I am learning from Stanford's CS193P course. In the class, Paul has a demo project, "Calculator", where he uses id as the type of a property. He intends to not use a specific class, because he does not want to create a new class and then he does not need to write documentation, and even when it is updated, he does not need to redesign the class. id can solve all these problems.
Is this a really a good way? id is the return type of the property, and used as the parameter type of another method. How does the caller know what id is, and how to provide the correct object? By reading code comments?
In general, is there any good reason to use id as a return type or parameter type in public API? (Except init and factory method, though even for those, instancetype is recommended.)
If your method returns a class that is a member of a class cluster, you should return id.
If you're returning an object whose class is opaque, isn't declared in a public header, you should return id. (Cocoa occasionally uses such objects as tokens or context data.)
Container classes should always accept and return their constituents as ids.
Related
In JsonDeserialize annotation documentation the contentAs field is supposed to define the "Concrete type to deserialize content".
I tried to use this in combination, with either a Converter (via contentConverter field of the same annotation) or a JsonDeserializer (via contentUsing field of the same annotation), by extending either StdConverter or StdDeserializer, respectively, in an attempt to create an agnostic custom deserializer.
I cannot find a way to access the JsonDeserialize#contentAs information inside any of these two classes.
I am aware that the classes I extend from have a type parameter, I just put an Object class there. Documentation states
contentAs Concrete type to deserialize content (elements of a Collection/array, values of Maps) values as, instead of type otherwise declared. Must be a subtype of declared type; otherwise an exception may be thrown by deserializer.
Apparently I am applying the #JsonDeserializer annotation on a Collection of some persistable Class. I want to deserialize each such object, solely by knowing its id. Well, if I could only get that very type I defined in the #JsonDeserializer#contentAs field...
Can anyone tell me if this is possible anyhow?
I managed to implement the agnostic deserializer withou the use of #JsonDeserializer#contentAs after all.
After reading the javadocs of com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.JsonDeserializer I concluded that my custom deserializer should implement the com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.deser.ContextualDeserializer interface.
Inside the implementation of ContextualDeserializer#createContextual(DeserializationContext ctxt, BeanProperty property)
I could finally get access to the class type of the content of the collection, which I applied the #JsonDeserialize annotation on,
by calling:
ctxt.getContextualType().getRawClass()
NOTE that the same call inside the implementation of com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.JsonDeserializer#deserialize(com.fasterxml.jackson.core.JsonParser, com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.DeserializationContext) returned null, hence the need of the aforementioned interface.
All I had to do then is store the returned class in a member field (of type Class< ? >) of the custom deserializer and use it in the execution of JsonDeserializer#deserialize()
The only thing that remains to check is whether an instance of this custom deserializer is shared between threads. I only did some minor checks; I used the same implementation for two different collections of different types. I observed that ContextualDeserializer#createContextual(DeserializationContext ctxt, BeanProperty property) was called once (among multiple deserialization invokations), for each distinct type that was going to be deserialized. After checking during debugging, it seems that the same deserializer object is used for the same type. In my case, since what I store in the member field is this type itself, I don't mind if the same deserializer is used for the same java type to be deserialized because they should contain the same value. So we 're clear on this aspect as well.
EDIT: It appears all I have to do is update the com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.deser.std.StdDeserializer#_valueClass value to the now known class. Since it is final and since the ContextualDeserializer#createContextual(DeserializationContext ctxt, BeanProperty property) returns a JsonSerializer object, which is actually used,
instead of returning "this" serializer I can create a new one, passing the discovered class in the constructor, which actually sets the StdDeserializer#_valueClass to the class I actually want, and I'm all set!
Finally, NOTE that I didn't have to use the #JsonDeserializer#contentAs annotationfield as I get the value from the ctxt.getContextualType().getRawClass() statement inside ContextualDeserializer#createContextual(DeserializationContext ctxt, BeanProperty property) implementation
I have a class with one private field:
class Person {
string name;
public void setName(string name);
}
Then, using some object which is responsible for interacting with user (in this example by command line), I want to change the value of this field:
Person somePerson;
CommandLineView view;
somePerson.setName(view.askUserForName());
It works. But I don't like using set function as it exposes class members.
Therefore I started looking how to avoid it.
New implementation looks like this:
class Person
{
string name;
public void changeName(view) { name = view.askUserForName(); }
}
and:
Person somePerson;
CommandLineView view;
somePerson.changeName(view);
Now Person does not expose its member. Moreover this class is responsible for logic related to changing name (for example function changeName could also update database, notify interested parties etc.
The question is: Is such kind of refactoring a good practice? Or maybe implementation with setter was better, even if it break encapsulation?
I think there should be no method to set the name at all, it should be a constructor parameter:
Person somePerson(view.askUserForName());
Problem with your approach is that you first create the object which is not fully initialized, so is dangerous to use: Person somePerson. What if you forget to setName? Will your code still work with this "empty" person?
And then you allow to directly modify the internal state with setName method, which is also not good.
Using the constructor parameter you avoid both of these problems.
As for the original question - I don't think there is big difference between the two methods.
The result is exactly the same - you call the method and the internal object state changed. You can name it setName or changeName, result is the same.
The second method with changeName(view) actually is worse because you also introduce the dependency of the Person on the View object.
Now, if you want to change the name, you always need to create the View object first.
I need to expose the "is mapped?" state of an instance of a class. The outcome is determined by a basic check. It is not simply exposing the value of a field. I am unsure as to whether I should use a read-only property or a method.
Read-only property:
public bool IsMapped
{
get
{
return MappedField != null;
}
}
Method:
public bool IsMapped()
{
return MappedField != null;
}
I have read MSDN's Choosing Between Properties and Methods but I am still unsure.
The C# standard says
§ 8.7.4
A property is a member that provides access to a characteristic of an object or a class. Examples of properties include the length of a string, the size of a font, the caption of a window, the name of a customer, and so on. Properties are a natural extension of fields. Both are named members with associated types, and the syntax for accessing fields and properties is the same. However, unlike fields, properties do not denote storage locations. Instead, properties have accessors that specify the statements to be executed when their values are read or written.
while as methods are defined as
§ 8.7.3
A method is a member that implements a computation or action that can be performed by an object or class. Methods have a (possibly empty) list of formal parameters, a return value (unless the method’s return-type is void ), and are either static or non-static.
Properties and methods are used to realize encapsulation. Properties encapsulate data, methods encapsulate logic. And this is why you should prefer a read-only property if you are exposing data. In your case there is no logic that modifies the internal state of your object. You want to provide access to a characteristic of an object.
Whether an instance of your object IsMapped or not is a characteristic of your object. It contains a check, but that's why you have properties to access it. Properties can be defined using logic, but they should not expose logic. Just like the example mentioned in the first quote: Imagine the String.Length property. Depending on the implementation, it may be that this property loops through the string and counts the characters. It also does perform an operation, but "from the outside" it just give's an statement over the internal state/characteristics of the object.
I would use the property, because there is no real "doing" (action), no side effects and it's not too complex.
I personally believe that a method should do something or perform some action. You are not performing anything inside IsMapped so it should be a property
I'd go for a property. Mostly because the first senctence on the referenced MSDN-article:
In general, methods represent actions and properties represent data.
In this case it seems pretty clear to me that it should be a property. It's a simple check, no logic, no side effects, no performance impact. It doesn't get much simpler than that check.
Edit:
Please note that if there was any of the above mentioned and you would put it into a method, that method should include a strong verb, not an auxiliary verb like is or has. A method does something. You could name it VerifyMapping or DetermineMappingExistance or something else as long as it starts with a verb.
I think this line in your link is the answer
methods represent actions and properties represent data.
There is no action here, just a piece of data. So it's a Property.
In situations/languages where you have access to both of these constructs, the general divide is as follows:
If the request is for something the object has, use a property (or a field).
If the request is for the result of something the object does, use a method.
A little more specifically, a property is to be used to access, in read and/or write fashion, a data member that is (for consuming purposes) owned by the object exposing the property. Properties are better than fields because the data doesn't have to exist in persistent form all the time (they allow you to be "lazy" about calculation or retrieval of this data value), and they're better than methods for this purpose because you can still use them in code as if they were public fields.
Properties should not, however, result in side effects (with the possible, understandable exception of setting a variable meant to persist the value being returned, avoiding expensive recalculation of a value needed many times); they should, all other things being equal, return a deterministic result (so NextRandomNumber is a bad conceptual choice for a property) and the calculation should not result in the alteration of any state data that would affect other calculations (for instance, getting PropertyA and PropertyB in that order should not return any different result than getting PropertyB and then PropertyA).
A method, OTOH, is conceptually understood as performing some operation and returning the result; in short, it does something, which may extend beyond the scope of computing a return value. Methods, therefore, are to be used when an operation that returns a value has additional side effects. The return value may still be the result of some calculation, but the method may have computed it non-deterministically (GetNextRandomNumber()), or the returned data is in the form of a unique instance of an object, and calling the method again produces a different instance even if it may have the same data (GetCurrentStatus()), or the method may alter state data such that doing exactly the same thing twice in a row produces different results (EncryptDataBlock(); many encryption ciphers work this way by design to ensure encrypting the same data twice in a row produces different ciphertexts).
If at any point you'll need to add parameters in order to get the value, then you need a method. Otherwise you need a property
IMHO , the first read-only property is correct because IsMapped as a Attribute of your object, and you're not performing an action (only an evaluation), but at the end of the day consistancy with your existing codebase probably counts for more than semantics.... unless this is a uni assignment
I'll agree with people here in saying that because it is obtaining data, and has no side-effects, it should be a property.
To expand on that, I'd also accept some side-effects with a setter (but not a getter) if the side-effects made sense to someone "looking at it from the outside".
One way to think about it is that methods are verbs, and properties are adjectives (meanwhile, the objects themselves are nouns, and static objects are abstract nouns).
The only exception to the verb/adjective guideline is that it can make sense to use a method rather than a property when obtaining (or setting) the information in question can be very expensive: Logically, such a feature should probably still be a property, but people are used to thinking of properties as low-impact performance-wise and while there's no real reason why that should always be the case, it could be useful to highlight that GetIsMapped() is relatively heavy perform-wise if it in fact was.
At the level of the running code, there's absolutely no difference between calling a property and calling an equivalent method to get or set; it's all about making life easier for the person writing code that uses it.
I would expect property as it only is returning the detail of a field. On the other hand I would expect
MappedFields[] mf;
public bool IsMapped()
{
mf.All(x => x != null);
}
you should use the property because c# has properties for this reason
This might be an odd question, but it has actually caused me some headache.
In Object oriented programming, there are accepted names for key concepts. In our model, we have classes with methods and fields. Now, going to the data world:
An instance of a class is called an object.
An instance of a field is called... what?
A value? Isn't the term value a little broad for this? I have been offered "property" as well, but isn't property also part of the model and not the data?
(This is not purely academic, I am actually coding these concepts.)
Updated: Let me take an example. I have a class "Person" with a field "age". If I create 20 Person instances, each such instance is called an object. So far so good. But let's say I take Person "Igor", and set his age to 20. What is the storage location that contains the number 20 now called? Is it a field, or a value, or something else?
Another update: A quote from Pavel Feldman in this related question describes in different words what I tried to describe above:
"I'd say that in class-based OOP field belongs to class and does not have a value. It is so when you look at reflection in c# or java - class has fields, field has type, name, etc. And you can get value of the field from object. You declare field once, in class. You have many objects with same fields but different values."
A field can't be instantiated. A field can only contain a value. The value can be either a primitive/native type or a reference/pointer to an object instance.
As per your update: if the object represents a real world entitiy, then it's often called property. With a "real world entity" I mean something personal/human, e.g. Person, Product, Order, Car, etc. If the object does not represent something personal/human, e.g. List, String, Map, then it's more often called field. That's just what I've observed as far.
Agree with BalusC. However I think what you are asking is what to call the field of an instantiated object. Remember that an object contains both state (data) and operations (methods) you could refer to an object field as state
A field is a field weather you talk about it in the context of a class, or in the context of an object.
class C {
int i; // i is a field
}
and
obj = new C();
obj.i = 7; // obj.i is a field
As opposed to parameter vs argument there is no distinction in terminology for "instantiated" an "uninstantiated" fields.
An instance of a class is an object, a class may contain fields that point to other instantiated objects (or a null pointer). It makes no sense to say an instance of a field, but rather you might talk about the object to which a particular field points to, which may be different for different instances. Or you may talk about the type of a field (which class it belongs to)
Isn't the answer basically that we have no name for values of fields of an instance of a class (or object)?
It's like giving a name to the value returned by a method of an instance of a class...
I guess "state" is the best answer anyway as suggested "BalusC".
Is setX() method name appropriate for only for setting class property X?
For instance, I have a class where the output is a string of an html table. Before you can you can call getTable, you have to call setTable(), which just looks at a other properties and decides how to construct the table. It doesn't actually directly set any class property -- only causes the property to be set. When it's called, the class will construct strHtmlTable, but you can't specify it.
So, calling it setTable breaks the convention of get and set being interfaces for class properties.
Is there another naming convention for this kind of method?
Edit: in this particular class, there are at least two ( and in total 8 optional ) other methods that must be called before the class knows everything it needs to to construct the table. I chose to have the data set as separate methods rather than clutter up the __construct() with 8 optional parameters which I'll never remember the order of.
I would recommend something like generateTable() instead of setTable(). This provides a situation where the name of the method clearly denotes what it does.
I would probably still use a setTable() method to actually set the property, though. Ideally, you could open the possibility of setting a previously defined table for further flexibility.
Yes, setX() is primarily used for setting a field X, though setX() may have some additional code that needs to run in addition to a direct assignment to a field. Using it for something else may be misleading to other developers.
I would definitely recommend against having a public setTable() and would say that setTable() could be omitted or just an unused private method depending upon your requirements.
It sounds like the activity to generate the table is more of a view of other properties on the object, so you might consider moving that to a private method on the object like generateHtmlTable(). This could be done during construction (and upon updates to the object) so that any subsequent calls to getTable() will return the the appropriate HTML.