When inside a class you have a private fiels and expose that field on a public property, which one should I use from inside the class?
Below you is an example on what I am trying to find out.
Should manioulate the Private Field _Counter or the Property Counter?
Public Class Test
Private _Counter As Integer
Public Property Counter() As Integer
Get
Return _Counter
End Get
Set(ByVal value As Integer)
_Counter = value
End Set
End Property
Private Sub Dosomething()
'What is the best practice?
'Direct access to private field or property?
'On SET
_Counter += 1
'OR
Me.Counter += 1
'On Get
Console.WriteLine(_Counter)
Console.WriteLine(Me.Counter)
End Sub
End Class
Thanks in advance for the help.
Edu
IMO you should be using the Property accessor whenever possible. This is because you don't have to worry about any internal logic that might be available when you have an a property.
A good example of where this happens is in the code behind in a Linq DataContext.
check this out...
[Column(Storage="_ReviewType", DbType="TinyInt NOT NULL")]
public byte ReviewType
{
get
{
return this._ReviewType;
}
set
{
if ((this._ReviewType != value))
{
this.OnReviewTypeChanging(value);
this.SendPropertyChanging();
this._ReviewType = value;
this.SendPropertyChanged("ReviewType");
this.OnReviewTypeChanged();
}
}
}
Notice all that logic in the 'setter'?
This is why it's important to start getting into the practice of calling your Properties instead of fields, IMO.
Thank you all for the answers and suggestions.
After considering all the suggestions here plus other researches it is my impression that for this situation on Private Field versus Assessor it is more of a personal choice. So basically the most important is that no matter what you choose be consistent.
That said; my personal rule is leaning towards this:
Access your private fields directly.
If accessing accessors use the keyword ME. to improve readability
Use the accessor only if it implements vital logic logic that also applies to private access. This way you know that if you are using the accessor it is because there is "something else to it"
Avoid using Protected Fields. Derived classes should always use the accessor, never direct access to the field.
Let me know what you think.
SideNote:
After this I think we are missing a new scope for the class level fields. A keyword like “Restricted” where this field could only be accessed from its getter/setter. This way you always access directly the private fields, but if you need to make sure certain field can only be accessed by its accessor that you change the Private to Restricted. (how about "Restricted , RestrictedRead and RestrictedWrite"?)
In my opinion, using a public accessor internally is over-encapsulation: it blurs the code. With such an approach, otherwise simple operations invoke accessors that may contain more complex logic, so it's harder to analyze the code of the operations.
In my programming experience, I've rarely had a situation when it would help much. Instead, I prefer to access fields directly, and only if it's really needed, to abstract the access by creating a private accessor, which can be used by both the public accessor and other functions. The rationale is that if you need to attach some special logic in the public accessor, chances are that the logic may not be the same for internal access.
Note also that most modern IDEs (like Eclipse) allow to see immediately all references to a private field, and to refactor the code to use a function instead of a direct access.
I always use the property accessors, because the I am safe in case I add logic in the getter or setter in the future, knowing for sure that no code bypasses it.
I prefer to use the property whenever possible. This gives you the flexibility in the future to modify what the property returns/sets without having to go through and find all the locations that were using the private variable.
Use the private field because you are not doing something in specific in the setter.
I would also recommend to remove the property-setter, this way you force the state of the counter to be set by the given method DoSomething()
Depending on the situation, it may be preferable to allow the direct modification of a field on a class only privately, and or through some method which associates semantics with the modification. This way it becomes easier to reason about this class and that particular value, since you can be certain that its modified only in a certain way. Moreover, at some point, an action such as incrementing and int may have additional required consequences at which point it makes more sense to expose access to it through methods.
If you are worried about the performance overhead of calling property accessors when they just go directly to the field, don't. Most compilers will inline this sort of thing, giving you effectively the same performance. At least, you're pretty unlikely to need the extra nanoseconds of time you might gain by going directly to the field.
It's better to stick with property accessors because a) you can be very consistent in all of your code which makes it more maintainble and b) you get the benefits pointed out by others here.
Also, I don't usually add the Me. (or this.) keywords, unless there's a scope problem (which I try to avoid by choosing my identifiers carefully). I don't get confused by this because my functions and subs are never so long that I'm not sure whether I am working with a local (stack-based) variable or a member of the class. When they get too long to tell easily, I refactor.
Original poster is EXACTLY correct.
1) Access your private fields directly.
Makes refactoring easier.
2) If accessing accessors use the keyword ME. to improve readability
explicitly listing scope requires less thinking by reader
3) Use the accessor only if it implements vital logic logic that also applies to private access. This way you know that if you are using the accessor it is because there is “something else to it”
this is the only reason to violate rule #1.
4) Avoid using Protected Fields. Derived classes should always use the accessor, never direct access to the field.
Related
After reading this piece by Yegor about not using getters and setters, it sounds like something that makes sense to me.
Please note this question is not about whether doing it is better/worst, only if I am implementing it correctly
I was wondering in the following two examples in VBA, if I understand the concept correctly, and if I am applying it correctly.
The standard way would be:
Private userName As String
Public Property Get Name() As String
Name = userName
End Property
Public Property Let Name(rData As String)
userName = rData
End Property
It looks to me his way would be something like this:
Private userName As String
Public Function returnName() As String
returnName = userName
End Function
Public Function giveNewName(newName As String) As String
userName = newName
End Function
From what I understand from the two examples above is that if I wanted to change the format of userName (lets say return it in all-caps), then I can do this with the second method without changing the name of the method that gives the name through - I can just let returnName point to a userNameCaps property. The rest of my code in my program can still stay the same and point to the method userName.
But if I want to do this with the first example, I can make a new property, but then have to change my code everywhere in the program as well to point to the new property... is that correct?
In other words, in the first example the API gets info from a property, and in the second example the API gets info from a method.
Your 2nd snippet is neither idiomatic nor equivalent. That article you link to, is about Java, a language which has no concept whatsoever of object properties - getFoo/setFoo is a mere convention in Java.
In VBA this:
Private userName As String
Public Property Get Name() As String
Name = userName
End Property
Public Property Let Name(rData As String)
userName = rData
End Property
Is ultimately equivalent to this:
Public UserName As String
Not convinced? Add such a public field to a class module, say, Class1. Then add a new class module and add this:
Implements Class1
The compiler will force you to implement a Property Get and a Property Let member, so that the Class1 interface contract can be fulfilled.
So why bother with properties then? Properties are a tool, to help with encapsulation.
Option Explicit
Private Type TSomething
Foo As Long
End Type
Private this As TSomething
Public Property Get Foo() As Long
Foo = this.Foo
End Property
Public Property Let Foo(ByVal value As Long)
If value <= 0 Then Err.Raise 5
this.Foo = value
End Property
Now if you try to assign Foo with a negative value, you'll get a runtime error: the property is encapsulating an internal state that only the class knows and is able to mutate: calling code doesn't see or know about the encapsulated value - all it knows is that Foo is a read/write property. The validation logic in the "setter" ensures the object is in a consistent state at all times.
If you want to break down a property into methods, then you need a Function for the getter, and assignment would be a Sub not a Function. In fact, Rubberduck would tell you that there's a problem with the return value of giveNewName being never assigned: that's a much worse code smell than "OMG you're using properties!".
Functions return a value. Subs/methods do something - in the case of an object/class, that something might imply mutating internal state.
But by avoiding Property Let just because some Java guy said getters & setters are evil, you're just making your VBA API more cluttered than it needs to be - because VBA understands properties, and Java does not. C# and VB.NET do however, so if anything the principles of these languages would be much more readily applicable to VBA than Java's, at least with regards to properties. See Property vs Method.
FWIW public member names in VB would be PascalCase by convention. camelCase public member names are a Java thing. Notice how everything in the standard libraries starts with a Capital first letter?
It seems to me that you've just given the property accessors new names. They are functionally identical.
I think the idea of not using getters/setters implies that you don't try to externally modify an object's state - because if you do, the object is not much more than a user-defined type, a simple collection of data. Objects/Classes should be defined by their behavior. The data they contain should only be there to enable/support that behavior.
That means you don't tell the object how it has to be or what data you want it to hold. You tell it what you want it to do or what is happening to it. The object itself then decides how to modify its state.
To me it seems your example class is a little too simple to work as an example. It's not clear what the intended purpose is: Currently you'd probably better off just using a variable UserName instead.
Have a look at this answer to a related question - I think it provides a good example.
Regarding your edit:
From what I understand from the two examples above is that if I wanted
to change the format of userName (lets say return it in all-caps),
then I can do this with the second method without changing the name of
the method that gives the name through - I can just let returnName
point to a userNameCaps property. The rest of my code in my program
can still stay the same and point to the method iserName.
But if I want to do this with the first example, I can make a new
property, but then have to change my code everywhere in the program as
well to point to the new property... is that correct?
Actually, what you're describing here, is possible in both approaches. You can have a property
Public Property Get Name() As String
' possibly more code here...
Name = UCase(UserName)
End Property
or an equivalent function
Public Function Name() As String
' possibly more code here...
Name = UCase(UserName)
End Function
As long as you only change the property/function body, no external code needs to be adapted. Keep the property's/function's signature (the first line, including the Public statement, its name, its type and the order and type of its parameters) unchanged and you should not need to change anything outside the class to accommodate.
The Java article is making some sort of philosophic design stance that is not limited to Java: The general advise is to severely limit any details on how a class is implemented to avoid making one's code harder to maintain. Putting such advice into VBA terms isn't irrelevant.
Microsoft popularized the idea of a Property that is in fact a method (or two) which masquerade as a field (i.e. any garden-variety variable). It is a neat-and-tidy way to package up a getter and setter together. Beyond that, really, behind the scenes it's still just a set of functions or subroutines that perform as accessors for your class.
Understand that VBA does not do classes, but it does do interfaces. That's what a "Class Module" is: An interface to an (anonymous) class. When you say Dim o As New MyClassModule, VBA calls some factory function which returns an instance of the class that goes with MyClassModule. From that point, o references the interface (which in turn is wired into the instance). As #Mathieu Guindon has demonstrated, Public UserName As String inside a class module really becomes a Property behind the scenes anyway. Why? Because a Class Module is an interface, and an interface is a set of (pointers to) functions and subroutines.
As for the philosophic design stance, the really big idea here is not to make too many promises. If UserName is a String, it must always remain a String. Furthermore, it must always be available - you cannot remove it from future versions of your class! UserName might not be the best example here (afterall, why wouldn't a String cover all needs? for what reason might UserName become superfluous?). But it does happen that what seemed like a good idea at the time the class was being made turns into a big goof. Imagine a Public TwiddlePuff As Integer (or instead getTwiddlePuff() As Integer and setTwiddlePuff(value As Integer)) only to find out (much later on!) that Integer isn't sufficient anymore, maybe it should have been Long. Or maybe a Double. If you try to change TwiddlePuff now, anything compiled back when it was Integer will likely break. So maybe people making new code will be fine, and maybe it's mostly the folks who still need to use some of the old code who are now stuck with a problem.
And what if TwiddlePuff turned out to be a really big design mistake, that it should not have been there in the first place? Well, removing it brings its own set of headaches. If TwiddlePuff was used at all elsewhere, that means some folks may have a big refactoring job on their hands. And that might not be the worst of it - if your code compiles to native binaries especially, that makes for a really big mess, since an interface is about a set of function pointers layed out and ordered in a very specific way.
Too reiterate, do not make too many promises. Think through on what you will share with others. Properties-getters-setters-accessors are okay, but must be used thoughtfully and sparingly. All of that above is important if what you are making is code that you are going to share with others, and others will take it and use it as part of a larger system of code, and it may be that these others intend to share their larger systems of code with yet even more people who will use that in their even larger systems of code.
That right there is probably why hiding implementation details to the greatest extent possible is regarded as fundamental to object oriented programming.
I've read a lot of articles about "public vs getter/setter", but I still wonder if there is any good part about public variable.
Or the question is:
If you're going to make a new awesome programming languange, are you still going to support public variable and why??
I agree with almost everything that's been said by everyone else, but wanted to add this:
Public isn't automatically bad. Public is bad if you're writing an Object Class. Data Classes are just fine. There's nothing wrong with this class:
public class CommentRecord
{
public int id;
public string comment;
}
... why? Because the class isn't using the variables for anything. It's just a data object - it's meant to be just a simple data repository.
But there's absolutely something wrong with this class:
public class CommentRecord
{
public int id;
public string comment;
public void UpdateInSQL()
{
// code to update the SQL table for the row with commentID = this.id
// and set its UserComment column to this.comment
}
}
... why is this bad? Because it's not a data class. It's a class that actually does stuff with its variables - and because of that, making them public forces the person using the class to know the internals of the class. The person using it needs to know "If I want to update the comment, I have to change the public variable, but not change the id, then call the UpdateInSQL() method." Worse, if they screw up, they use the class in a way it wasn't intended and in a way that'll cause unforseen consequences down the line!
If you want to get some more info on this, take a look at Clean Code by Robert Martin, Chapter 6, on "Data/Object Anti-Symmetry"
A public variable essentially means you have a global accessible/changeable variable within the scope of an object. Is there really a use case for this?
Take this example: you have a class DatabaseQueryHandler which has a variable databaseAccessor. Under what circumstances would you want this variable to be:
Publicly accessible (i.e. gettable)
Publicly settable
Option #1 I can think of a few - you may want to get the last insert ID after an insert operation, you may want to check any errors the last query generated, commit or rollback transactions, etc., and it might make more logical sense to have these methods written in the class DatabaseAccessor than DatabaseQueryHandler.
Option #2 is less desirable, especially if you are doing OOP and abiding by SOLID principles, in particular regards to the ISP and DIP principles. In that case, when would you want to set the variable databaseAccessor in DatabaseQueryHandler? Probably on construction only, and never at any time after that. You probably also want it type-hinted at the interface level as well, so that you can code to interfaces. Also, why would you need an arbitrary object to be able to alter the database accessor? What happens if Foo changes the variable DatabaseQueryHandler->databaseAccessor to be NULL and then Bar tries to call DatabaseQueryHandler->databaseAccessor->beginTransaction()?
I'm just giving one example here, and it is by no means bullet proof. I program in PHP (dodges the hurled rotten fruit) and take OOP and SOLID very seriously given the looseness of the language. I'm sure there will be arguments on both sides of the fence, but I would say that if you're considering using a public class variable, instead consider what actually needs to access it, and how that variable is to be used. In most cases the functionality can be exposed via public methods without allowing unexpected alteration of the variable type.
Simple answer is: yes, they are bad. There are many reasons to that like coupling and unmaintanable code. In practice you should not use them. In OOP the public variable alternative is Singleton, which is considered a bad pracitce. Check out here.
It has a lot to do with encapsulation. You don't want your variable to be accessed anyhow. Other languages like iOS (objective-c) use properties:
#property (nonatomic, strong) NSArray* array;
then the compiler will generate the instance variable with it's getter and setter implicitly. In this case there is no need to use a variable (though other developers still prefer to use variables). You can then make this property public by declaring it in the .h file or private by declaring it in the .m file.
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
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.
What is a realistic use for VB.Net's MyClass keyword?
I understand the technical usage of MyClass; I don't understand the practical usage of it in the real world.
Using MyClass only makes sense if you have any virtual (overridable) members. But it also means that you want to ignore the overridden implementations in sub classes. It appears to be self-contradicting.
I can think of some contrived examples, but they are simply bad design rather than practical usage.
MyClass, from a compiler's perspective, is a way to omit a callvirt instruction in favor of a call instruction. Essentially when you call a method with the virtual semantics (callvirt), you're indicating that you want to use the most derived variation. In cases where you wish to omit the derived variations you utilize MyClass (call). While you've stated you understand the basic concept, I figured it might help to describe it from a functional viewpoint, rather than an implicit understanding. It's functionally identical to MyBase with the caveat of scope being base type with MyBase, instead of the active type with MyClass.
Overriding virtual call semantics, at the current point in the hierarchy, is typically a bad design choice, the only times it is valid is when you must rely on a specific piece of functionality within your object's hierarchy, and can't rely on the inheritor to call your variation through a base invocation in their implementation. It could also rely on you as a designer deciding that it's the only alternative since you overrode the functionality further in the object hierarchy and you must ensure that in this corner case that this specific method, at the current level of the inheritance tree, must be called.
It's all about design, understanding the overall design and corner cases. There's likely a reason C♯ doesn't include such functionality since on those corner cases you could separate the method into a private variation the current level in the hierarchy invokes, and just refer to that private implementation when necessary. It's my personal view that utilizing the segmentation approach is the ideal means to an end since it's explicit about your design choice, and is easier to follow (and it's also the only valid means in languages without a functional equivalent to MyClass.)
Polymorphism
I'm sorry I don't have a clear code example here but you can follow the link below for that and I hate to copy the MSDN Library description but it's so good that it's really hard to rewrite it any clearer.
"MyClass provides a way to refer to the current class instance members without them being replaced by any derived class overrides. The MyClass keyword behaves like an object variable referring to the current instance of a class as originally implemented."
Also note that you can't use MyClass in a shared method.
A good example of implementing Polymorphism via MyClass is at http://www.devarticles.com/c/a/VB.Net/Implementing-Polymorphism-in-VB.Net/
I guess the only case I could see a use for it, would be if you want the base condition, and an inherited condition at the same time? I.E. where you want to be able to inherit a member, but you want the ability to access a value for that member that hasn't been changed by inheritance?
You need it if you want to call a chained constructor.
Public Sub New(ByVal accountKey As Integer)
MyClass.New(accountKey, Nothing)
End Sub
Public Sub New(ByVal accountKey As Integer, ByVal accountName As String)
MyClass.New(accountKey, accountName, Nothing)
End Sub
Public Sub New(ByVal accountKey As Integer, ByVal accountName As String, ByVal accountNumber As String)
m_AccountKey = accountKey
m_AccountName = accountName
m_AccountNumber = accountNumber
End Sub