Menu
It is common in Java classes to have lots of getter and setter methods, one each for every data model class variable. I realize that many IDEs will create these for you, but I'm trying to avoid this clutter and not have all these methods in my classes. So, is there any way to access a variable in a read only fashion outside the class (as if it were public final), while retaining write access inside the class or subclass exclusively (as if it were private or protected).
The only pseudo-solution I've come up with is a base class (or interface with default methods) that has a get(String variableName) method which then gets the fields of the class via reflection and returns the appropriate one. The downside is that for that to work, the variables have to be public, so only by convention does it meet my requirements (in that in the extending/implementing class that has the variables I want to access, I only call the get method from outside the class, and don't implement a set method). The main thing I don't like about this is that if a variable name changes, callers of the get methods will not cause compiler errors, since the variable name is just a hardcoded String.
Anyone have a better idea?
632
Thus: you avoid getters and setters by thinking in terms of behavior, not in terms of state. Getters/setters manipulate state, from the "outside" (by doing avail = purse.
Using getters and setters, is always, in my opinion good practice. One thing you should avoid is to have external entities mess with the internal structure of your class at will. Typical example, consider having a dateOfBirth parameter.
Introduction. Getters and Setters play an important role in retrieving and updating the value of a variable outside the encapsulating class. A setter updates the value of a variable, while a getter reads the value of a variable.
It is good programming practice not to use getters and setters in classes that are intended to be more than bundles of data (like a C struct ). They expose the internal structure of the class, violating encapsulation and greatly increasing coupling.
Yes - try to design your classes so you don't have getters and setters at all. Typically it's a bad design to have getters and setters on all of your fields because it breaks encapsulation. An exception is the case of Java Beans (where you have a model class/DTO or some class that's mapped to XML/JSON); here you should not mind them because setters and getters are the only methods.
In classes that have logic, inject your dependencies via constructor or directly if you use Spring/CDI and you like it. This is more safe because you won't have objects in inconsistent states; like for example you create an object but forget to call a setter -> NullPointerException. But by using constructors, you avoid the case of forgetting to call the setters.
Of course there might be exceptions, like when setting some optional fields when you don't want all the dependencies in the constructor all the time. This however can be solved with overloading constructors or if the case is more complex the problem can be solved in a more elegant way by using the builder pattern.
See a great article on this: http://www.javaworld.com/article/2073723/core-java/why-getter-and-setter-methods-are-evil.html
67
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
