, btw.
Unfortunately I had to add IsSerializable (similar to java.io.Serializable) and an empty constructor since this is required by gwt. So, you could tell me then "you see? you need the getter an setter"; well not so sure.
There are some jdbc frameworks which promote the use of public fields btw, like http://iciql.com
This doesn't imply that this project is correct, but that some people are thinking about it.
I suppose that the need of getter/setter is mostly cultural.
The issue with making the members accessible is that you no longer control them from inside the class.
Let's say that you make Car.speed accessible. Now, everywhere in you program there can be some reference to it. Now, if you want to make sure that speed is never set a negative value (or to make the change synchronized because you need to make it thread safe), you have to either:
in all the points where speed is accessible, rewrite the program to add the control. And hope that everybody that changes the program in the future remembers to do so.
make the member private again, create the getter and setter methods, and rewrite the program to use them.
Better get used to write getter and setter from the beginning. Nowadays, most IDEs do it automatically for you, anyway.
The canonical answer to this is: You don't know whether your simple data structure will stay so simple in the future. It might evolve more than you expect now. It might be also possible, that anytime soon you want some "value changed" observer in that bean. With getter and setter methods you can do this very simply later without changing you existing codebase.
Another pro point for getter/setter is: If in Rome, do like the Romans... Which means in this case: Many generic frameworks expect getter/setter. If you don't want to rule all these usefulls frameworks out right from the start then do you and your colleagues a favour and simply implement standard getter/and setters.
Only if you expose a class in a library that's used beyond your control.
If you do release such a library, the Uniform Access Principle dictates that you should use getters and setters in order to be able to change the underlying implementation later without requiring clients to change their code. Java doesn't give you other mechanisms to do this.
If you use this class in your own system, there's no need: your IDE can easily encapsulate a public field and update all its usages in one safe step. In this case, brevity wins, and you lose nothing for the time where you need encapsulation.
I think it's a good idea to use getters and setters, unless you have very specific speed/memory/efficiency requirements or very simple objects.
A good example is a Point, where it is probably both nicer and more efficient to expose it's .x and .y variables.
That said, it will actually not be a big effort to change the visibility of a few member variables and introduce getters and setters even for a large codebase, if you suddenly require some logic in a setter.
JavaBeans require getters and setters. POJOs do not, anyway this has its benefits
The objetive of the getters and setters is to achieve encapsulation, which manages the internal state of object. This allows you to add or change business rules in your application after the application has been implemented only change the getter or setter code, example, if you have a text field that only allows for more than 3 characters can check before assigning it to an attribute and throw an exception, other reason for not doing this is if it's possible you'll want to change the implementation or change variable names or something like. This cannot be enforced if the field is publicly accessible and modifyable
anyway you can use your IDE to generate setters and getters.
If you are developing a simple application can be recommended, if your application is complex and must give maintenance is not recommend.
for the data-type objects, like POJO / PODS / JavaBean, at python you have only public members
you can set those and get those easily, without generating boilerplate setter and getter code(in java these boilerplate code usually(98%) exposes the inner private tag as noted in the question)
and at python in the case you would need to interact with a getter, then you just define extra code only for that purpose
clean and effective at the language level
at java they chose the IDE development instead of changing base java, see JavaBean e.g. how old that is and java 1.0.2 is how old...
JDK 1.0 (January 23, 1996)
The EJB specification was originally developed in 1997 by IBM and later adopted by Sun Microsystems (EJB 1.0 and 1.1) in 1999
so just live with it, use the setter getter because those are enforced by java surroundings
That's the true what #Peter Lawrey explains about encapsulation.
Only one note: it's more important, when you are working with complex objects (for example in the domain model in a ORM project), when you have attributes that aren't simple Java types. For example:
public class Father {
private List childs = new ArrayList();
public Father() {
// ...
}
private List getChilds() {
return this.childs;
}
public void setChilds(List newChilds) {
this.childs = newChilds;
}
}
public class Child {
private String name;
// ...
private String getName() {
return this.name;
}
public void setName(String newName) {
this.name = newName;
}
}
If you expose one attribute (like the childs attribute in the Father class) as a public, you won't be able to identify what part of your code are setting or changing one property of your exposed attribute (in the case, for example, adding new Child to a Father or even changing the name of a existing Child). In the example, only a Father object can retrieve the childs content and all the rest of the classes can change it, using its setter.
What's the advantage of using getters and setters - that only get and set - instead of simply using public fields for those variables?
If getters and setters are ever doing more than just the simple get/set, I can figure this one out very quickly, but I'm not 100% clear on how:
public String foo;
is any worse than:
private String foo;
public void setFoo(String foo) { this.foo = foo; }
public String getFoo() { return foo; }
Whereas the former takes a lot less boilerplate code.
There are actually many good reasons to consider using accessors rather than directly exposing fields of a class - beyond just the argument of encapsulation and making future changes easier.
Here are the some of the reasons I am aware of:
Encapsulation of behavior associated with getting or setting the property - this allows additional functionality (like validation) to be added more easily later.
Hiding the internal representation of the property while exposing a property using an alternative representation.
Insulating your public interface from change - allowing the public interface to remain constant while the implementation changes without affecting existing consumers.
Controlling the lifetime and memory management (disposal) semantics of the property - particularly important in non-managed memory environments (like C++ or Objective-C).
Providing a debugging interception point for when a property changes at runtime - debugging when and where a property changed to a particular value can be quite difficult without this in some languages.
Improved interoperability with libraries that are designed to operate against property getter/setters - Mocking, Serialization, and WPF come to mind.
Allowing inheritors to change the semantics of how the property behaves and is exposed by overriding the getter/setter methods.
Allowing the getter/setter to be passed around as lambda expressions rather than values.
Getters and setters can allow different access levels - for example the get may be public, but the set could be protected.
Because 2 weeks (months, years) from now when you realize that your setter needs to do more than just set the value, you'll also realize that the property has been used directly in 238 other classes :-)
A public field is not worse than a getter/setter pair that does nothing except returning the field and assigning to it. First, it's clear that (in most languages) there is no functional difference. Any difference must be in other factors, like maintainability or readability.
An oft-mentioned advantage of getter/setter pairs, isn't. There's this claim that you can change the implementation and your clients don't have to be recompiled. Supposedly, setters let you add functionality like validation later on and your clients don't even need to know about it. However, adding validation to a setter is a change to its preconditions, a violation of the previous contract, which was, quite simply, "you can put anything in here, and you can get that same thing later from the getter".
So, now that you broke the contract, changing every file in the codebase is something you should want to do, not avoid. If you avoid it you're making the assumption that all the code assumed the contract for those methods was different.
If that should not have been the contract, then the interface was allowing clients to put the object in invalid states. That's the exact opposite of encapsulation If that field could not really be set to anything from the start, why wasn't the validation there from the start?
This same argument applies to other supposed advantages of these pass-through getter/setter pairs: if you later decide to change the value being set, you're breaking the contract. If you override the default functionality in a derived class, in a way beyond a few harmless modifications (like logging or other non-observable behaviour), you're breaking the contract of the base class. That is a violation of the Liskov Substitutability Principle, which is seen as one of the tenets of OO.
If a class has these dumb getters and setters for every field, then it is a class that has no invariants whatsoever, no contract. Is that really object-oriented design? If all the class has is those getters and setters, it's just a dumb data holder, and dumb data holders should look like dumb data holders:
class Foo {
public:
int DaysLeft;
int ContestantNumber;
};
Adding pass-through getter/setter pairs to such a class adds no value. Other classes should provide meaningful operations, not just operations that fields already provide. That's how you can define and maintain useful invariants.
Client: "What can I do with an object of this class?"
Designer: "You can read and write several variables."
Client: "Oh... cool, I guess?"
There are reasons to use getters and setters, but if those reasons don't exist, making getter/setter pairs in the name of false encapsulation gods is not a good thing. Valid reasons to make getters or setters include the things often mentioned as the potential changes you can make later, like validation or different internal representations. Or maybe the value should be readable by clients but not writable (for example, reading the size of a dictionary), so a simple getter is a nice choice. But those reasons should be there when you make the choice, and not just as a potential thing you may want later. This is an instance of YAGNI (You Ain't Gonna Need It).
Lots of people talk about the advantages of getters and setters but I want to play devil's advocate. Right now I'm debugging a very large program where the programmers decided to make everything getters and setters. That might seem nice, but its a reverse-engineering nightmare.
Say you're looking through hundreds of lines of code and you come across this:
person.name = "Joe";
It's a beautifully simply piece of code until you realize its a setter. Now, you follow that setter and find that it also sets person.firstName, person.lastName, person.isHuman, person.hasReallyCommonFirstName, and calls person.update(), which sends a query out to the database, etc. Oh, that's where your memory leak was occurring.
Understanding a local piece of code at first glance is an important property of good readability that getters and setters tend to break. That is why I try to avoid them when I can, and minimize what they do when I use them.
In a pure object-oriented world getters and setters is a terrible anti-pattern. Read this article: Getters/Setters. Evil. Period. In a nutshell, they encourage programmers to think about objects as of data structures, and this type of thinking is pure procedural (like in COBOL or C). In an object-oriented language there are no data structures, but only objects that expose behavior (not attributes/properties!)
You may find more about them in Section 3.5 of Elegant Objects (my book about object-oriented programming).
There are many reasons. My favorite one is when you need to change the behavior or regulate what you can set on a variable. For instance, lets say you had a setSpeed(int speed) method. But you want that you can only set a maximum speed of 100. You would do something like:
public void setSpeed(int speed) {
if ( speed > 100 ) {
this.speed = 100;
} else {
this.speed = speed;
}
}
Now what if EVERYWHERE in your code you were using the public field and then you realized you need the above requirement? Have fun hunting down every usage of the public field instead of just modifying your setter.
My 2 cents :)
One advantage of accessors and mutators is that you can perform validation.
For example, if foo was public, I could easily set it to null and then someone else could try to call a method on the object. But it's not there anymore! With a setFoo method, I could ensure that foo was never set to null.
Accessors and mutators also allow for encapsulation - if you aren't supposed to see the value once its set (perhaps it's set in the constructor and then used by methods, but never supposed to be changed), it will never been seen by anyone. But if you can allow other classes to see or change it, you can provide the proper accessor and/or mutator.
Thanks, that really clarified my thinking. Now here is (almost) 10 (almost) good reasons NOT to use getters and setters:
When you realize you need to do more than just set and get the value, you can just make the field private, which will instantly tell you where you've directly accessed it.
Any validation you perform in there can only be context free, which validation rarely is in practice.
You can change the value being set - this is an absolute nightmare when the caller passes you a value that they [shock horror] want you to store AS IS.
You can hide the internal representation - fantastic, so you're making sure that all these operations are symmetrical right?
You've insulated your public interface from changes under the sheets - if you were designing an interface and weren't sure whether direct access to something was OK, then you should have kept designing.
Some libraries expect this, but not many - reflection, serialization, mock objects all work just fine with public fields.
Inheriting this class, you can override default functionality - in other words you can REALLY confuse callers by not only hiding the implementation but making it inconsistent.
The last three I'm just leaving (N/A or D/C)...
Depends on your language. You've tagged this "object-oriented" rather than "Java", so I'd like to point out that ChssPly76's answer is language-dependent. In Python, for instance, there is no reason to use getters and setters. If you need to change the behavior, you can use a property, which wraps a getter and setter around basic attribute access. Something like this:
class Simple(object):
def _get_value(self):
return self._value -1
def _set_value(self, new_value):
self._value = new_value + 1
def _del_value(self):
self.old_values.append(self._value)
del self._value
value = property(_get_value, _set_value, _del_value)
Well i just want to add that even if sometimes they are necessary for the encapsulation and security of your variables/objects, if we want to code a real Object Oriented Program, then we need to STOP OVERUSING THE ACCESSORS, cause sometimes we depend a lot on them when is not really necessary and that makes almost the same as if we put the variables public.
EDIT: I answered this question because there are a bunch of people learning programming asking this, and most of the answers are very technically competent, but they're not as easy to understand if you're a newbie. We were all newbies, so I thought I'd try my hand at a more newbie friendly answer.
The two main ones are polymorphism, and validation. Even if it's just a stupid data structure.
Let's say we have this simple class:
public class Bottle {
public int amountOfWaterMl;
public int capacityMl;
}
A very simple class that holds how much liquid is in it, and what its capacity is (in milliliters).
What happens when I do:
Bottle bot = new Bottle();
bot.amountOfWaterMl = 1500;
bot.capacityMl = 1000;
Well, you wouldn't expect that to work, right?
You want there to be some kind of sanity check. And worse, what if I never specified the maximum capacity? Oh dear, we have a problem.
But there's another problem too. What if bottles were just one type of container? What if we had several containers, all with capacities and amounts of liquid filled? If we could just make an interface, we could let the rest of our program accept that interface, and bottles, jerrycans and all sorts of stuff would just work interchangably. Wouldn't that be better? Since interfaces demand methods, this is also a good thing.
We'd end up with something like:
public interface LiquidContainer {
public int getAmountMl();
public void setAmountMl(int amountMl);
public int getCapacityMl();
}
Great! And now we just change Bottle to this:
public class Bottle implements LiquidContainer {
private int capacityMl;
private int amountFilledMl;
public Bottle(int capacityMl, int amountFilledMl) {
this.capacityMl = capacityMl;
this.amountFilledMl = amountFilledMl;
checkNotOverFlow();
}
public int getAmountMl() {
return amountFilledMl;
}
public void setAmountMl(int amountMl) {
this.amountFilled = amountMl;
checkNotOverFlow();
}
public int getCapacityMl() {
return capacityMl;
}
private void checkNotOverFlow() {
if(amountOfWaterMl > capacityMl) {
throw new BottleOverflowException();
}
}
I'll leave the definition of the BottleOverflowException as an exercise to the reader.
Now notice how much more robust this is. We can deal with any type of container in our code now by accepting LiquidContainer instead of Bottle. And how these bottles deal with this sort of stuff can all differ. You can have bottles that write their state to disk when it changes, or bottles that save on SQL databases or GNU knows what else.
And all these can have different ways to handle various whoopsies. The Bottle just checks and if it's overflowing it throws a RuntimeException. But that might be the wrong thing to do.
(There is a useful discussion to be had about error handling, but I'm keeping it very simple here on purpose. People in comments will likely point out the flaws of this simplistic approach. ;) )
And yes, it seems like we go from a very simple idea to getting much better answers quickly.
Please note also that you can't change the capacity of a bottle. It's now set in stone. You could do this with an int by declaring it final. But if this was a list, you could empty it, add new things to it, and so on. You can't limit the access to touching the innards.
There's also the third thing that not everyone has addressed: getters and setters use method calls. That means that they look like normal methods everywhere else does. Instead of having weird specific syntax for DTOs and stuff, you have the same thing everywhere.
I know it's a bit late, but I think there are some people who are interested in performance.
I've done a little performance test. I wrote a class "NumberHolder" which, well, holds an Integer. You can either read that Integer by using the getter method
anInstance.getNumber() or by directly accessing the number by using anInstance.number. My programm reads the number 1,000,000,000 times, via both ways. That process is repeated five times and the time is printed. I've got the following result:
Time 1: 953ms, Time 2: 741ms
Time 1: 655ms, Time 2: 743ms
Time 1: 656ms, Time 2: 634ms
Time 1: 637ms, Time 2: 629ms
Time 1: 633ms, Time 2: 625ms
(Time 1 is the direct way, Time 2 is the getter)
You see, the getter is (almost) always a bit faster. Then I tried with different numbers of cycles. Instead of 1 million, I used 10 million and 0.1 million.
The results:
10 million cycles:
Time 1: 6382ms, Time 2: 6351ms
Time 1: 6363ms, Time 2: 6351ms
Time 1: 6350ms, Time 2: 6363ms
Time 1: 6353ms, Time 2: 6357ms
Time 1: 6348ms, Time 2: 6354ms
With 10 million cycles, the times are almost the same.
Here are 100 thousand (0.1 million) cycles:
Time 1: 77ms, Time 2: 73ms
Time 1: 94ms, Time 2: 65ms
Time 1: 67ms, Time 2: 63ms
Time 1: 65ms, Time 2: 65ms
Time 1: 66ms, Time 2: 63ms
Also with different amounts of cycles, the getter is a little bit faster than the regular way. I hope this helped you.
Don't use getters setters unless needed for your current delivery I.e. Don't think too much about what would happen in the future, if any thing to be changed its a change request in most of the production applications, systems.
Think simple, easy, add complexity when needed.
I would not take advantage of ignorance of business owners of deep technical know how just because I think it's correct or I like the approach.
I have massive system written without getters setters only with access modifiers and some methods to validate n perform biz logic. If you absolutely needed the. Use anything.
We use getters and setters:
for reusability
to perform validation in later stages of programming
Getter and setter methods are public interfaces to access private class members.
Encapsulation mantra
The encapsulation mantra is to make fields private and methods public.
Getter Methods: We can get access to private variables.
Setter Methods: We can modify private fields.
Even though the getter and setter methods do not add new functionality, we can change our mind come back later to make that method
better;
safer; and
faster.
Anywhere a value can be used, a method that returns that value can be added. Instead of:
int x = 1000 - 500
use
int x = 1000 - class_name.getValue();
In layman's terms
Suppose we need to store the details of this Person. This Person has the fields name, age and sex. Doing this involves creating methods for name, age and sex. Now if we need create another person, it becomes necessary to create the methods for name, age, sex all over again.
Instead of doing this, we can create a bean class(Person) with getter and setter methods. So tomorrow we can just create objects of this Bean class(Person class) whenever we need to add a new person (see the figure). Thus we are reusing the fields and methods of bean class, which is much better.
I spent quite a while thinking this over for the Java case, and I believe the real reasons are:
Code to the interface, not the implementation
Interfaces only specify methods, not fields
In other words, the only way you can specify a field in an interface is by providing a method for writing a new value and a method for reading the current value.
Those methods are the infamous getter and setter....
It can be useful for lazy-loading. Say the object in question is stored in a database, and you don't want to go get it unless you need it. If the object is retrieved by a getter, then the internal object can be null until somebody asks for it, then you can go get it on the first call to the getter.
I had a base page class in a project that was handed to me that was loading some data from a couple different web service calls, but the data in those web service calls wasn't always used in all child pages. Web services, for all of the benefits, pioneer new definitions of "slow", so you don't want to make a web service call if you don't have to.
I moved from public fields to getters, and now the getters check the cache, and if it's not there call the web service. So with a little wrapping, a lot of web service calls were prevented.
So the getter saves me from trying to figure out, on each child page, what I will need. If I need it, I call the getter, and it goes to find it for me if I don't already have it.
protected YourType _yourName = null;
public YourType YourName{
get
{
if (_yourName == null)
{
_yourName = new YourType();
return _yourName;
}
}
}
One aspect I missed in the answers so far, the access specification:
for members you have only one access specification for both setting and getting
for setters and getters you can fine tune it and define it separately
In languages which don't support "properties" (C++, Java) or require recompilation of clients when changing fields to properties (C#), using get/set methods is easier to modify. For example, adding validation logic to a setFoo method will not require changing the public interface of a class.
In languages which support "real" properties (Python, Ruby, maybe Smalltalk?) there is no point to get/set methods.
One of the basic principals of OO design: Encapsulation!
It gives you many benefits, one of which being that you can change the implementation of the getter/setter behind the scenes but any consumer of that value will continue to work as long as the data type remains the same.
You should use getters and setters when:
You're dealing with something that is conceptually an attribute, but:
Your language doesn't have properties (or some similar mechanism, like Tcl's variable traces), or
Your language's property support isn't sufficient for this use case, or
Your language's (or sometimes your framework's) idiomatic conventions encourage getters or setters for this use case.
So this is very rarely a general OO question; it's a language-specific question, with different answers for different languages (and different use cases).
From an OO theory point of view, getters and setters are useless. The interface of your class is what it does, not what its state is. (If not, you've written the wrong class.) In very simple cases, where what a class does is just, e.g., represent a point in rectangular coordinates,* the attributes are part of the interface; getters and setters just cloud that. But in anything but very simple cases, neither the attributes nor getters and setters are part of the interface.
Put another way: If you believe that consumers of your class shouldn't even know that you have a spam attribute, much less be able to change it willy-nilly, then giving them a set_spam method is the last thing you want to do.
* Even for that simple class, you may not necessarily want to allow setting the x and y values. If this is really a class, shouldn't it have methods like translate, rotate, etc.? If it's only a class because your language doesn't have records/structs/named tuples, then this isn't really a question of OO…
But nobody is ever doing general OO design. They're doing design, and implementation, in a specific language. And in some languages, getters and setters are far from useless.
If your language doesn't have properties, then the only way to represent something that's conceptually an attribute, but is actually computed, or validated, etc., is through getters and setters.
Even if your language does have properties, there may be cases where they're insufficient or inappropriate. For example, if you want to allow subclasses to control the semantics of an attribute, in languages without dynamic access, a subclass can't substitute a computed property for an attribute.
As for the "what if I want to change my implementation later?" question (which is repeated multiple times in different wording in both the OP's question and the accepted answer): If it really is a pure implementation change, and you started with an attribute, you can change it to a property without affecting the interface. Unless, of course, your language doesn't support that. So this is really just the same case again.
Also, it's important to follow the idioms of the language (or framework) you're using. If you write beautiful Ruby-style code in C#, any experienced C# developer other than you is going to have trouble reading it, and that's bad. Some languages have stronger cultures around their conventions than others.—and it may not be a coincidence that Java and Python, which are on opposite ends of the spectrum for how idiomatic getters are, happen to have two of the strongest cultures.
Beyond human readers, there will be libraries and tools that expect you to follow the conventions, and make your life harder if you don't. Hooking Interface Builder widgets to anything but ObjC properties, or using certain Java mocking libraries without getters, is just making your life more difficult. If the tools are important to you, don't fight them.
From a object orientation design standpoint both alternatives can be damaging to the maintenance of the code by weakening the encapsulation of the classes. For a discussion you can look into this excellent article: http://typicalprogrammer.com/?p=23
Code evolves. private is great for when you need data member protection. Eventually all classes should be sort of "miniprograms" that have a well-defined interface that you can't just screw with the internals of.
That said, software development isn't about setting down that final version of the class as if you're pressing some cast iron statue on the first try. While you're working with it, code is more like clay. It evolves as you develop it and learn more about the problem domain you are solving. During development classes may interact with each other than they should (dependency you plan to factor out), merge together, or split apart. So I think the debate boils down to people not wanting to religiously write
int getVar() const { return var ; }
So you have:
doSomething( obj->getVar() ) ;
Instead of
doSomething( obj->var ) ;
Not only is getVar() visually noisy, it gives this illusion that gettingVar() is somehow a more complex process than it really is. How you (as the class writer) regard the sanctity of var is particularly confusing to a user of your class if it has a passthru setter -- then it looks like you're putting up these gates to "protect" something you insist is valuable, (the sanctity of var) but yet even you concede var's protection isn't worth much by the ability for anyone to just come in and set var to whatever value they want, without you even peeking at what they are doing.
So I program as follows (assuming an "agile" type approach -- ie when I write code not knowing exactly what it will be doing/don't have time or experience to plan an elaborate waterfall style interface set):
1) Start with all public members for basic objects with data and behavior. This is why in all my C++ "example" code you'll notice me using struct instead of class everywhere.
2) When an object's internal behavior for a data member becomes complex enough, (for example, it likes to keep an internal std::list in some kind of order), accessor type functions are written. Because I'm programming by myself, I don't always set the member private right away, but somewhere down the evolution of the class the member will be "promoted" to either protected or private.
3) Classes that are fully fleshed out and have strict rules about their internals (ie they know exactly what they are doing, and you are not to "fuck" (technical term) with its internals) are given the class designation, default private members, and only a select few members are allowed to be public.
I find this approach allows me to avoid sitting there and religiously writing getter/setters when a lot of data members get migrated out, shifted around, etc. during the early stages of a class's evolution.
There is a good reason to consider using accessors is there is no property inheritance. See next example:
public class TestPropertyOverride {
public static class A {
public int i = 0;
public void add() {
i++;
}
public int getI() {
return i;
}
}
public static class B extends A {
public int i = 2;
#Override
public void add() {
i = i + 2;
}
#Override
public int getI() {
return i;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
A a = new B();
System.out.println(a.i);
a.add();
System.out.println(a.i);
System.out.println(a.getI());
}
}
Output:
0
0
4
Getters and setters are used to implement two of the fundamental aspects of Object Oriented Programming which are:
Abstraction
Encapsulation
Suppose we have an Employee class:
package com.highmark.productConfig.types;
public class Employee {
private String firstName;
private String middleName;
private String lastName;
public String getFirstName() {
return firstName;
}
public void setFirstName(String firstName) {
this.firstName = firstName;
}
public String getMiddleName() {
return middleName;
}
public void setMiddleName(String middleName) {
this.middleName = middleName;
}
public String getLastName() {
return lastName;
}
public void setLastName(String lastName) {
this.lastName = lastName;
}
public String getFullName(){
return this.getFirstName() + this.getMiddleName() + this.getLastName();
}
}
Here the implementation details of Full Name is hidden from the user and is not accessible directly to the user, unlike a public attribute.
There is a difference between DataStructure and Object.
Datastructure should expose its innards and not behavior.
An Object should not expose its innards but it should expose its behavior, which is also known as the Law of Demeter
Mostly DTOs are considered more of a datastructure and not Object. They should only expose their data and not behavior. Having Setter/Getter in DataStructure will expose behavior instead of data inside it. This further increases the chance of violation of Law of Demeter.
Uncle Bob in his book Clean code explained the Law of Demeter.
There is a well-known heuristic called the Law of Demeter that says a
module should not know about the innards of the objects it
manipulates. As we saw in the last section, objects hide their data
and expose operations. This means that an object should not expose its
internal structure through accessors because to do so is to expose,
rather than to hide, its internal structure.
More precisely, the Law of Demeter says that a method f of a class C
should only call the methods of these:
C
An object created by f
An object passed as an argument to f
An object held in an instance variable of C
The method should not invoke methods on objects that are returned by any of the allowed functions.
In other words, talk to friends, not to strangers.
So according this, example of LoD violation is:
final String outputDir = ctxt.getOptions().getScratchDir().getAbsolutePath();
Here, the function should call the method of its immediate friend which is ctxt here, It should not call the method of its immediate friend's friend. but this rule doesn't apply to data structure. so here if ctxt, option, scratchDir are datastructure then why to wrap their internal data with some behavior and doing a violation of LoD.
Instead, we can do something like this.
final String outputDir = ctxt.options.scratchDir.absolutePath;
This fulfills our needs and doesn't even violate LoD.
Inspired by Clean Code by Robert C. Martin(Uncle Bob)
If you don't require any validations and not even need to maintain state i.e. one property depends on another so we need to maintain the state when one is change. You can keep it simple by making field public and not using getter and setters.
I think OOPs complicates things as the program grows it becomes nightmare for developer to scale.
A simple example; we generate c++ headers from xml. The header contains simple field which does not require any validations. But still as in OOPS accessor are fashion we generates them as following.
const Filed& getfield() const
Field& getField()
void setfield(const Field& field){...}
which is very verbose and is not required. a simple
struct
{
Field field;
};
is enough and readable.
Functional programming don't have the concept of data hiding they even don't require it as they do not mutate the data.
Additionally, this is to "future-proof" your class. In particular, changing from a field to a property is an ABI break, so if you do later decide that you need more logic than just "set/get the field", then you need to break ABI, which of course creates problems for anything else already compiled against your class.
One other use (in languages that support properties) is that setters and getters can imply that an operation is non-trivial. Typically, you want to avoid doing anything that's computationally expensive in a property.
One relatively modern advantage of getters/setters is that is makes it easier to browse code in tagged (indexed) code editors. E.g. If you want to see who sets a member, you can open the call hierarchy of the setter.
On the other hand, if the member is public, the tools don't make it possible to filter read/write access to the member. So you have to trudge though all uses of the member.
Getters and setters coming from data hiding. Data Hiding means We
are hiding data from outsiders or outside person/thing cannot access
our data.This is a useful feature in OOP.
As a example:
If you create a public variable, you can access that variable and change value in anywhere(any class). But if you create as private that variable cannot see/access in any class except declared class.
public and private are access modifiers.
So how can we access that variable outside:
This is the place getters and setters coming from. You can declare variable as private then you can implement getter and setter for that variable.
Example(Java):
private String name;
public String getName(){
return this.name;
}
public void setName(String name){
this.name= name;
}
Advantage:
When anyone want to access or change/set value to balance variable, he/she must have permision.
//assume we have person1 object
//to give permission to check balance
person1.getName()
//to give permission to set balance
person1.setName()
You can set value in constructor also but when later on when you want
to update/change value, you have to implement setter method.
I am learning get and set methods, I was just wondering if these can only be public, and do they need to be written for every instance variable in a class?
No.
Many internal variables should never be edited, such as states of computations.
If a field is private and has no getter/setter, it is that way for a reason and is acceptable as long as you don't need to access it outside the class.
If it is public, there's no point, and if protected, it's per-package or subclasses not necessarily in the same package.
Without a modifier, it's package-private.
If you want to make a field private and the getter/setter controlled you can use access levels as well.
On that note, if you want, you can perform validation inside a setter to ensure only acceptable values are set. Then, you can either silently reject, return false if the setter is a boolean, or throw an exception in severe circumstances.
I am assuming you are talking about encapsulation.
The whole point of these methods is for them to be public so that they can pass the value of your variable somewhere else in the application.
For achieving this with many variables, you may consider using 'listeners' (Observer Pattern Theory) which are basically custom interfaces that work with a custom class that contains many of these get and set methods.
More on encapsulation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encapsulation_(object-oriented_programming)
More on Observer Pattern Theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEtyGP994X0
You need to have public getters and setters for your object to function as a JavaBean.
If you don't have a JavaBean requirement for your objects, then you don't need/have to provide public getters ( and especially setters ) in your classes.
Get and set methods in Java are just normal methods. They don't have to be public, but they wouldn't be very useful if they weren't public.
They don't need to be written for every instance variable in a class. If there are instance variables whose values depend on other values, then it may not make sense for them to have setters, e.g. a totalPrice instance variable that depends on a quantity instance variable.
If you want instance variables that shouldn't change, i.e they are immutable, then don't provide any set methods at all.
These methods provide your interface to the caller. They provide the operations on your object that you allow, so that the caller can't set your values to an invalid state, e.g. a count of -1 or a latitude of 91 degrees. This is "encapsulation", or hiding your object's implementation from your caller.
There is no java rule for making getters and setters public but these are made public for a reason.The point of getters and setters is that only they are meant to be used to access the private varialble, which they are getting or setting. This way you provide encapsulation and it will be much easier to refactor or modify your code later.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.
A good article on the usage of getters and setters:
http://java.dzone.com/articles/getter-setter-use-or-not-use-0
Basically Yes, and No.
Yes, Get and Set methods (also called "getters" and "setters" or accessor methods) should almost always be public (although they can be otherwise -- there's a difference between can and should). The point of getters and setters is usually so other classes can access the encapsulated instance variables.
Exeptions:
You might make an accessor method to be protected if you only want child
classes or other classes in the same package to have access to those
methods.
You might use a private (or protected) setter if you want to
use special logic to set a variable (like concatenating it)
and you don't want other classes to be able to set the
variable.
No, they shouldn't always have accessors. Sometimes a variable should only have a getter (for instance, if that variable is final), and sometimes a variable shouldn't be accessed at all, and therefore you would not give it any accessor methods.
Get and set methods were designed originally for JavaBeans, classes stylized so IDEs and application programs can detect what properties the classes have and what event listeners they support. Through a limited version of reflection called introspection, tools can analyze the classes, and even if the programmer did not want to use is/get/set methods he could write BeanInfo classes that tell what methods be used instead.
Look at the Javadoc for java.beans.Introspector. and java.beans.BeanInfo. This provides ways to document additional information, including methods exposed to other tools and metadata about properties. For example, a TemperatureGauge class could expose the minimum and maximum temperature so a Swing program can set the limits of a slider without the programmer looking the information up.
Still, one should not expose more than one has to expose. You may need to limit access to getters and setters. You may need them for database tools, but you may not want ordinary programming to touch properties. This leads to ideas like OSGI or proxies where methods are limited to specific packages.
For example, one common tactic is to have getters only, to mark variables final, and build objects in the constructor. For example,
public final class Complex {
private final double re;
private final double im;
public Complex(double re, double I'm) {
this.re = re;
this.im = im;
}
public double getReal() {
return re;
}
// more getters, arithmetic, etc.
}
Note that I named the method slightly differently than the variable; that's okay.
On the other hand, there is a style of programming where one eschews getters and writes methods that tell the object what to do. Consider a Name class with givenName and surname instance variables. Then, add this method:
public void writeFormally(Appendable app) {
app.append(surname)
.append(", ")
.append(givenName);
}
You see this sometimes in Model-View-Presenter systems, like GWT and its HasText interface.
Unless you are writing code that deals with dependency injection systems or that use reflection to have your objects communicate with database, don't worry about the specifics of getters and setters. Just do what comes naturally and limit your objects' exposures. Also, every time you are tempted to write:
x.getA().getB().getC().setZ(42);
Rewrite the code to get rid of the chain of gets and sets. Look up the Law of Demeter in The Pragmatic Programmer.
Use protected if you want only child classes to access the field. However, if you want other classes to access the field, public is the way to go. Your decision should be based on the scope of access.
This question already has answers here:
Is it in an anti-pattern to always use get and set methods to access a class's own member fields? [duplicate]
(11 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
Usually, in my own projects I use getters and setters for any field access, and I followed to do the same on my job. Some time ago, the tech lead of our project asked me why I was doing that and why is this better than just using fields themselves (with an option of declaring them protected if they needed to be accessed by subclasses). I couldn't come up with a clear answer.
So, are there any reasons to using getters and setters inside a class for class' own fields, or is it better to use fields directly?
The most obvious answer is side effects:
int getCost()
{
if (cost == null) {
calculateCost();
}
return cost;
}
If you need the cost, use getCost(). If you want to see if cost has been calculated, use cost.
If there is any business logic around those values (or there is the potential for such logic), then there is a benefit to using getters and setters even for internal calls.
For example, your setter might do validation on its inputs, and throw an exception rather than store an invalid value. Having all your code use that setter rather than simply setting values directly means that the error is caught at the time it is made rather than a long time later when that value is used. A similar case for a getter is when there is a logical default value, which should be used in case of a null. By using a getter, you can safely write local methods without needing continuous null checks or default options.
That said, if there's no business logic in those methods, and no side effects caused by them, then it's mostly a stylistic thing. It is essentially the responsibility of the class to be internally consistent, and as long as it remains so then it's mostly personal/professional preference whether you access the variables directly or through wrapping methods.
You want to declare them as public getters and setters, and private fields. This means external classes (not subclasses) who want to modify the variables all do so through the setters, and get them through the getters. The benefit of this is that if you want to control how or what condition they get or set them, or want to add information or even print debug, it means you only have to put it in the getters and setters.
There's a really good explanation of the benefits on stackoverflow actually:
In Java, difference between default, public, protected, and private
Of course, only make methods when they're actually needed, and similarly, only public when needed by external classes.
Hope that helps the defense!
This is part of the general question as to why you use getters and setters. Many developers use them without though, as a matter of practice. Personally, I only put in getters/setters if I need to.
I would suggest you do what is clearest/simplest to you.
In general, if I can easily add a getter/setter later should I need it, I won't add it. If it would be difficult to add later (or you have an immediate use for them), I would include them.
Some of us are web developers so, we resort to creating JavaBeans and JavaBeans has its own specification. In the specification, it clearly states:
The class must have a public default constructor (no-argument).
The class properties must be accessible using get, set, is (used for boolean properties instead of get) and other methods.
The class should be serializable.
The reason being, JavaBeans were designed for Reusability where JavaBeans could travel through any Java technologies (e.g. Servlets, JSPs, RMI, Web Services, etc.).
That's my 2cent worth on why we have getters/setters. I mostly create JavaBeans.
Some people think that they should always encapsulate all fields by using setters/getters.
Others think that this practice should not be used at all.
If your class does not have any logic for the fields and just is used as a holder, you can skip using methods and just declare your fields as public. This concept is also called a Data Transfer Object (or Messenger.) But as a rule you should use final attribute for such fields to make your class immutable:
public class TwoTuple<A,B> {
public final A first;
public final B second;
public TwoTuple(A a, B b) { first = a; second = b; }
}
However you must/or it's strongly recommended to use setters/getters:
in web applications sometimes there are requirements to use setters/getters. See POJO/JavaBean objects.
if your class is going to be used in concurrent environment. See Java Concurrency in Practice, Section 3.2:
"Whether another thread actually does something with a published reference doesn't really matter, because the risk of misuse is still present.[7] Once an object escapes, you have to assume that another class or thread may, maliciously or carelessly, misuse it. This is a compelling reason to use encapsulation: it makes it practical to analyze programs for correctness and harder to violate design constraints accidentally"
if you want to add some extra logic when you set/get values you must use setters/getters. Just read about encapsulation and its advantages.
My own opinion always declare fields as "private final" and only then, if needed change these properties.
This question already has answers here:
Why use getters and setters/accessors?
(37 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I'm currently working on a simple game in Java with several different modes. I've extended a main Game class to put the main logic within the other classes. Despite this, the main game class is still pretty hefty.
After taking a quick look at my code the majority of it was Getters and Setters (60%) compared to the rest that is truly needed for the logic of the game.
A couple of Google searches have claimed that Getters and Setters are evil, whilst others have claimed that they are necessary for good OO practice and great programs.
So what should I do? Which should it be? Should I be changing my Getters and Setters for my private variables, or should I stick with them?
There is also the point of view that most of the time, using setters still breaks encapsulation by allowing you to set values that are meaningless. As a very obvious example, if you have a score counter on the game that only ever goes up, instead of
// Game
private int score;
public void setScore(int score) { this.score = score; }
public int getScore() { return score; }
// Usage
game.setScore(game.getScore() + ENEMY_DESTROYED_SCORE);
it should be
// Game
private int score;
public int getScore() { return score; }
public void addScore(int delta) { score += delta; }
// Usage
game.addScore(ENEMY_DESTROYED_SCORE);
This is perhaps a bit of a facile example. What I'm trying to say is that discussing getter/setters vs public fields often obscures bigger problems with objects manipulating each others' internal state in an intimate manner and hence being too closely coupled.
The idea is to make methods that directly do things you want to do. An example would be how to set enemies' "alive" status. You might be tempted to have a setAlive(boolean alive) method. Instead you should have:
private boolean alive = true;
public boolean isAlive() { return alive; }
public void kill() { alive = false; }
The reason for this is that if you change the implementation that things no longer have an "alive" boolean but rather a "hit points" value, you can change that around without breaking the contract of the two methods you wrote earlier:
private int hp; // Set in constructor.
public boolean isAlive() { return hp > 0; } // Same method signature.
public void kill() { hp = 0; } // Same method signature.
public void damage(int damage) { hp -= damage; }
Very evil: public fields.
Somewhat evil: Getters and setters where they're not required.
Good: Getters and setters only where they're really required - make the type expose "larger" behaviour which happens to use its state, rather than just treating the type as a repository of state to be manipulated by other types.
It really depends on the situation though - sometimes you really do just want a dumb data object.
You've already had a lot of good answers on this, so I'll just give my two cents. Getters and setters are very, very evil. They essentially let you pretend to hide your object's internals when most of the time all you've done is tossed in redundant code that does nothing to hide internal state. For a simple POJO, there's no reason why getName() and setName() can't be replaced with obj.name = "Tom".
If the method call merely replaces assignment, then all you've gained by preferring the method call is code bloat. Unfortunately, the language has enshrined the use of getters and setters in the JavaBeans specification, so Java programmers are forced to use them, even when doing so makes no sense whatsoever.
Fortunately, Eclipse (and probably other IDEs as well) lets you automatically generate them. And for a fun project, I once built a code-generator for them in XSLT. But if there's one thing I'd get rid of in Java, its the over-dependence on getters and setters.
Getters and setters enforce the concept of encapsulation in object-oriented programming.
By having the states of the object hidden from the outside world, the object is truly in charge of itself, and cannot be altered in ways that aren't intended. The only ways the object can be manipulated are through exposed public methods, such as getters and setters.
There are a few advantages for having getters and setters:
1. Allowing future changes without modification to code that uses the modified class.
One of the big advantage of using a getter and setter is that once the public methods are defined and there comes a time when the underlying implementation needs to be changed (e.g. finding a bug that needs to be fixed, using a different algorithm for improving performance, etc.), by having the getters and setters be the only way to manipulate the object, it will allow existing code to not break, and work as expected even after the change.
For example, let's say there's a setValue method which sets the value private variable in an object:
public void setValue(int value)
{
this.value = value;
}
But then, there was a new requirement which needed to keep track of the number of times value was changed. With the setter in place, the change is fairly trivial:
public void setValue(int value)
{
this.value = value;
count++;
}
If the value field were public, there is no easy way to come back later and add a counter that keeps track of the number of times the value was changed. Therefore, having getters and setters are one way to "future-proof" the class for changes which may come later.
2. Enforcing the means by which the object can be manipulated.
Another way getters and setters come in handy is to enforce the ways the object can be manipulated, therefore, the object is in control of its own state. With public variables of an object exposed, it can easily be corrupted.
For example, an ImmutableArray object contains an int array called myArray. If the array were a public field, it just won't be immutable:
ImmutableArray a = new ImmutableArray();
int[] b = a.myArray;
b[0] = 10; // Oops, the ImmutableArray a's contents have been changed.
To implement a truly immutable array, a getter for the array (getArray method) should be written so it returns a copy of its array:
public int[] getArray()
{
return myArray.clone();
}
And even if the following occurs:
ImmutableArray a = new ImmutableArray();
int[] b = a.getArray();
b[0] = 10; // No problem, only the copy of the array is affected.
The ImmutableArray is indeed immutable. Exposing the variables of an object will allow it to be manipulated in ways which aren't intended, but only exposing certain ways (getters and setters), the object can be manipulated in intended ways.
I suppose having getters and setters would be more important for classes which are part of an API that is going to be used by others, as it allows keeping the API intact and unchanged while allowing changes in the underlying implementation.
With all the advantages of getters and setters said, if the getter is merely returning the value of the private variable and the setter is merely accepting a value and assigning it to a private variable, it seems the getters and setter are just extraneous and really a waste. If the class is going to be just for internal use by an application that is not going to be used by others, using getters and setters extensively may not be as important as when writing a public API.
They absolutely are evil.
#coobird unfortunately they absolutely do not "enforce the concept of encapsulation", all they do is make you think you're encapsulating data when in fact you're exposing data via a property with delusions of method grandeur. Anything a getter/setter does a public field does better.
First, if you want public data, make it public, get rid of the getter & setter methods to reduce the number of methods the client has to wade through and make it cognitively simpler for the client to change it's value by eg.
object.field = value;
instead of the more cognitively intense
object.setField(value);
where the client must now check the getter/setter method to see if it has any side-effects.
Second, if you really need to do something else in the method, why call it a get/set method when it's got more responsibilities than simply getting or setting?
Either follow the SRP or call the method something that actually tells you what the whole method does like Zarkonnen's examples he mentioned eg.
public void kill(){
isAlive = false;
removeFromWorld(this);
}
instead of
public void setAlive(boolean isAlive){
this.isAlive = isAlive;
if (isAlive)
addToWorld(this);
else
removeFromWorld(this);
}
where does the setAlive(boolean) method tell the client that as a side-effect it'll remove the object from the world? Why should the client have any knowledge about the isAlive field? Plus what happens when the object is re-added to the world, should it be re-initialised? why would the client care about any of that?
IMHO the moral is to name methods to say exactly what they do, follow the SRP and get rid of getters/setters.
If there's problems without getters/setters, tell objects to do their own dirty work inside their own class instead of trying to do things with them in other classes.
here endeth my rant, sorry about that ;)
It's a slippery slope.
A simple Transfer object (or Parameter object) may have the sole purpose of holding some fields and providing their values on demand. However, even in that degenerate case one could argue that the object should be immutable -- configured in the constructor and exposing only get... methods.
There's also the case of a class that exposes some "control knobs"; your car radio's UI probably can be understood as exposing something like getVolume, setVolume, getChannel, and setChannel, but its real functionality is receiving signals and emitting sound. But those knobs don't expose much implementation detail; you don't know from those interface features whether the radio is transistors, mostly-software, or vacuum tubes.
The more you begin to think of an object as an active participant in a problem-domain task, the more you'll think in terms of asking it to do something instead of asking it to tell you about its internal state, or asking it for its data so other code can do something with those values.
So... "evil"? Not really. But every time you're inclined to put in a value and expose both get... and set... methods on that value, ask yourself why, and what that object's reponsibility really is. If the only answer you can give yourself is, "To hold this value for me", then maybe something besides OO is going on here.
Your Game class is probably following the god object antipattern if it exposes that many variables. There's nothing wrong with getters and setters (though their verbosity in Java can be a bit annoying); in a well-designed app where each class has a clearly separated functionality, you will not need dozens of them in a single class.
Edit: If the main point for the getters and setters is to "configure" the game classe (I understand your comment that way), then your probably don't need the getters (it's perfectly fine for a class to access its own private variables without using get methods), and you can probably collapse many of the setters into "group setters" that set several variables which belong together conceptually.
The presence of getter and setters tends to indicate (a "smell" if you are into that sort of primary school language) that there is a design problem. Trivial getters and setters are barely distinguishable from public fields. Typically the code operating on the data will be in a different class - poor encapsulation, and what you would expect from programmers not at ease with OO.
In some cases getters and setters are fine. But as a rule a type with both getters and setters indicates design problems. Getters work for immutability; setters work for "tell don't ask". Both immutability and "tell don't ask" are good design choices, so long as they are not applied in an overlapping style.
My opinion is that getters and setters are a requirement for good programs. Stick with them, but don't write unnecessary getters/setters - it's not always necessary to directly deal with all variables.
I don't really think they are evil. But I would love to live in a world where I never had to use them unless I really needed to.
One example I read above was future-proofing your code. For example:
public void setValue(int value)
{
this.value = value;
}
Then, the requirements change and you need to track how many times the value was set.
So:
public void setValue(int value)
{
this.value = value;
count++;
}
This is beautiful. I get it. However, in Ruby, would the following not serve the same purpose?
someobject.my_value = 100
Later, you need to track the number of times my_value was set. Well then, could you not just override the setter THEN and only THEN?
def my_value=(value)
#my_value = value
#count++
end
I'm all for beautiful code but I have to admit, looking through the mountains of Java classes we have and seeing literally thousands and thousands of lines of code that are NOTHING but basic getter/setters is ugly and annoying.
When I was developing in C# full time, we used public properties all the time and did custom getters/setters only when needed. Worked like a charm and it didn't break anything.
As always the only answer is: it depends. If you are the only peron touching the code, you can do anything you're comfortable with, including taking shortcuts.
One of the benefits of using setters is that checks need to be performed at only one location in your code.
You might want to pay some closer attention to what is actually being get and set by these methods. If you're using them to provide access to constant values you are probably better off by using constants.
This depends on the programming language in question. Your question is framed in the context of Java, where it seems that getters and setters are generally thought of as a good thing.
In contrast, in the Python world, they are generally considered as bad style: they add lines to the code without actually adding functionality. When Python programmers need to, they can use metaprogramming to catch getting and/or setting of object attributes.
In Java (at least the version of Java I learned slightly a decade ago), that was not possible. Thus, in Java it is usually best to use getters and setters religiously, so that if you need to, you can override access to the variables.
(This doesn't make Python necessarily better than Java, just different.)
Just FYI: In addition to all the excellent answers in this thread, remember that of all reasons you can come up with for or against getters/setters, performance isn't one (as some might believe). The JVM is smart enough to inline trivial getters/setters (even non-final ones, as long as they aren't actually overridden).
You may want to replace some of your classes by value classes. This will allow you to remove the getter and avoid problems when the content is changed from under you.
If you need external access to individual values of fields, use getters and/ or setters. If not, don't. Never use public fields. It's as simple as that! (Ok, it's never that simple, but it's a good rule of thumb).
In general you should also find that you need to supply a setter much less often than a getter - especially if you are trying to make your objects immutable - which is a Good Thing (but not always the best choice) - but even if not.
I've been programming in java for few monts ago, and I've learned that we should use getters & setters only when it's necessary for the application
have fun :)