I have a question with regard to encapsulation. As I know, encapsulation enables to hide the implementation details using private/protected data members and provides public methods and properties to operate on the data. The idea here is to prevent the direct modification of the data members by the class consumers.
But I have a concern with the property getters or other public methods which return private/protected data members. For ex: if I have class like this
public class Inventory
{
private List<Guitar> guitars = new List<Guitar>();
public void AddGuitar(string serialnumber, string price)
{
Guitar guitar = new Guitar(serialnumber, price);
guitars.Add(guitar);
}
public List<Guitar> GetGuitars()
{
return guitars;
}
}
Now if the Inventory class consumer calls GetGuitars, he is going to get the list of guitars being maintained in the Inventory class. Now the consumer can modify the list, like delete/add/modify the items. For me it looks like we are not encapsulating. I think that I should be returning a copy of the Guitar list items in the GetGuitars(). What do you think?.
Is my understanding of the encapsulation right?.
Thanks
Encapsulating lists of objects can be achieved quite nicely by restricting access to them using a suitable interface.
I think you're right to control additions to your list via your AddGuitar method as you can exert control over what goes in. You can reinforce this design, IMHO, by altering GetGuitars to return IEnumerable instead of List.
This reduces the control the caller has on your list, whilst also being non-committal in returning an abstract type. This way your internal data structure can change without the public interface needing to also.
You are right. With a setter like that clients are able to modify the list. If adding a guitar requires some special handling, this is not desired. In this case you have two choices:
Return a copy of the list (as you already suggested).
Wrap it with ReadOnlyCollection within the getter.
Both cases should be documented in method description so that clients are not "surprised" when they attempt to modify the list externally.
if u want your List array cannot be modified, why u dont use AsReadOnly method: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/e78dcd75.aspx
about encapsulation inside members are only writable and readable through the methods where members are not available from outside.
In terms of risk, it is indeed better if you return a copy of your list of make it unmodifiable (create a whole new unmodifiable list when you add a guitar, functional programming-style).
In terms of encapsulation, it would be better to get rid of the getGuitars() method and then Inventory class should offer the functionality associated with it ( for example, printInventoryReport() or whatever). This way, no client class needs to know at all how you store your guitars and you keep the related code into the Inventory class. The tradeoff is that this class gets bigger and every time you need something new from the guitar list you need to modify the Inventory.
I recommend a good article : http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-09-2003/jw-0905-toolbox.html
It was quite incendiary back in the day, but i think there's a lot of truth in there.
And if you stay with the getter, a small tip would be to choose if you need it to be a List or a Collection can do. Maybe even an Iterable! This way you tell as less as possible about your implementation, which results in better encapsulation.
I would agree that returning the list leaves something to be desired in terms on encapsulation. You may want to consider writing a getter for individual items, or possibly an iterator. The list seems like an implementation detail, so other classes really have no business accessing it directly.
There are (at least) two issues here.
The first is about hiding the implementation. You could change the "guitars" field to an array or a database but you could leave the signature of the methods AddGuitar and getGuitars unchanged so client code wouldn't break.
The second is about whether or not you want to return a defensive copy of the guitar list or not. Once you have the list of guitars do you want to add and delete elements? Since you have a method to add guitars I would assume not.
Related
I've created the custom class ZMaterial that can be instantiated passing an ID to the constructor which sets the properties for a single material using SELECTs and BAPIs. This class is basically used to READ and UPDATE a single material.
Now I need to create a service to return a list of materials. I already have the procedural code for it in a static method (for now actually a function module), but I would like to keep using a full OOP approach and instantiate a list of my custom material object. The first approach I found is to enhance the static method to instantiate a list of my single material object after the selects are executed and I have the data in internal tables, but it does not seem the most OOP.
The second option in my mind is to create a new class ZMaterialList with one property being a list of objects ZMaterial and then a constructor with the necessary input parameters for the database select. The problem I see with this option is that I create a full class just for the constructor.
What do you think is the best way to proceed?
Create a separate class to produce the list of materials. The single responsibility principle says each class should do exactly one thing. In all but the most simple cases, using a thing is a different responsibility than producing it.
Don’t make a ZMaterialList class. A list’s focus would be managing the list items, i.e. adding, removing, iterating, sorting etc. But you should be fine with a regular STANDARD TABLE OF REF TO ZMaterial.
Make a ZMaterialReader, -Repository, -Query or -Factory class or the like, depending on the precise way you want to produce the ZMaterials. Readers read by keys, repositories read and write, queries use varying sets of selection criteria, factories instantiate with possibly different sets of inputs.
You can well let that class use the original FUNCTION underneath. It’s good style to exploit what’s already there. Just make sure you trust that code, put it in a test harness, and keep it afar from the rest of your oo code.
Extract all public interaction of ZMaterial to an interface and use only that interface. That allows you to offer alternative implementations of ZMaterial, ones that differ in the way they are produced or how they store their data.
Split single production from mass production. Reading MARA to retrieve a single material is okay. But you don’t want thousands of ZMaterials reading MARA individually - that wrecks performance.
Now you’ve got the interface, you could offer a second implementation of ZMaterial whose constructor receives all relevant data and relies on it already having been validated to avoid additional SELECTs.
You could also offer an implementation that doesn’t store its data at all but only stores pointers to rows in internal tables somewhere else. See the flyweight pattern for ideas.
If you expect mass updates on the materials, such as “reclassify all of these as B”, consider extracting these list-oriented operations to separate classes as well.
I have a data class which encapsulates relevant data items in it. Those data items are set and get by users one by one when needed.
My confusion about the design has to do with which object should be responsible for handling the update of multiple properties of that data object. Sometimes an update operation will be performed which affects many properties at once.
So, which class should have the update() method?. Is it the data class itself or another manager class ? The update() method requires data exchange with many different objects, so I don't want to make it a member of the data class because I believe it should know nothing about the other objects required for update. I want the data class to be only a data-structure. Am I thinking wrong? What would be the right approach?
My code:
class RefData
{
Matrix mX;
Vector mV;
int mA;
bool mB;
getX();
setB();
update(); // which affects almost any member attributes in the class, but requires many relations with many different classes, which makes this class dependant on them.
}
or,
class RefDataUpdater
{
update(RefData*); // something like this ?
}
There is this really great section in the book Clean Code, by Robert C. Martin, that speaks directly to this issue.
And the answer is it depends. It depends on what you are trying to accomplish in your design--and
if you might have more than one data-object that exhibit similar behaviors.
First, your data class could be considered a Data Transfer Object (DTO). As such, its ideal form is simply a class without any public methods--only public properties -- basically a data structure. It will not encapsulate any behavior, it simply groups together related data. Since other objects manipulate these data objects, if you were to add a property to the data object, you'd need to change all the other objects that have functions that now need to access that new property. However, on the flip side, if you added a new function to a manager class, you need to make zero changes to the data object class.
So, I think often you want to think about how many data objects might have an update function that relates directly to the properties of that class. If you have 5 classes that contain 3-4 properties but all have an update function, then I'd lean toward having the update function be part of the "data-class" (which is more of an OO-design). But, if you have one data-class in which it is likely to have properties added to it in the future, then I'd lean toward the DTO design (object as a data structure)--which is more procedural (requiring other functions to manipulate it) but still can be part of an otherwise Object Oriented architecture.
All this being said, as Robert Martin points out in the book:
There are ways around this that are well known to experienced
object-oriented designers: VISITOR, or dual-dispatch, for example.
But these techniques carry costs of their own and generally return the
structure to that of a procedural program.
Now, in the code you show, you have properties with types of Vector, and Matrix, which are probably more complex types than a simple DTO would contain, so you may want to think about what those represent and whether they could be moved to separate classes--with different functions to manipulate--as you typically would not expose a Matrix or a Vector directly as a property, but encapsulate them.
As already written, it depends, but I'd probably go with an external support class that handles the update.
For once, I'd like to know why you'd use such a method? I believe it's safe to assume that the class doesn't only call setter methods for a list of parameters it receives, but I'll consider this case as well
1) the trivial updater method
In this case I mean something like this:
public update(a, b, c)
{
setA(a);
setB(b);
setC(c);
}
In this case I'd probably not use such a method at all, I'd either define a macro for it or I'd call the setter themselves. But if it must be a method, then I'd place it inside the data class.
2) the complex updater method
The method in this case doesn't only contain calls to setters, but it also contains logic. If the logic is some sort of simple property update logic I'd try to put that logic inside the setters (that's what they are for in the first place), but if the logic involves multiple properties I'd put this logic inside an external supporting class (or a business logic class if any appropriate already there) since it's not a great idea having logic reside inside data classes.
Developing clear code that can be easily understood is very important and it's my belief that by putting logic of any kind (except for say setter logic) inside data classes won't help you achieving that.
Edit
I just though I'd add something else. Where to put such methods also depend upon your class and what purpose it fulfills. If we're talking for instance about Business/Domain Object classes, and we're not using an Anemic Domain Model these classes are allowed (and should contain) behavior/logic.
On the other hand, if this data class is say an Entity (persistence objects) which is not used in the Domain Model as well (complex Domain Model) I would strongly advice against placing logic inside them. The same goes for data classes which "feel" like pure data objects (more like structs), don't pollute them, keep the logic outside.
I guess like everywhere in software, there's no silver bullet and the right answer is: it depends (upon the classes, what this update method is doing, what's the architecture behind the application and other application specific considerations).
I'm a little unclear as to how far to take the idea in making all members within a class private and make public methods to handle mutations. Primitive types are not the issue, it's encapsulated object that I am unclear about. The benefit of making object members private is the ability to hide methods that do not apply to the context of class being built. The downside is that you have to provide public methods to pass parameters to the underlying object (more methods, more work). On the otherside, if you want to have all methods and properties exposed for the underlying object, couldn't you just make the object public? What are the dangers in having objects exposed this way?
For example, I would find it useful to have everything from a vector, or Array List, exposed. The only downside I can think of is that public members could potentially assigned a type that its not via implicit casting (or something to that affect). Would a volitile designation reduce the potential for problems?
Just a side note: I understand that true enapsulation implies that members are private.
What are the dangers in having objects exposed this way?
Changing the type of those objects would require changing the interface to the class. With private objects + public getters/setters, you'd only have to modify the code in the getters and setters, assuming you want to keep the things being returned the same.
Note that this is why properties are useful in languages such as Python, which technically doesn't have private class members, only obscured ones at most.
The problem with making instance variables public is that you can never change your mind later, and make them private, without breaking existing code that relies on directly public access to those instance vars. Some examples:
You decide to later make your class thread-safe by synchronizing all access to instance vars, or maybe by using a ThreadLocal to create a new copy of the value for each thread. Can't do it if any thread can directly access the variables.
Using your example of a vector or array list - at some point, you realize that there is a security flaw in your code because those classes are mutable, so somebody else can replace the contents of the list. If this were only available via an accessor method, you could easily solve the problem by making an immutable copy of the list upon request, but you can't do that with a public variable.
You realize later that one of your instance vars is redundant and can be derived based on other variables. Once again, easy if you're using accessors, impossible with public variables.
I think that it boils down to a practical point - if you know that you're the only one who will be using this code, and it pains you to write accessors (every IDE will do it for you automatically), and you don't mind changing your own code later if you decide to break the API, then go for it. But if other people will be using your class, or if you would like to make it easier to refactor later for your own use, stick with accessors.
Object oriented design is just a guideline. Think about it from the perspective of the person who will be using your class. Balance OOD with making it intuitive and easy to use.
You could run into issues depending on the language you are using and how it treats return statements or assignment operators. In some cases it may give you a reference, or values in other cases.
For example, say you have a PrimeCalculator class that figures out prime numbers, then you have another class that does something with those prime numbers.
public PrimeCalculator calculatorObject = new PrimeCalculator();
Vector<int> primeNumbers = calculatorObject.PrimeNumbersVector;
/* do something complicated here */
primeNumbers.clear(); // free up some memory
When you use this stuff later, possibly in another class, you don't want the overhead of calculating the numbers again so you use the same calculatorObject.
Vector<int> primes = calculatorObject.PrimeNumbersVector;
int tenthPrime = primes.elementAt(9);
It may not exactly be clear at this point whether primes and primeNumbers reference the same Vector. If they do, trying to get the tenth prime from primes would throw an error.
You can do it this way if you're careful and understand what exactly is happening in your situation, but you have a smaller margin of error using functions to return a value rather than assigning the variable directly.
Well you can check the post :
first this
then this
This should solve your confusion . It solved mine ! Thanks to Nicol Bolas.
Also read the comments below the accepted answer (also notice the link given in the second last comment by me ( in the first post) )
Also visit the wikipedia post
After a lot of studying, I am starting to code my first app.
In my code I have a class called "Measurement". I want to implement an array of Measurements. This array of Measurements needs to be accessible across multiple view controllers, so I have created a custom class called "MeasurementsArray" for the array, and made it into a singleton.
I have done this, and the code works as expected. But now that I have it working, I want to make sure that I have easy to understand code, and that I am following conventional objective-c design patterns.
If it weren't for fact that I need the array of Measurements to be a singleton, it would seem that this array belongs inside the "Measurement" class as a class method. But my understanding is that there can be only one instance of a class when it is a singleton.
But somehow, having a separate class named "MeasurmentsArray" seems a little hacky to me.
My question:
Am I approaching this the right way, or am I missing something?
If I do need the split off the array of Measurements to a separate class in order to have it be a singleton, does "MeasurementsArray" seem like an appropriate class name? If not, please provide a naming convention you would use for this type of situation.
Edit: After some inital answers, some clarification regarding the function of the app might help.
It is a fitness application that records, saves and tracks body fat percentage and body weight. Every time the user records his body fat and weight, it becomes an instance of the class "Measurement". The array of Measurements is needed in order to track changes in weight and body fat over time. A singleton is needed because multiple view controllers need access to the array.
A singleton is needed because multiple
view controllers need access to the
array.
There are other, better ways to share data between objects than to rely on a singleton.
View controllers are usually created either by the application delegate or by another view controller. The application's data model (in this case, that's your measurements array) is often also created ether by the application delegate. So when the app delegate creates a view controller, it can also give that controller a pointer to the data model. If that controller creates any view controllers, it can likewise share its pointer to the data model.
Passing the data model along from app delegate to view controller and from one view controller to the next makes your code easier to maintain, test, reconfigure, and reuse because it avoids depending on some predetermined, globally accessibly object.
Having a singleton at all may be a wrong move. There are times that a singleton is appropriate, but there's usually a better choice.
It sounds like you may already be implementing something resembling the Model-View-Controller pattern, which would be appropriate. In this context, this array of measurements is part of your model, and it may make sense for it to be a separate class, but there's likely no need for it to be a singleton.
The name MeasurementsArray is implementation-specific. I would be more inclined to call it just Measurements or to give it a name reflecting what the measurements are measuring.
In fact I wonder about the name of your Measurement class. What is it measuring? What does it actually represent?
If you post some code, we might be able to provide more specific ideas.
Based on your update and a bit of thinking, you might want to think about The Repository Pattern. Rather than having your controllers hold the array, they have access to the repository from which they can get it.
My thinking here is that your array of measurements might be supplied by a MeasurementRepository and that while now the data might be a single simple array that the repository just holds, it might evolve to something that is stored in a database per user and with variation over time, so that your repository supplies more complex access.
Rather than having this repository be a singleton (though that is certainly sometimes done), it might better be just created once and then injected into everything that needs it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_injection and Uncle Bob's blog
I feel that a separate class is probably overkill unless it has several methods of its own, in which case it might be justified. This problem may just be an artefact of your app's structure not (yet) being well defined. Is data going to be persistent across sessions? If so, will there be a "manager" class on which you could put a property to retrieve the array; something like allMeasurements on the MeasurementStore class? Another option would be to store the array in your app delegate.
I find that if I continue working on an app, it becomes obvious how I should structure it.
Edit: To elaborate, there's nothing "wrong" with your approach; there's probably just nicer ways to do it.
If I understand you correctly, the measurements array represents past measurements of a specific user.
If that is the case- you're not looking for a singleton at all.
remember that a singleton is a single value PER APPLICATION, and what you're looking for here is a single value PER USER.
Don Roby is absolutely right- Measurements is probably a property of the User class. for example (I'm using c# notation, but you get the hang of it...):
public class User
{
public string Name {get; set;}
public int Id {get; set;}
public Measurement[] Measurements {get; set;} //one array per-user...
}
I seldom use inheritance, but when I do, I never use protected attributes because I think it breaks the encapsulation of the inherited classes.
Do you use protected attributes ? what do you use them for ?
In this interview on Design by Bill Venners, Joshua Bloch, the author of Effective Java says:
Trusting Subclasses
Bill Venners: Should I trust subclasses more intimately than
non-subclasses? For example, do I make
it easier for a subclass
implementation to break me than I
would for a non-subclass? In
particular, how do you feel about
protected data?
Josh Bloch: To write something that is both subclassable and robust
against a malicious subclass is
actually a pretty tough thing to do,
assuming you give the subclass access
to your internal data structures. If
the subclass does not have access to
anything that an ordinary user
doesn't, then it's harder for the
subclass to do damage. But unless you
make all your methods final, the
subclass can still break your
contracts by just doing the wrong
things in response to method
invocation. That's precisely why the
security critical classes like String
are final. Otherwise someone could
write a subclass that makes Strings
appear mutable, which would be
sufficient to break security. So you
must trust your subclasses. If you
don't trust them, then you can't allow
them, because subclasses can so easily
cause a class to violate its
contracts.
As far as protected data in general,
it's a necessary evil. It should be
kept to a minimum. Most protected data
and protected methods amount to
committing to an implementation
detail. A protected field is an
implementation detail that you are
making visible to subclasses. Even a
protected method is a piece of
internal structure that you are making
visible to subclasses.
The reason you make it visible is that
it's often necessary in order to allow
subclasses to do their job, or to do
it efficiently. But once you've done
it, you're committed to it. It is now
something that you are not allowed to
change, even if you later find a more
efficient implementation that no
longer involves the use of a
particular field or method.
So all other things being equal, you
shouldn't have any protected members
at all. But that said, if you have too
few, then your class may not be usable
as a super class, or at least not as
an efficient super class. Often you
find out after the fact. My philosophy
is to have as few protected members as
possible when you first write the
class. Then try to subclass it. You
may find out that without a particular
protected method, all subclasses will
have to do some bad thing.
As an example, if you look at
AbstractList, you'll find that there
is a protected method to delete a
range of the list in one shot
(removeRange). Why is that in there?
Because the normal idiom to remove a
range, based on the public API, is to
call subList to get a sub-List,
and then call clear on that
sub-List. Without this particular
protected method, however, the only
thing that clear could do is
repeatedly remove individual elements.
Think about it. If you have an array
representation, what will it do? It
will repeatedly collapse the array,
doing order N work N times. So it will
take a quadratic amount of work,
instead of the linear amount of work
that it should. By providing this
protected method, we allow any
implementation that can efficiently
delete an entire range to do so. And
any reasonable List implementation
can delete a range more efficiently
all at once.
That we would need this protected
method is something you would have to
be way smarter than me to know up
front. Basically, I implemented the
thing. Then, as we started to subclass
it, we realized that range delete was
quadratic. We couldn't afford that, so
I put in the protected method. I think
that's the best approach with
protected methods. Put in as few as
possible, and then add more as needed.
Protected methods represent
commitments to designs that you may
want to change. You can always add
protected methods, but you can't take
them out.
Bill Venners: And protected data?
Josh Bloch: The same thing, but even more. Protected data is even more
dangerous in terms of messing up your
data invariants. If you give someone
else access to some internal data,
they have free reign over it.
Short version: it breaks encapsulation but it's a necessary evil that should be kept to a minimum.
C#:
I use protected for abstract or virtual methods that I want base classes to override. I also make a method protected if it may be called by base classes, but I don't want it called outside the class hierarchy.
You may need them for static (or 'global') attribute you want your subclasses or classes from same package (if it is about java) to benefit from.
Those static final attributes representing some kind of 'constant value' have seldom a getter function, so a protected static final attribute might make sense in that case.
Scott Meyers says don't use protected attributes in Effective C++ (3rd ed.):
Item 22: Declare data members private.
The reason is the same you give: it breaks encapsulations. The consequence is that otherwise local changes to the layout of the class might break dependent types and result in changes in many other places.
I don't use protected attributes in Java because they are only package protected there. But in C++, I'll use them in abstract classes, allowing the inheriting class to inherit them directly.
There are never any good reasons to have protected attributes. A base class must be able to depend on state, which means restricting access to data through accessor methods. You can't give anyone access to your private data, even children.
I recently worked on a project were the "protected" member was a very good idea. The class hiearchy was something like:
[+] Base
|
+--[+] BaseMap
| |
| +--[+] Map
| |
| +--[+] HashMap
|
+--[+] // something else ?
The Base implemented a std::list but nothing else. The direct access to the list was forbidden to the user, but as the Base class was incomplete, it relied anyway on derived classes to implement the indirection to the list.
The indirection could come from at least two flavors: std::map and stdext::hash_map. Both maps will behave the same way but for the fact the hash_map needs the Key to be hashable (in VC2003, castable to size_t).
So BaseMap implemented a TMap as a templated type that was a map-like container.
Map and HashMap were two derived classes of BaseMap, one specializing BaseMap on std::map, and the other on stdext::hash_map.
So:
Base was not usable as such (no public accessors !) and only provided common features and code
BaseMap needed easy read/write to a std::list
Map and HashMap needed easy read/write access to the TMap defined in BaseMap.
For me, the only solution was to use protected for the std::list and the TMap member variables. There was no way I would put those "private" because I would anyway expose all or almost all of their features through read/write accessors anyway.
In the end, I guess that if you en up dividing your class into multiple objects, each derivation adding needed features to its mother class, and only the most derived class being really usable, then protected is the way to go. The fact the "protected member" was a class, and so, was almost impossible to "break", helped.
But otherwise, protected should be avoided as much as possible (i.e.: Use private by default, and public when you must expose the method).
The protected keyword is a conceptual error and language design botch, and several modern languages, such as Nim and Ceylon (see http://ceylon-lang.org/documentation/faq/language-design/#no_protected_modifier), that have been carefully designed rather than just copying common mistakes, don't have such a keyword.
It's not protected members that breaks encapsulation, it's exposing members that shouldn't be exposed that breaks encapsulation ... it doesn't matter whether they are protected or public. The problem with protected is that it is wrongheaded and misleading ... declaring members protected (rather than private) doesn't protect them, it does the opposite, exactly as public does. A protected member, being accessible outside the class, is exposed to the world and so its semantics must be maintained forever, just as is the case for public. The whole idea of "protected" is nonsense ... encapsulation is not security, and the keyword just furthers the confusion between the two. You can help a little by avoiding all uses of protected in your own classes -- if something is an internal part of the implementation, isn't part of the class's semantics, and may change in the future, then make it private or internal to your package, module, assembly, etc. If it is an unchangeable part of the class semantics, then make it public, and then you won't annoy users of your class who can see that there's a useful member in the documentation but can't use it, unless they are creating their own instances and can get at it by subclassing.
In general, no you really don't want to use protected data members. This is doubly true if your writing an API. Once someone inherits from your class you can never really do maintenance and not somehow break them in a weird and sometimes wild way.
I use them. In short, it's a good way, if you want to have some attributes shared. Granted, you could write set/get functions for them, but if there is no validation, then what's the point? It's also faster.
Consider this: you have a class which is your base class. It has quite a few attributes you wan't to use in the child objects. You could write a get/set function for each, or you can just set them.
My typical example is a file/stream handler. You want to access the handler (i.e. file descriptor), but you want to hide it from other classes. It's way easier than writing a set/get function for it.
I think protected attributes are a bad idea. I use CheckStyle to enforce that rule with my Java development teams.
In general, yes. A protected method is usually better.
In use, there is a level of simplicity given by using a protected final variable for an object that is shared by all the children of a class. I'd always advise against using it with primitives or collections since the contracts are impossible to define for those types.
Lately I've come to separate stuff you do with primitives and raw collections from stuff you do with well-formed classes. Primitives and collections should ALWAYS be private.
Also, I've started occasionally exposing public member variables when they are declaired final and are well-formed classes that are not too flexible (again, not primitives or collections).
This isn't some stupid shortcut, I thought it out pretty seriously and decided there is absolutely no difference between a public final variable exposing an object and a getter.
It depends on what you want. If you want a fast class then data should be protected and use protected and public methods.
Because I think you should assume that your users who derive from your class know your class quite well or at least they have read your manual at the function they going to override.
If your users mess with your class it is not your problem. Every malicious user can add the following lines when overriding one of your virtuals:
(C#)
static Random rnd=new Random();
//...
if (rnd.Next()%1000==0) throw new Exception("My base class sucks! HAHAHAHA! xD");
//...
You can't seal every class to prevent this.
Of course if you want a constraint on some of your fields then use accessor functions or properties or something you want and make that field private because there is no other solution...
But I personally don't like to stick to the oop principles at all costs. Especially making properties with the only purpose to make data members private.
(C#):
private _foo;
public foo
{
get {return _foo;}
set {_foo=value;}
}
This was my personal opinion.
But do what your boss require (if he wants private fields than do that.)
I use protected variables/attributes within base classes that I know I don't plan on changing into methods. That way, subclasses have full access to their inherited variables, and don't have the (artificially created) overhead of going through getters/setters to access them. An example is a class using an underlying I/O stream; there is little reason not to allow subclasses direct access to the underlying stream.
This is fine for member variables that are used in direct simple ways within the base class and all subclasses. But for a variable that has a more complicated use (e.g., accessing it causes side effects in other members within the class), a directly accessible variable is not appropriate. In this case, it can be made private and public/protected getters/setters can be provided instead. An example is an internal buffering mechanism provided by the base class, where accessing the buffers directly from a subclass would compromise the integrity of the algorithms used by the base class to manage them.
It's a design judgment decision, based on how simple the member variable is, and how it is expected to be so in future versions.
Encapsulation is great, but it can be taken too far. I've seen classes whose own private methods accessed its member variables using only getter/setter methods. This is overkill, since if a class can't trust its own private methods with its own private data, who can it trust?