In the database you have a table with a bit field, let call that field Active
In the application you have a variable boolean, let call it NotActive
Everytime you get the field from the table, in the application you have switch the meaning of the variable.
NotActive = !mytable.active;
Another example would be a bit field in the database named Enable__yes__no and in the code you do
control.enabled = !mytable.Enable_yes_no
best practice would be to keep the same name and the same meaning, but the pattern above, how to you call that?
I wouldn't name boolean variables with a negative prefix.
Name the variable IsActive or Active, naming it NotActive is double negation.
Edit/Clarification:
If you need to check if the thing is active, you need a double negation:
If (!NotActive) { DoSomething() }
Positive boolean Variable names are much easier to understand:
If (isActive) { DoSomething() }
Obfuscation by design?
Backward compatibility with existing databases?
It's widely known as the "not-not-negative spaghetti confusion pattern" and was first mentioned 1972. ;-) SCNR
I think the problem here is in the architecture, not in the specific naming of the data. For instance, if you used an entity framework, then your entity for this table could declare a property called InActive, and it could use the Active column as the datastore. As far as the outside world is concerned, the translation back and forth is transparent.
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 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
I'm often running into the same trail of thought when I'm creating private methods, which application is to modify (usually initialize) an existing variable in scope of the class.
I can't decide which of the following two methods I prefer.
Lets say we have a class Test with a field variable x. Let it be an integer. How do you usually modify / initialize x ?
a) Modifying the field directly
private void initX(){
// Do something to determine x. Here its very simple.
x = 60;
}
b) Using a return value
private int initX(){
// Do something to determine x. Here its very simple.
return 60;
}
And in the constructor:
public Test(){
// a)
initX();
// b)
x = initX();
}
I like that its clear in b) which variable we are dealing with. But on the other hand, a) seems sufficient most of the time - the function name implies perfectly well what we are doing!
Which one do you prefer and why?
Thank for your answers guys! I'll make this a community wiki as I realize that there is no correct answer to this.
I usually prefer b), only I pick a different name, like computeX() in this case. A few reasons for why:
if I declare computeX() as protected, there is a simple way for a subclass to influent how it works, yet x itself can remain a private field;
I like to declare fields final if that's what they are; in this case a) is not an option since initialization has to happen in compiler (this is Java-specific, but your examples all look Java as well).
That said, I don't have a strong preference between the two methods. For instance, if I need to initialize several related fields at once, I will usually pick option a). That, though, only if I cannot or don't want for some reason, to initialize directly in constructor.
For initialization I prefer constructor initialization if it's possible,
public Test():x(val){...}, or write initialization code in the constructor body. Constructor is the best place to initialize all the fields (actually, it is the purpose of constructor). I'd use private initX() approach only if initialization code for X is too long (just for readability) and call this function from constructor. private int initX() in my opinion has nothing to do with initialization(unless you implement lazy initialization,but in this case it should return &int or const &int) , it is an accessor.
I would prefer option b), because you can make it a const function in languages that support it.
With option a), there is a temptation for new, lazy or just time-stressed developers to start adding little extra tasks into the initX method, instead of creating a new one.
Also, in b), you can remove initX() from the class definition, so consumers of the object don't even have to know it's there. For example, in C++.
In the header:
class Test {
private: int X;
public: Test();
...
}
In the CPP file:
static int initX() { return 60; }
Test::Test() {
X = initX();
}
Removing the init functions from the header file simplifies the class for the people that have to use it.
Neither?
I prefer to initialize in the constructor and only extract out an initialization method if I need a lot of fields initialized and/or need the ability to re-initialize at another point in the life time of an instance (without going through a destruct/construct).
More importantly, what does 60 mean?
If it is a meaningful value, make it a const with a meaningful name: NUMBER_OF_XXXXX, MINUTES_PER_HOUR, FIVE_DOZEN_APPLES, SPEED_LIMIT, ... regardless of how and where you subsequently use it (constructor, init method or getter function).
Making it a named constant makes the value re-useable in and of itself. And using a const is much more "findable", especially for more ubiquitous values (like 1 or -1) then using the actual value.
Only when you want to tie this const value to a specific class would it make sense to me to create a class const or var, or - it the language does not support those - a getter class function.
Another reason to make it a (virtual) getter function would be if descendant classes need the ability to start with a different initial value.
Edit (in response to comments):
For initializations that involve complex calculations I would also extract out a method to do the calculation. The choice of making that method a procedure that directly modifies the field value (a) or a function that returns the value it should be given (b), would be driven by the question whether or not the calculation would be needed at other times than "just the constructor".
If only needed at initialization in the constructor, I would prefer method (a).
If the calculation needs to be done at other times as well, I would opt for method (b) as it also makes it possible to assign the outcome to some other field or local variable and so can be used by descendants or other users of the class without affecting the inner state of the instance.
Actually only a) method behaves as expected (by analyzing method name). Method b) should be named 'return60' in your example or 'getXValue' in some more complicated one.
Both options are correct in my opinion. It all depeneds what was your intention when certain design was choosen. If your method has to do initialization only I would prefer a) beacuse it is simplier. In case x value is also used for something else somewhere in logic using b) option might lead to more consistent code.
You should also always write method names clearly and make those names corresponding with actual logic. (in this case method b) has confusing name).
#Frederik, if you use option b) and you have a LOT of field variables, the constructor will become a quite unwieldy block of code. Sometimes you just can't help but have lots and lots of member variables in a class (example: it's a domain object and it's data comes straight from a very wide table in the database). The most pragmatic approach would be to modularize the code as you need to.
What is the common preference to name a method that has an out parameter inside?
Usually I use Get as a prefix to mention that the method returns a value (like GetMyBusiness).
But what if there is an out parameter that will be set after the method call?
Should the method name mention this and focus only the return value?
thanks!
There is no standard in nomenclature. However, if your method is going to be acting on compound types, consider adopting a convention of using Get...And...() to indicate that there are two things going on. For example:
int GetPopulationAndMeanAge(out double meanAge)
{
// ...
meanAge = CalculateMeanAge();
return totalPopulation;
}
I think the better approach is to return a compound type instead. In a garbage collected language, there is really no excuse NOT to do this, except in cases where such a method is called, say, millions of times and instrumentation reveals that the GC isn't properly handling the load. In non-GC languages, it presents a minor issue in terms of making sure that it's clear who is responsible for cleaning up the memory when you're done.
Refactoring the previous into a compound type (C#):
public class PopulationStatistics {
int Population { get; set; }
double MeanAge { get; set; }
}
PopulationStatistics GetPopulationStatistics()
{
// ...
return new PopulationStatistics { Population = totalPopulation, MeanAge = CalculateMeanAge };
}
The method name should describe the function of the method (self-documenting code). If the method signature will indicate that it uses an out parameter, the signature should be sufficient to alert developers that a value will be returned in the variable. I would consider it to be redundant, therefore, to include this in the method name. Even self-documenting code should be clear and concise. If your language doesn't make this clear then I would either document it in the name, if it can be done clearly and concisely, or using inline comments.
Why not return that parameter instead?
Anyway, you could use "modify" or "handle" prefix.
I'd say in this case it's more important to keep your naming consistent rather than what your naming scheme actually is. It makes things easier for those who code behind you, since they will know what to expect from your methods based on how they're named.
Having said that, Get should be just fine.
That depends on the language.
In C#, for example, there's no need to add it to the name of the function, it's already in the signature: you cannot call the function without specifying out again, so there's no risk of missing the side effect:
Int32.TryParse("123", out number);
Is it normal to modify setter arguments? Let's imagine that we have setString method. And we really want to keep a trimmed form of the string. So a string with trailing spaces is invalid, but we don't want to throw an exception.
What's the best solution? To trim the value in the setter e.g.
public void setString(String string) {
this.string = string.trim();
}
Or trim it in the caller (more than once) e.g.
object.setString(string.trim());
Or maybe something else?
Yes. After all, setters are designed for these kind of things! To control and sanitize the values written to fields ;)
Totally. Here's an example: suppose you have an engineering programs with different types of measurement units. You keep the internal values in one measurement system, but you convert from all others in the setter, and convert back in the getter, e.g.:
public double UserTemperature
{
get
{
return Units.Instance.ConvertFromSystem(UnitType.Temperature, temperature);
}
set
{
double v = Units.Instance.ConvertToSystem(UnitType.Temperature, value);
if (temperature != v)
{
temperature = v;
Changed("SystemTemperature");
Changed("UserTemperature");
}
}
}
Yes, sure. Just be careful to check for NULL before applying any method (such as trim()).
There are two schools: one says its ok to check param in setter(school style) and second one says beans should not contain any logic and just data(enterprise style).
I believe more in the second one. How often do you look at implementation of your beans? should getUser throw any exception or just return null?
When you put logic in your setter and getters you make it harder to understand whats going on since many people will never look at its implementation. If you disagree I urge you to look at every setter and getter implementation before you use it just to check if its not just a bean.
At first glance it seems like it violates the principle of least astonishment. If I'm a user of your class, I'd expect a setter to do exactly what I tell it to. I'd throw an exception in the setter to force users to trim the input.
The other (better?) alternative is to change the name of the method to trimAndSetString. That way, it's not surprising behavior to trim the input.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks logical to me that the setter should hold this kind of logic.
If the setter is just assigning some value to an internal var without checking it, then why not expose the var itself?
This is exactly why you use setters rather than exposing the objects fields to the whole wide world.
Consider a class that holds an integer angle that's expected to be between 0 and 359 inclusive.
If you expose the field, calling functions can set it to whatever they want and this would break the contract specified by your API. It's also likely to break your functionality somewhere down the track because your code is written to assume a certain range for that variable.
With a setter, there's a number of things you can do. One is to raise an exception to indicate an invalid value was passed but that would be incorrect in my view (for this case). It's likely to be more useful if you modify the input value to something between 0 and 359 such as with:
actualVal = passedValue % 360;
As long as this is specified in your interface (API), it's perfectly valid. In fact, even if you don't specify it, you're still free to do whatever you want since the caller has violated the contract (by passing a value outside of range). I tend to follow the rule of "sanitize your input as soon as possible".
In your specific case, as long as you specify that the string is stored in trimmed format, there's no reason for callers to complain (you've already stated that such a string is invalid). It's better in terms of code size (not speed) to do it in the setter rather than at every piece of code that calls the setter. It also guarantees that the string is stored as you expect it to be - there's no guarantee a caller won't accidentally (or purposefully) store a non-trimmed string.
Yes. It is a feature of object oriented design is that the caller can treat your class as a black box. What you do inside is your own business, as long as the behavior of the interface is documented and logical.
While different people have different philosophies, I would suggest that property setters are only appropriate in cases where they will set an aspect of the object's state to match the indicated value and perhaps possibly notify anyone that cares about the change, but will not otherwise affect the object's state (it is entirely proper for a property setter to change the value of a read-only property if that property is defined in terms of the state associated with the property setter; for example, a control's read-only Right property may be defined in terms of its Bounds). Property setters should throw an exception if they cannot perform the indicated operation.
If one wishes allow a client to modify an object's state in some fashion not meeting the above description, one should use a method rather than a property. If one calls Foo.SetAngle(500) it would be reasonably expected that the method will use the indicated parameter in setting the angle, but the Angle property might not return the angle in the same form as it was set (e.g. it might return 140). On the other hand, if Angle is a read-write property, one would expect that writing a value of 500 would either be forbidden or else would cause the value to read back 500. If one wanted to have the object store an angle in the range 0 to 359, the object could also have a read-only property called BaseAngle which will always return an angle in that form.