Related
what is the meaning of this interfaces? even if we implement an interface on a class, we have to declare it's functionality again and again each time we implement it on a different class, so what is the reason of interfaces exist on as3 or any other languages which has interface.
Thank you
I basically agree with the answers posted so far, just had a bit to add.
First to answer the easy part, yes other languages have interfaces. Java comes to mind immediately but I'm pretty sure all OOP languages (C++, C#, etc.) include some mechanism for creating interfaces.
As stated by Jake, you can write interfaces as "contracts" for what will be fulfilled in order to separate work. To take a hypothetical say I'm working on A and you're working on C, and bob is working on B. If we define B' as an interface for B, we can quickly and relatively easily define B' (relative to defining B, the implementation), and all go on our way. I can assume that from A I can code to B', you can assume from C you can code to B', and when bob gets done with B we can just plug it in.
This comes to Jugg1es point. The ability to swap out a whole functional piece is made easier by "dependency injection" (if you don't know this phrase, please google it). This is the exact thing described, you create an interface that defines generally what something will do, say a database connector. For all database connectors, you want it to be able to connect to database, and run queries, so you might define an interface that says the classes must have a "connect()" method and a "doQuery(stringQuery)." Now lets say Bob writes the implementation for MySQL databases, now your client says well we just paid 200,000 for new servers and they'll run Microsoft SQL so to take advantage of that with your software all you'd need to do is swap out the database connector.
In real life, I have a friend who runs a meat packing/distribution company in Chicago. The company that makes their software/hardware setup for scanning packages and weighing things as they come in and out (inventory) is telling them they have to upgrade to a newer OS/Server and newer hardware to keep with the software. The software is not written in a modular way that allows them to maintain backwards compatibility. I've been in this boat before plenty of times, telling someone xyz needs to be upgraded to get abc functionality that will make doing my job 90% easier. Anyhow guess point being in the real world people don't always make use of these things and it can bite you in the ass.
Interfaces are vital to OOP, particularly when developing large applications. One example is if you needed a data layer that returns data on, say, Users. What if you eventually change how the data is obtained, say you started with XML web services data, but then switched to a flat file or something. If you created an interface for your data layer, you could create another class that implements it and make all the changes to the data layer without ever having to change the code in your application layer. I don't know if you're using Flex or Flash, but when using Flex, interfaces are very useful.
Interfaces are a way of defining functionality of a class. it might not make a whole lot of sense when you are working alone (especially starting out), but when you start working in a team it helps people understand how your code works and how to use the classes you wrote (while keeping your code encapsulated). That's the best way to think of them at an intermediate level in my opinion.
While the existing answers are pretty good, I think they miss the chief advantage of using Interfaces in ActionScript, which is that you can avoid compiling the implementation of that Interface into the Main Document Class.
For example, if you have an ISpaceShip Interface, you now have a choice to do several things to populate a variable typed to that Interface. You could load an external swf whose main Document Class implements ISpaceShip. Once the Loader's contentLoaderInfo's COMPLETE event fires, you cast the contentto ISpaceShip, and the implementation of that (whatever it is) is never compiled into your loading swf. This allows you to put real content in front of your users while the load process happens.
By the same token, you could have a timeline instance declared in the parent AS Class of type ISpaceShip with "Export for Actionscript in Frame N *un*checked. This will compile on the frame where it is first used, so you no longer need to account for this in your preloading time. Do this with enough things and suddenly you don't even need a preloader.
Another advantage of coding to Interfaces is if you're doing unit tests on your code, which you should unless your code is completely trivial. This enables you to make sure that the code is succeeding or failing on its own merits, not based on the merits of the collaborator, or where the collaborator isn't appropriate for a test. For example, if you have a controller that is designed to control a specific type of View, you're not going to want to instantiate the full view for the test, but only the functionality that makes a difference for the test.
If you don't have support in your work situation for writing tests, coding to interfaces helps make sure that your code will be testable once you get to the point where you can write tests.
The above answers are all very good, the only thing I'd add - and it might not be immediately clear in a language like AS3, where there are several untyped collection classes (Array, Object and Dictionary) and Object/dynamic classes - is that it's a means of grouping otherwise disparate objects by type.
A quick example:
Image you had a space shooter, where the player has missiles which lock-on to various targets. Suppose, for this purpose, you wanted any type of object which could be locked onto to have internal functions for registering this (aka an interface):
function lockOn():void;//Tells the object something's locked onto it
function getLockData():Object;//Returns information, position, heat, whatever etc
These targets could be anything, a series of totally unrelated classes - enemy, friend, powerup, health.
One solution would be to have them all to inherit from a base class which contained these methods - but Enemies and Health Pickups wouldn't logically share a common ancestor (and if you find yourself making bizarre inheritance chains to accomodate your needs then you should rethink your design!), and your missile will also need a reference to the object its locked onto:
var myTarget:Enemy;//This isn't going to work for the Powerup class!
or
var myTarget:Powerup;//This isn't going to work for the Enemy class!
...but if all lockable classes implement the ILockable interface, you can set this as the type reference:
var myTarget:ILockable;//This can be set as Enemy, Powerup, any class which implements ILockable!
..and have the functions above as the interface itself.
They're also handy when using the Vector class (the name may mislead you, it's just a typed array) - they run much faster than arrays, but only allow a single type of element - and again, an interface can be specified as type:
var lockTargets:Vector.<Enemy> = new Vector.<Enemy>();//New array of lockable objects
lockTargets[0] = new HealthPickup();//Compiler won't like this!
but this...
var lockTargets:Vector.<ILockable> = new Vector.<ILockable>();
lockTargets[0] = new HealthPickup();
lockTargets[1] = new Enemy();
Will, provided Enemy and HealthPickup implement ILockable, work just fine!
I recently expressed my view about this elsewhere* , but I think it deserves further analysis so I'm posting this as its own question.
Let's say that I need to create and pass around a container in my program. I probably don't have a strong opinion about one kind of container versus another, at least at this stage, but I do pick one; for sake of argument, let's say I'm going to use a List<>.
The question is: Is it better to write my methods to accept and return a high level interface such as C#'s IEnumerable? Or should I write methods to take and pass the specific container class that I have chosen.
What factors and criteria should I look for to decide? What kind of programs work benefit from one or the other? Does the computer language affect your decision? Performance? Program size? Personal style?
(Does it even matter?)
**(Homework: find it. But please post your answer here before you look for my own, so as not bias you.)*
Your method should always accept the least-specific type it needs to execute its function. If your method needs to enumerate, accept IEnumerable. If it needs to do IList<>-specific things, by definition you must give it a IList<>.
The only thing that should affect your decision is how you plan to use the parameter. If you're only iterating over it, use IEnumerable<T>. If you are accessing indexed members (eg var x = list[3]) or modifying the list in any way (eg list.Add(x)) then use ICollection<T> or IList<T>.
There is always a tradeoff. The general rule of thumb is to declare things as high up the hierarchy as possible. So if all you need is access to the methods in IEnumerable then that is what you should use.
Another recent example of a SO question was a C API that took a filename instead of a File * (or file descriptor). There the filename severly limited what sores of things could be passed in (there are many things you can pass in with a file descriptor, but only one that has a filename).
Once you have to start casting you have either gone too high OR you should be making a second method that takes a more specific type.
The only exception to this that I can think of is when speed is an absolute must and you do not want to go through the expense of a virtual method call. Declaring the specific type removes the overhead of virtual functions (will depend on the language/environment/implementation, but as a general statement that is likely correct).
It was a discussion with me that prompted this question, so Euro Micelli already knows my answer, but here it is! :)
I think Linq to Objects already provides a great answer to this question. By using the simplest interface to a sequence of items it could, it gives maximum flexibility about how you implement that sequence, which allows lazy generation, boosting productivity without sacrificing performance (not in any real sense).
It is true that premature abstraction can have a cost - but mainly it is the cost of discovering/inventing new abstractions. But if you already have perfectly good ones provided to you, then you'd be crazy not to take advantage of them, and that is what the generic collection interfaces provides you with.
There are those who will tell you that it is "easier" to make all the data in a class public, just in case you will need to access it. In the same way, Euro advised that it would be better to use a rich interface to a container such as IList<T> (or even the concrete class List<T>) and then clean up the mess later.
But I think, just as it is better to hide the data members of a class that you don't want to access, to allow you to modify the implementation of that class easily later, so you should use the simplest interface available to refer to a sequence of items. It is easier in practice to start by exposing something simple and basic and then "loosen" it later, than it is to start with something loose and struggle to impose order on it.
So assume IEnumerable<T> will do to represent a sequence. Then in those cases where you need to Add or Remove items (but still don't need by-index lookup), use IContainer<T>, which inherits IEnumerable<T> and so will be perfectly interoperable with your other code.
This way it will be perfectly clear (just from local examination of some code) precisely what that code will be able to do with the data.
Small programs require less abstraction, it is true. But if they are successful, they tend to become big programs. This is much easier if they employ simple abstractions in the first place.
It does matter, but the correct solution completely depends on usage. If you only need to do a simple enumeration then sure use IEnumerable that way you can pass any implementer to access the functionality you need. However if you need list functionality and you don't want to have to create a new instance of a list if by chance every time the method is called the enumerable that was passed wasn't a list then go with a list.
I answered a similar C# question here. I think you should always provide the simplest contract you can, which in the case of collections in my opinion, ordinarily is IEnumerable Of T.
The implementation can be provided by an internal BCL type - be it Set, Collection, List etcetera - whose required members are exposed by your type.
Your abstract type can always inherit simple BCL types, which are implemented by your concrete types. This in my opinion allows you to adhere to LSP easier.
During coding I frequently encounter this situation:
I have several objects (ConcreteType1, ConcreteType2, ...) with the same base type AbstractType, which has abstract methods save and load . Each object can (and has to) save some specific kind of data, by overriding the save method.
I have a list of AbstractType objects which contains various ConcreteTypeX objects.
I walk the list and the save method for each object.
At this point I think it's a good OO design. (Or am I wrong?) The problems start when I want to reload the data:
Each object can load its own data, but I have to know the concrete type in advance, so I can instantiate the right ConcreteTypeX and call the load method. So the loading method has to know a great deal about the concrete types. I usually "solved" this problem by writing some kind of marker before calling save, which is used by the loader to determine the right ConcreteTypeX.
I always had/have a bad feeling about this. It feels like some kind of anti-pattern...
Are there better ways?
EDIT:
I'm sorry for the confusion, I re-wrote some of the text.
I'm aware of serialization and perhaps there is some next-to-perfect solution in Java/.NET/yourFavoriteLanguage, but I'm searching for a general solution, which might be better and more "OOP-ish" compared to my concept.
Is this either .NET or Java? If so, why aren't you using serialisation?
If you can't simply use serialization, then I would still definitely pull the object loading logic out of the base class. Your instinct is correct, leading you to correctly identify a code smell. The base class shouldn't need to change when you change or add derived classes.
The problem is, something has to load the data and instantiate those objects. This sounds like a job for the Abstract Factory pattern.
There are better ways, but let's take a step back and look at it conceptually. What are all objects doing? Loading and Saving. When you get the object from memory, you really don't to have to care whether it gets its information from a file, a database, or the windows registry. You just want the object loaded. That's important to remember because later on, your maintanence programmer will look at the LoadFromFile() method and wonder, "Why is it called that since it really doesn't load anything from a file?"
Secondly, you're running into the issue that we all run into, and it's based in dividing work. You want a level that handles getting data from a physical source; you want a level that manipulates this data, and you want a level that displays this data. This is the crux of N-Tier Development. I've linked to an article that discusses your problem in great detail, and details how to create a Data Access Layer to resolve your issue. There are also numerous code projects here and here.
If it's Java you seek, simply substitute 'java' for .NET and search for 'Java N-Tier development'. However, besides syntactical differences, the design structure is the same.
What factors determine which approach is more appropriate?
I think both have their places.
You shouldn't simply use DoSomethingToThing(Thing n) just because you think "Functional programming is good". Likewise you shouldn't simply use Thing.DoSomething() because "Object Oriented programming is good".
I think it comes down to what you are trying to convey. Stop thinking about your code as a series of instructions, and start thinking about it like a paragraph or sentence of a story. Think about which parts are the most important from the point of view of the task at hand.
For example, if the part of the 'sentence' you would like to stress is the object, you should use the OO style.
Example:
fileHandle.close();
Most of the time when you're passing around file handles, the main thing you are thinking about is keeping track of the file it represents.
CounterExample:
string x = "Hello World";
submitHttpRequest( x );
In this case submitting the HTTP request is far more important than the string which is the body, so submitHttpRequst(x) is preferable to x.submitViaHttp()
Needless to say, these are not mutually exclusive. You'll probably actually have
networkConnection.submitHttpRequest(x)
in which you mix them both. The important thing is that you think about what parts are emphasized, and what you will be conveying to the future reader of the code.
To be object-oriented, tell, don't ask : http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/articles/tell-dont-ask.
So, Thing.DoSomething() rather than DoSomethingToThing(Thing n).
If you're dealing with internal state of a thing, Thing.DoSomething() makes more sense, because even if you change the internal representation of Thing, or how it works, the code talking to it doesn't have to change. If you're dealing with a collection of Things, or writing some utility methods, procedural-style DoSomethingToThing() might make more sense or be more straight-forward; but still, can usually be represented as a method on the object representing that collection: for instance
GetTotalPriceofThings();
vs
Cart.getTotal();
It really depends on how object oriented your code is.
Thing.DoSomething is appropriate if Thing is the subject of your sentence.
DoSomethingToThing(Thing n) is appropriate if Thing is the object of your sentence.
ThingA.DoSomethingToThingB(ThingB m) is an unavoidable combination, since in all the languages I can think of, functions belong to one class and are not mutually owned. But this makes sense because you can have a subject and an object.
Active voice is more straightforward than passive voice, so make sure your sentence has a subject that isn't just "the computer". This means, use form 1 and form 3 frequently, and use form 2 rarely.
For clarity:
// Form 1: "File handle, close."
fileHandle.close();
// Form 2: "(Computer,) close the file handle."
close(fileHandle);
// Form 3: "File handle, write the contents of another file handle."
fileHandle.writeContentsOf(anotherFileHandle);
I agree with Orion, but I'm going to rephrase the decision process.
You have a noun and a verb / an object and an action.
If many objects of this type will use this action, try to make the action part of the object.
Otherwise, try to group the action separately, but with related actions.
I like the File / string examples. There are many string operations, such as "SendAsHTTPReply", which won't happen for your average string, but do happen often in a certain setting. However, you basically will always close a File (hopefully), so it makes perfect sense to put the Close action in the class interface.
Another way to think of this is as buying part of an entertainment system. It makes sense to bundle a TV remote with a TV, because you always use them together. But it would be strange to bundle a power cable for a specific VCR with a TV, since many customers will never use this. The key idea is how often will this action be used on this object?
Not nearly enough information here. It depends if your language even supports the construct "Thing.something" or equivalent (ie. it's an OO language). If so, it's far more appropriate because that's the OO paradigm (members should be associated with the object they act on). In a procedural style, of course, DoSomethingtoThing() is your only choice... or ThingDoSomething()
DoSomethingToThing(Thing n) would be more of a functional approach whereas Thing.DoSomething() would be more of an object oriented approach.
That is the Object Oriented versus Procedural Programming choice :)
I think the well documented OO advantages apply to the Thing.DoSomething()
This has been asked Design question: does the Phone dial the PhoneNumber, or does the PhoneNumber dial itself on the Phone?
Here are a couple of factors to consider:
Can you modify or extend the Thing class. If not, use the former
Can Thing be instantiated. If not, use the later as a static method
If Thing actually get modified (i.e. has properties that change), prefer the latter. If Thing is not modified the latter is just as acceptable.
Otherwise, as objects are meant to map on to real world object, choose the method that seems more grounded in reality.
Even if you aren't working in an OO language, where you would have Thing.DoSomething(), for the overall readability of your code, having a set of functions like:
ThingDoSomething()
ThingDoAnotherTask()
ThingWeDoSomethingElse()
then
AnotherThingDoSomething()
and so on is far better.
All the code that works on "Thing" is on the one location. Of course, the "DoSomething" and other tasks should be named consistently - so you have a ThingOneRead(), a ThingTwoRead()... by now you should get point. When you go back to work on the code in twelve months time, you will appreciate taking the time to make things logical.
In general, if "something" is an action that "thing" naturally knows how to do, then you should use thing.doSomething(). That's good OO encapsulation, because otherwise DoSomethingToThing(thing) would have to access potential internal information of "thing".
For example invoice.getTotal()
If "something" is not naturally part of "thing's" domain model, then one option is to use a helper method.
For example: Logger.log(invoice)
If DoingSomething to an object is likely to produce a different result in another scenario, then i'd suggest you oneThing.DoSomethingToThing(anotherThing).
For example you may have two was of saving thing in you program so you might adopt a DatabaseObject.Save(thing) SessionObject.Save(thing) would be more advantageous than thing.Save() or thing.SaveToDatabase or thing.SaveToSession().
I rarely pass no parameters to a class, unless I'm retrieving public properties.
To add to Aeon's answer, it depends on the the thing and what you want to do to it. So if you are writing Thing, and DoSomething alters the internal state of Thing, then the best approach is Thing.DoSomething. However, if the action does more than change the internal state, then DoSomething(Thing) makes more sense. For example:
Collection.Add(Thing)
is better than
Thing.AddSelfToCollection(Collection)
And if you didn't write Thing, and cannot create a derived class, then you have no chocie but to do DoSomething(Thing)
Even in object oriented programming it might be useful to use a function call instead of a method (or for that matter calling a method of an object other than the one we call it on). Imagine a simple database persistence framework where you'd like to just call save() on an object. Instead of including an SQL statement in every class you'd like to have saved, thus complicating code, spreading SQL all across the code and making changing the storage engine a PITA, you could create an Interface defining save(Class1), save(Class2) etc. and its implementation. Then you'd actually be calling databaseSaver.save(class1) and have everything in one place.
I have to agree with Kevin Conner
Also keep in mind the caller of either of the 2 forms. The caller is probably a method of some other object that definitely does something to your Thing :)
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
One of the biggest advantages of object-oriented programming is encapsulation, and one of the "truths" we've (or, at least, I've) been taught is that members should always be made private and made available via accessor and mutator methods, thus ensuring the ability to verify and validate the changes.
I'm curious, though, how important this really is in practice. In particular, if you've got a more complicated member (such as a collection), it can be very tempting to just make it public rather than make a bunch of methods to get the collection's keys, add/remove items from the collection, etc.
Do you follow the rule in general? Does your answer change depending on whether it's code written for yourself vs. to be used by others? Are there more subtle reasons I'm missing for this obfuscation?
It depends. This is one of those issues that must be decided pragmatically.
Suppose I had a class for representing a point. I could have getters and setters for the X and Y coordinates, or I could just make them both public and allow free read/write access to the data. In my opinion, this is OK because the class is acting like a glorified struct - a data collection with maybe some useful functions attached.
However, there are plenty of circumstances where you do not want to provide full access to your internal data and rely on the methods provided by the class to interact with the object. An example would be an HTTP request and response. In this case it's a bad idea to allow anybody to send anything over the wire - it must be processed and formatted by the class methods. In this case, the class is conceived of as an actual object and not a simple data store.
It really comes down to whether or not verbs (methods) drive the structure or if the data does.
As someone having to maintain several-year-old code worked on by many people in the past, it's very clear to me that if a member attribute is made public, it is eventually abused. I've even heard people disagreeing with the idea of accessors and mutators, as that's still not really living up to the purpose of encapsulation, which is "hiding the inner workings of a class". It's obviously a controversial topic, but my opinion would be "make every member variable private, think primarily about what the class has got to do (methods) rather than how you're going to let people change internal variables".
Yes, encapsulation matters. Exposing the underlying implementation does (at least) two things wrong:
Mixes up responsibilities. Callers shouldn't need or want to understand the underlying implementation. They should just want the class to do its job. By exposing the underlying implementation, you're class isn't doing its job. Instead, it's just pushing the responsibility onto the caller.
Ties you to the underlying implementation. Once you expose the underlying implementation, you're tied to it. If you tell callers, e.g., there's a collection underneath, you cannot easily swap the collection for a new implementation.
These (and other) problems apply regardless of whether you give direct access to the underlying implementation or just duplicate all the underlying methods. You should be exposing the necessary implementation, and nothing more. Keeping the implementation private makes the overall system more maintainable.
I prefer to keep members private as long as possible and only access em via getters, even from within the very same class. I also try to avoid setters as a first draft to promote value style objects as long as it is possible. Working with dependency injection a lot you often have setters but no getters, as clients should be able to configure the object but (others) not get to know what's acutally configured as this is an implementation detail.
Regards,
Ollie
I tend to follow the rule pretty strictly, even when it's just my own code. I really like Properties in C# for that reason. It makes it really easy to control what values it's given, but you can still use them as variables. Or make the set private and the get public, etc.
Basically, information hiding is about code clarity. It's designed to make it easier for someone else to extend your code, and prevent them from accidentally creating bugs when they work with the internal data of your classes. It's based on the principle that nobody ever reads comments, especially ones with instructions in them.
Example: I'm writing code that updates a variable, and I need to make absolutely sure that the Gui changes to reflect the change, the easiest way is to add an accessor method (aka a "Setter"), which is called instead of updating data is updated.
If I make that data public, and something changes the variable without going through the Setter method (and this happens every swear-word time), then someone will need to spend an hour debugging to find out why the updates aren't being displayed. The same applies, to a lesser extent, to "Getting" data. I could put a comment in the header file, but odds are that no-one will read it till something goes terribly, terribly wrong. Enforcing it with private means that the mistake can't be made, because it'll show up as an easily located compile-time bug, rather than a run-time bug.
From experience, the only times you'd want to make a member variable public, and leave out Getter and Setter methods, is if you want to make it absolutely clear that changing it will have no side effects; especially if the data structure is simple, like a class that simply holds two variables as a pair.
This should be a fairly rare occurence, as normally you'd want side effects, and if the data structure you're creating is so simple that you don't (e.g a pairing), there will already be a more efficiently written one available in a Standard Library.
With that said, for most small programs that are one-use no-extension, like the ones you get at university, it's more "good practice" than anything, because you'll remember over the course of writing them, and then you'll hand them in and never touch the code again. Also, if you're writing a data structure as a way of finding out about how they store data rather than as release code, then there's a good argument that Getters and Setters will not help, and will get in the way of the learning experience.
It's only when you get to the workplace or a large project, where the probability is that your code will be called to by objects and structures written by different people, that it becomes vital to make these "reminders" strong. Whether or not it's a single man project is surprisingly irrelevant, for the simple reason that "you six weeks from now" is as different person as a co-worker. And "me six weeks ago" often turns out to be lazy.
A final point is that some people are pretty zealous about information hiding, and will get annoyed if your data is unnecessarily public. It's best to humour them.
C# Properties 'simulate' public fields. Looks pretty cool and the syntax really speeds up creating those get/set methods
Keep in mind the semantics of invoking methods on an object. A method invocation is a very high level abstraction that can be implemented my the compiler or the run time system in a variety of different ways.
If the object who's method you are invoking exists in the same process/ memory map then a method could well be optimized by a compiler or VM to directly access the data member. On the other hand if the object lives on another node in a distributed system then there is no way that you can directly access it's internal data members, but you can still invoke its methods my sending it a message.
By coding to interfaces you can write code that doesn't care where the target object exists or how it's methods are invoked or even if it's written in the same language.
In your example of an object that implements all the methods of a collection, then surely that object actually is a collection. so maybe this would be a case where inheritance would be better than encapsulation.
It's all about controlling what people can do with what you give them. The more controlling you are the more assumptions you can make.
Also, theorectically you can change the underlying implementation or something, but since for the most part it's:
private Foo foo;
public Foo getFoo() {}
public void setFoo(Foo foo) {}
It's a little hard to justify.
Encapsulation is important when at least one of these holds:
Anyone but you is going to use your class (or they'll break your invariants because they don't read the documentation).
Anyone who doesn't read the documentation is going to use your class (or they'll break your carefully documented invariants). Note that this category includes you-two-years-from-now.
At some point in the future someone is going to inherit from your class (because maybe an extra action needs to be taken when the value of a field changes, so there has to be a setter).
If it is just for me, and used in few places, and I'm not going to inherit from it, and changing fields will not invalidate any invariants that the class assumes, only then I will occasionally make a field public.
My tendency is to try to make everything private if possible. This keeps object boundaries as clearly defined as possible and keeps the objects as decoupled as possible. I like this because when I have to rewrite an object that I botched the first (second, fifth?) time, it keeps the damage contained to a smaller number of objects.
If you couple the objects tightly enough, it may be more straightforward just to combine them into one object. If you relax the coupling constraints enough you're back to structured programming.
It may be that if you find that a bunch of your objects are just accessor functions, you should rethink your object divisions. If you're not doing any actions on that data it may belong as a part of another object.
Of course, if you're writing a something like a library you want as clear and sharp of an interface as possible so others can program against it.
Fit the tool to the job... recently I saw some code like this in my current codebase:
private static class SomeSmallDataStructure {
public int someField;
public String someOtherField;
}
And then this class was used internally for easily passing around multiple data values. It doesn't always make sense, but if you have just DATA, with no methods, and you aren't exposing it to clients, I find it a quite useful pattern.
The most recent use I had of this was a JSP page where I had a table of data being displayed, defined at the top declaratively. So, initially it was in multiple arrays, one array per data field... this ended in the code being rather difficult to wade through with fields not being next to eachother in definition that would be displayed together... so I created a simple class like above which would pull it together... the result was REALLY readable code, a lot more so than before.
Moral... sometimes you should consider "accepted bad" alternatives if they may make the code simpler and easier to read, as long as you think it through and consider the consequences... don't blindly accept EVERYTHING you hear.
That said... public getters and setters is pretty much equivalent to public fields... at least essentially (there is a tad more flexibility, but it is still a bad pattern to apply to EVERY field you have).
Even the java standard libraries has some cases of public fields.
When I make objects meaningful they are easier to use and easier to maintain.
For example: Person.Hand.Grab(howquick, howmuch);
The trick is not to think of members as simple values but objects in themselves.
I would argue that this question does mix-up the concept of encapsulation with 'information hiding'
(this is not a critic, since it does seem to match a common interpretation of the notion of 'encapsulation')
However for me, 'encapsulation' is either:
the process of regrouping several items into a container
the container itself regrouping the items
Suppose you are designing a tax payer system. For each tax payer, you could encapsulate the notion of child into
a list of children representing the children
a map of to takes into account children from different parents
an object Children (not Child) which would provide the needed information (like total number of children)
Here you have three different kinds of encapsulations, 2 represented by low-level container (list or map), one represented by an object.
By making those decisions, you do not
make that encapsulation public or protected or private: that choice of 'information hiding' is still to be made
make a complete abstraction (you need to refine the attributes of object Children and you may decide to create an object Child, which would keep only the relevant informations from the point of view of a tax payer system)
Abstraction is the process of choosing which attributes of the object are relevant to your system, and which must be completely ignored.
So my point is:
That question may been titled:
Private vs. Public members in practice (how important is information hiding?)
Just my 2 cents, though. I perfectly respect that one may consider encapsulation as a process including 'information hiding' decision.
However, I always try to differentiate 'abstraction' - 'encapsulation' - 'information hiding or visibility'.
#VonC
You might find the International Organisation for Standardization's, "Reference Model of Open Distributed Processing," an interesting read. It defines: "Encapsulation: the property that the information contained in an object is accessible only through interactions at the interfaces supported by the object."
I tried to make a case for information hiding's being a critical part of this definition here:
http://www.edmundkirwan.com/encap/s2.html
Regards,
Ed.
I find lots of getters and setters to be a code smell that the structure of the program is not designed well. You should look at the code that uses those getters and setters, and look for functionality that really should be part of the class. In most cases, the fields of a class should be private implementation details and only the methods of that class may manipulate them.
Having both getters and setters is equal to the field being public (when the getters and setters are trivial/generated automatically). Sometimes it might be better to just declare the fields public, so that the code will be more simple, unless you need polymorphism or a framework requires get/set methods (and you can't change the framework).
But there are also cases where having getters and setters is a good pattern. One example:
When I create the GUI of an application, I try to keep the behaviour of the GUI in one class (FooModel) so that it can be unit tested easily, and have the visualization of the GUI in another class (FooView) which can be tested only manually. The view and model are joined with simple glue code; when the user changes the value of field x, the view calls setX(String) on the model, which in turn may raise an event that some other part of the model has changed, and the view will get the updated values from the model with getters.
In one project, there is a GUI model which has 15 getters and setters, of which only 3 get methods are trivial (such that the IDE could generate them). All the others contain some functionality or non-trivial expressions, such as the following:
public boolean isEmployeeStatusEnabled() {
return pinCodeValidation.equals(PinCodeValidation.VALID);
}
public EmployeeStatus getEmployeeStatus() {
Employee employee;
if (isEmployeeStatusEnabled()
&& (employee = getSelectedEmployee()) != null) {
return employee.getStatus();
}
return null;
}
public void setEmployeeStatus(EmployeeStatus status) {
getSelectedEmployee().changeStatusTo(status, getPinCode());
fireComponentStateChanged();
}
In practice I always follow only one rule, the "no size fits all" rule.
Encapsulation and its importance is a product of your project. What object will be accessing your interface, how will they be using it, will it matter if they have unneeded access rights to members? those questions and the likes of them you need to ask yourself when working on each project implementation.
I base my decision on the Code's depth within a module.
If I'm writting code that is internal to a module, and does not interface with the outside world I don't encapsulate things with private as much because it affects my programmer performance (how fast I can write and rewrite my code).
But for the objects that server as the module's interface with user code, then I adhere to strict privacy patterns.
Certainly it makes a difference whether your writing internal code or code to be used by someone else (or even by yourself, but as a contained unit.) Any code that is going to be used externally should have a well defined/documented interface that you'll want to change as little as possible.
For internal code, depending on the difficulty, you may find it's less work to do things the simple way now, and pay a little penalty later. Of course Murphy's law will ensure that the short term gain will be erased many times over in having to make wide-ranging changes later on where you needed to change a class' internals that you failed to encapsulate.
Specifically to your example of using a collection that you would return, it seems possible that the implementation of such a collection might change (unlike simpler member variables) making the utility of encapsulation higher.
That being said, I kinda like Python's way of dealing with it. Member variables are public by default. If you want to hide them or add validation there are techniques provided, but those are considered the special cases.
I follow the rules on this almost all the time. There are four scenarios for me - basically, the rule itself and several exceptions (all Java-influenced):
Usable by anything outside of the current class, accessed via getters/setters
Internal-to-class usage typically preceded by 'this' to make it clear that it's not a method parameter
Something meant to stay extremely small, like a transport object - basically a straight shot of attributes; all public
Needed to be non-private for extension of some sort
There's a practical concern here that isn't being addressed by most of the existing answers. Encapsulation and the exposure of clean, safe interfaces to outside code is always great, but it's much more important when the code you're writing is intended to be consumed by a spatially- and/or temporally-large "user" base. What I mean is that if you plan on somebody (even you) maintaining the code well into the future, or if you're writing a module that will interface with code from more than a handful of other developers, you need to think much more carefully than if you're writing code that's either one-off or wholly written by you.
Honestly, I know what wretched software engineering practice this is, but I'll oftentimes make everything public at first, which makes things marginally faster to remember and type, then add encapsulation as it makes sense. Refactoring tools in most popular IDEs these days makes which approach you use (adding encapsulation vs. taking it away) much less relevant than it used to be.