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.
Related
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 question already has answers here:
Are static local variables bad practice?
(2 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
Consider the following functionally two code snippets in a single-threaded environment. Assuming there are no other methods in Foo I believe these are functionally identical.
Class Foo
Private _Bar As Bar
Public ReadOnly Property GetBar As Bar
Get
If IsNothing(_Bar) Then
_Bar = New Bar
End If
Return _Bar
End Get
End Property
End Class
And
Class Foo
Public ReadOnly Property GetBar2 As Bar
Get
Static _Bar As New Bar
Return _Bar
End Get
End Property
End Class
Today I was challenged on code following the 2nd method because "the New will be called each time". I already know that is false, but the primary objection was with regards to the use of Static. I found several references to Static variables indicating that they may be dangerous, but they were all talking about Java. However, I was not able to find any good explanations as to why.
How are these two methods different? Is the 2nd method dangerous? If so, why?
Static in VB.Net is not that same as static in Java, C#, C, or C++. VB.Net's analog to that construct is Shared. The documentation on the Static keyword is here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/z2cty7t8.aspx
In particular, I'd like to point out this snippet:
Behavior
When you declare a static variable in a Shared procedure, only one copy of the static variable is available for the whole application. You call a Shared procedure by using the class name, not a variable that points to an instance of the class.
When you declare a static variable in a procedure that isn't Shared, only one copy of the variable is available for each instance of the class. You call a non-shared procedure by using a variable that points to a specific instance of the class.
It's likely the objection comes from believing that Static always behaves like the first paragraph, even in instance methods, when we can see here that it's clearly documented that this is not the case.
Instead, Static allows you to declare a variable whose lifetime-scope is that of the class instance, but whose access-scope is limited to a single method. It's a way to narrow the potential scope of a variable, and therefore is a good thing. Additionally, variables declared as Static are rewritten by the compiler to be protected via the Monitor class (at least for the Shared version), giving them a measure of thread-safety. In other words, a variable declared as Static is more likely to have any needed locking done verses a similar class-scoped variable.
In this particular case, though, I fail to see the point. You don't really gain anything beyond an auto-implemented property like this:
Public ReadOnly Property GetBar2 As New Bar()
This probably is confusing the VB.net concepts of Static and Shared because some languages use the keyword Static to mean what VB uses Shared for: a variable/field/property/method that is shared or common to all instances of a class.
But Static doesn't mean that in VB. Instead it means a routine-local variable that persists beyond the invocation of the routine (i.e., its lifetime is object-scoped rather than routine invocation-scoped).
REF: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/z2cty7t8.aspx
So in VB, Static means "routine-scoped visibility, object-scoped lifetime".
Whereas Shared means "class-scoped visibilty, class/program-scoped lifetime".
I would avoid the second approach if for no other reason than the fact that C and C# have a static keyword whose meaning is totally different from that of the VB.NET Static keyword. I generally dislike language features which look like features of other languages but aren't. If it's necessary to use a language feature despite its unfortunate resemblance to the other language's feature, I'll use it, but the VB.NET static keyword doesn't really add much here. Effectively, it asks the compiler to make the variable Private field, give it an arbitrary name which differs from that of any other field, and replace all references to the variable's given name within the method with references to the invented name.
Conceptually, use of such "localized" fields may be regarded as dubious because while one may expect that a field will only need to be used within one method, that may turn out not to be true. I wouldn't worry too much about that issue in vb.net, however, because a Static variable may easily be turned into an ordinary private field if the need arises. If when that need does arise a field exists with the same name, one may easily rename the Static variable before moving it.
Let's assume I have a class and whenever I set certain attributes bla, foo (which can be set externally and internally) I want to call another method of the class, let's call it onChangeFunction().
Would it be a good way to simply call onChangeFunction() when setting internal values directly, e.g.
function someFunction()
// Some Calculations here ...
this.bla = some_value;
this.onChangeFunction()
end
or would it be better to also set those variables bla and foo ONLY by using the internal setter-methods because there is a certain action triggered with it and thus it would be a more clearly arranged code.
I even go a step further: Let's say I don't need an extern setter which can be called from outside (access type = public), would it than still be good to invent a private setter to do the same approach and only use the setter because of the triggered set-action?
EDIT: What I mean is the following: Even if I would NOT have a public setter (because there should not be a public access to set the variable, because it's only an internal variable) would it be still good to have a setter which is private-only just because of the triggered action thing?
Thanks in advance!
I think in the long term it is much less error-prone to always use a setter, and to call onChangeFunction() from within the setter.
You don't specify which programming languages you have in mind, but some languages allow one to define a "property" that looks like a data member but always calls a function when an attempt is made to change it. See, for example, property et al in Python.
As to your second question, I don't think there's anything wrong with having a private setter.
I need to write some instance method, something like this (code in ruby):
def foo_bar(param)
foo(param)
if some_condition
do_bar(param)
else
do_baz(param)
end
end
Method foo_bar is a public api.
But I think, param variable here appears too many times. Maybe it would be better to create an private instance variable and use it in foo, do_bar and do_baz method? Like here: (#param is an instance variable in ruby, it can be initialized any time)
def foo_bar(param)
#param = param
foo
if some_condition
do_bar
else
do_baz
end
end
Which code is better? And why?
Is param replacing part of the state of the object?
If param is not changing the object state then it would be wrong to introduce non-obvious coupling between these methods as a convenience.
If param is altering the state of the object then it may still be bad practice to have a public api altering the state - much better to have a single private method responsible for checking and changing the state.
If param is directly setting the state of the object then I would change the instance variable here but only after checking that the new state is not inconsistent
The first version should be preferred for a couple of reasons. First, it makes testing much easier as each method is independent of other state. To test the do_bar method, simply create an instance of its containing class and invoke the method with various parameters. If you chose the second version of code, you'd have to make sure that the object had all the proper instance variables set before invoking the method. This tightly couples the test code with the object and results in broken test cases or, even worse, testcases that should no longer pass, but still do since they haven't been updated to match how the object now works.
The second reason to prefer the first version of code is that it is a more functional style and facilitates easier reuse. Say that another module or lambda function implements do_bar better than the current one. It won't have been coded to assume some parent class with a certain named instance variable. To be reusable, it will have expected any variables to be passed in as parameters.
The functional approach is the much better approach ... even in object oriented languages.
If you do not need param outside of the foo_bar method the first version is better. It is more obvious what information is being passed around and you are keeping it more thread friendly.
And I also agree with Mladen in the comment above: don't add something to the object state that doesn't belong there.
I've got a Registry class and there are a few Registry values that I want to access from within that Registry class. (There is a bit of a calculation with these values so I thought I'd just put all that code right in the Registry Class itself).
So we might have something within our RegistryRoutine.cls like:
Function GetMyValue() as integer
Dim R as new RegistryRoutine
<calculations>
GetMyValue=R.GetRegisetryValue (HKEY, key, value, etc.)
End Function
No, in general you won't see any problems (like member variables being overwritten or anything weird like that).
Where you could run into issues is if you have explicity shared variables that are being written to multiple times. But that's dangerous no matter what you do.
Do watch out for recursive cases - e.g., GetMyValue() should not call R.GetMyValue(), nor should GetRegistryValue() call GetMyValue().
It's rare that you actually want to do this, however.
Since you're not passing any arguments into GetMyValue(), we can assume that the current instance already has all the information it needs.
Since you're only returning an integer, not a RegistryRoutine instance, the client has no need for a new instance.
So, why not just call GetRegistryValue (without the R.)?
It's quite common for classes to work with instances of themselves. Consider, for example, how a tree structure works. Either a Node class has to keep track of its children, or has to keep track of its parent (or both). All the nodes are the same class.