This question already has answers here:
Difference between Property and Field in C# 3.0+
(10 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
why to use accessors in c#.net while we can use simple assignment like
public string name = "Haymen";
instead of doing this:
public string Name
{
get
{
return name;
}
set
{
name = value;
}
}
and how this property gonna set or return something since it don't have any way to set anything apparently ?
public class Movie
{
public int ID { get; set; }
}
Skeet has » an article about just that! Your case is covered by automatic properties, so you don't have all the writing work.
It depends on what your trying to do, you use accessors for a variety of reasons, one of which is to ensure that class properties are kept private and can only be directly manipulated internally.
An example :-
private int _myAge {get; set;}
public int MyAge
{
get
{
if(_myAge == null)
{
_myAge == GetMyAge();
}
return _myAge;
}
}
Use
public string name = "Haymen";
If you know for sure you will never need to debug the access to that variable (i.e. set a breakpoint when somebody reads/writes it).
If you know changing it will never effect the internal state of your object (i.e. side effect that you depend on or expect).
You want to have less lines to look at and you have met the above.
You want a "data only class" for XML Serialization and you don't want to create a lot of code to do the conversion for private methods (at least as of C# 3.5).
NOTE That being said, in general, you should not be exposing fields as public members. See here.
I am pretty new to OOP and looking into things in a bit more depth, but I have a bit of confusion between these 3 methods in C# and which one is best and what the differences are between 2 of them.
Example 1
So lets start with this one, which (so I understand) is the wrong way to do it:
public class MyClass
{
public string myAttribute;
}
and in this way I can set the attribute directly using:
myObject.myAttribute = "something";
Example 2
The next way I have seen and that seems to be recomended is this:
public class MyClass
{
public string myAttribute { get; set;}
}
With getters and setters, this where I dont understand the difference between the first 2 as the variable can still be set directly on the object?
Example 3
The third way, and the way that I understand the theory behind, is creating a set function
public class MyClass
{
string myAttribute;
public void setAttribute(string newSetting)
{
myAttribute = newSetting;
//obviously you can apply some logic in here to remove unwanted characters or validate etc.
}
}
So, what are the differences between the three? I assume example 1 is a big no-no so which is best out of 2 and 3, and why use one over the other?
Thanks
The second
public class MyClass
{
public string MyAttribute { get; set;}
}
is basically shorthand for:
public class MyClass
{
private string myPrivateAttribute;
public string MyAttribute
{
get {return myPrivateAttribute;}
set {myPrivateAttribute = value;}
}
}
That is an auto-implemented property, which is exactly the same as any regular property, you just do not have to implement it, when the compiler can do that for you.
So, what is a property? It's nothing more than a couple of methods, coupled with a name. I could do:
public class MyClass
{
private string myPrivateAttribute;
public string GetMyAttribute()
{
return myPrivateAttribute;
}
public void SetMyAttribute(string value)
{
myPrivateAttribute = value;
}
}
but then instead of writing
myClass.MyAttribute = "something";
string variable = myClass.MyAttribute;
I would have to use the more verbose, but not necessarily clearer form:
myClass.SetMyAttribute("something");
string variable = myClass.GetMyAttribute();
Note that nothing constraints the contents of the get and set methods (accessors in C# terminology), they are methods, just like any other. You can add as much or as little logic as you need inside them. I.e. it is useful to make a prototype with auto-implemented properties, and later to add any necessary logic (e.g. log property access, or add lazy initalization) with an explicit implementation.
What your asking here has to do with encapsulation in OOP languages.
The difference between them is in the way you can access the propriety of an object after you created an object from your class.
In the fist example you can access it directly new MyClass().MyAttribute whether you get or set it's value.
In the second example you declare 2 basic functions for accessing it:
public string MyAttribute
{
get {return myPrivateAttribute;}
set {myPrivateAttribute = value;}
}
In the third example you declare your own method for setting the value. This is useful if you want to customize the setter. For example you don't want to set the value passed, but the value multiplied by 2 or something else...
I recommend some reading. You can find something here and here.
Property is a syntactic sugar over private attribute with get and set methods and it's realy helpful and fast to type;
You may treat automatic property with { get; set;} as a public attribute. It has no additional logic but you may add it later without uset ever notice it.
Just exchange
public string MyLine { get; set;}
to
string myLine;
public string MyLine
{
get { return myLine; }
set { myLine = value + Environment.NewLine; }
}
for example if you need so.
You can also easily create read only property as { get; private set }.
So use Properties instead of public attributes every time just because its easier and faster to write and it's provides better encapsulation because user should not be used get and set methods if you decide to use it in new version of yours programm.
One of the main principles of OOP is encapsulation, and this is essentially the difference between the first example and the other 2.
The first example you have a private field which is exposed directly from the object - this is bad because you are allowing mutation of internal data from outside the object and therefore have no control over it.
The other 2 examples are syntactically equivalent, the second being recommended simply because it's less code to write. However, more importantly they both restrict access & control mutation of the internal data so give you complete control over how the data should be managed - this is ecapsulation.
Pretty simple question really, should I use my properties to initialize fields in the constructor or reference them directly?
Example:
public class Foo()
{
private string example;
public String Example
{
get/set etc..
}
public Foo(string exampleIn)
{
Example = exampleIn;
}
}
Or is it better practice to do this:
public class Foo()
{
private string example;
public String Example
{
get/set etc..
}
public Foo(string exampleIn)
{
example = exampleIn;
}
}
Either way, I don't think either would violate encapsulation so I am wondering if there is a preferred way to go?
There is really no right or wrong answer here (and because of that I am almost tempted to vote to close). But, I tend to agree with Jacob on this. I prefer the property getter and setter route especially now that we have automatic properties. Do keep in mind that you can have different access modifies on the getters and setters in case that influences your decision for any reason. I mean, if you are going to use the property in the constructor then try to be consistent and use it exclusively everywhere else in the class as well. That may mean that you do not want to expose the setter to the outside.
public class Foo()
{
private string example;
public String Example
{
get { return example; }
private set { example = value; }
}
public Foo(string exampleIn)
{
Example = exampleIn;
}
}
Before automatic properties, which were introduced in C# 3.0, your second example is more "proper" in my opinion. Now with automatic properties I think this is best:
public class Foo()
{
private string example;
public String Example
{
{ get; set; }
}
public Foo(string exampleIn)
{
Example = exampleIn;
}
}
It depends on whether the data value will further be processed inside the Setter. IF the value needs processing then it's better to use what #Jacob has said but if the value will not be further processed (which is the case in most scenarios), it's better to use the private member to avoid an extra method call to setter method. When CLR compiles the code, it create two methods for Get and Set property and using the Property to access/modify the value which defines the property will result in extra method call unnecessarily (if the value is not processed further).
Sometimes you have a private field that backs a property, you only ever want to set the field via the property setter so that additional processing can be done whenever the field changes. The problem is that it's still easy to accidentally bypass the property setter from within other methods of the same class and not notice that you've done so. Is there a way in C# to work around this or a general design principle to avoid it?
IMHO, it is not used, because:
The class must trust itself
If your class gets as large that one part does not know the other, it should be divided.
If the logic behind the property is slightly more complex, consider to encapsulate it in an own type.
I'd consider this a nasty hack and try to avoid it if possible, but...
You can mark the backing field as obsolete so that the compiler will generate a warning when you try to access it, and then suppress that warning for the property getter/setter.
The warning codes that you'd need to suppress are CS0612 for the plain Obsolete attribute and CS0618 if the attribute has a custom message.
[Obsolete("Please don't touch the backing field!")]
private int _backingField;
public int YourProperty
{
#pragma warning disable 612, 618
get { return _backingField; }
set { _backingField = value; }
#pragma warning restore 612, 618
}
There's no inbuilt way to do what you want to do, but by the sounds of things you need another layer of abstraction between your class and that value.
Create a separate class and put the item in there, then your outer class contains the new class, and you can only access it through its properties.
No, there isn't. I'd quite like this myself - something along the lines of:
public string Name
{
private string name; // Only accessible within the property
get { return name; /* Extra processing here */ }
set { name = value; /* Extra processing here */ }
}
I think I first suggested this about 5 years ago on the C# newsgroups... I don't expect to ever see it happen though.
There are various wrinkles to consider around serialization etc, but I still think it would be nice. I'd rather have automatically implemented readonly properties first though...
You CAN do this, by using a closure over a local in the constructor (or other initialisation function). But it requires significantly more work that the helper class approach.
class MyClass {
private Func<Foo> reallyPrivateFieldGetter;
private Action<Foo> reallyPrivateFieldSetter;
private Foo ReallyPrivateBackingFieldProperty {
get { return reallyPrivateFieldGetter(); }
set { reallyPrivateFieldSetter(value); }
}
public MyClass() {
Foo reallyPrivateField = 0;
reallyPrivateFieldGetter = () => { return reallyPrivateField; }
reallyPrivateFieldSetter = v => { reallyPrivateField = v; };
}
}
I suspect that the underlying field type Foo will need to be a reference class, so the two closures are created over the same object.
There is no such provisioning in C#.
However I would name private variables differently (e.g. m_something or just _something) so it is easier to spot it when it is used.
You can put all of your private fields into a nested class and expose them via public properties. Then within your class, you instantiate that nested class and use it. This way those private fields are not accessible as they would have been if they were part of your main class.
public class A
{
class FieldsForA
{
private int number;
public int Number
{
get
{
//TODO: Extra logic.
return number;
}
set
{
//TODO: Extra logic.
number = value;
}
}
}
FieldsForA fields = new FieldsForA();
public int Number
{
get{ return fields.Number;}
set{ fields.Number = value;}
}
}
It just provides a level of obstruction. The underlying problem of accessing private backing fields is still there within the nested class. However, the code within class A can't access those private fields of nested class FieldForA. It has to go through the public properties.
Perhaps a property backing store, similar to the way WPF stores properties?
So, you could have:
Dictionary<string,object> mPropertyBackingStore = new Dictionary<string,object> ();
public PropertyThing MyPropertyThing
{
get { return mPropertyBackingStore["MyPropertyThing"] as PropertyThing; }
set { mPropertyBackingStore["MyPropertyThing"] = value; }
}
You can do all the pre-processing you want now, safe in the knowledge that if anyone did access the variable directly, it would have been really really hard compared to the property accessor.
P.S. You may even be able to use the dependency property infrastructure from WPF...
P.P.S. This is obviously going to incur the cost of casting, but it depends on your needs - if performance is critical, perhaps this isn't the solution for you.
P.P.P.S Don't forget to initialise the backing store! (;
EDIT:
In fact, if you change the value property stored to a property storage object (using the Command pattern for example), you could do your processing in the command object...just a thought.
Can't do this in standard C#, however you could
define a custom attribute say OnlyAccessFromProperty
write your code like
[OnlyAccessFromProperty(Name)]
String name
Name
{
get{return name;}
}
etc …
Then write a custom rule for FxCop (or another checker)
Add FxCop to your build system so if your custom rule find an error the build is failed.
Do we need a set of standard custom rules/attributes to enforce common design patens like this without the need to extend C#
C# has no language feature for this. However, you can rely on naming conventions, similar to languages which have no private properties at all. Prefix your more private variable names with _p_, and you'll be pretty sure that you don't type it accidentally.
I don't know C# but in Java you may have a base class with only private instance variables and public setters and getters (should return a copy of the instance var.) and do all other in an inherited class.
A "general design principle" would be "use inheritance".
There is no build in solution in C#, but I think your problem can be solved by good OO design:
Each class should have a single purpose. So try to extract the logic around your field into a class as small as possible. This reduces the code where you can access the field by accident. If you do such errors by accident, your class is probably to big.
Often interface are good to restrict access to only a certain "subset" of an object. If that's appropriate for your case depends on your setting of course. More details about the work to be done would help to provide a better answer.
You say that you do additional processing. Presumably this would be detectable under the correct conditions. My solution, then, would be to create unit tests that implement conditions such that if the backing field is used directly the test will fail. Using these tests you should be able to ensure that your code correctly uses the property interface as long as the tests pass.
This has the benefit that you don't need to compromise your design. You get the safety of the unit tests to ensure that you don't accidently make breaking changes and you capture the understanding of how the class works so that others who come along later can read your tests as "documentation."
Wrap it in a class? The property thing is a bit like that anyway, associating data with methods - the "Encapsulation" they used to rave about...
class MyInt
{
private int n;
public static implicit operator MyInt(int v) // Set
{
MyInt tmp = new MyInt();
tmp.n = v;
return tmp;
}
public static implicit operator int(MyInt v) // Get
{
return v.n;
}
}
class MyClass
{
private MyInt myint;
public void func()
{
myint = 5;
myint.n = 2; // Can't do this.
myint = myint + 5 * 4; // Works just like an int.
}
}
I'm sure I'm missing something? It seems too normal...
BTW I do like the closures one, superbly mad.
My favorite solution to this (and what I follow) is to name private backing fields that are never intended to be used directly with a leading underscore, and private fields that are intended to be used without the underscore (but still lowercase).
I hate typing the underscore, so if I ever start to access a variable that starts with the underscore, I know somethings wrong - I'm not supposed to be directly accessing that variable. Obviously, this approach still doesn't ultimately stop you from accessing that field, but as you can see from the other answers, any approach that does is a work around and/or hardly practical.
Another benefit of using the underscore notation is that when you use the dropdown box to browse your class, it puts all of your private, never-to-be-used backing fields all in one place at the top of the list, instead of allowing them to be mixed in with their respective properties.
As a design practice, you could use a naming convention for "private properties" that's different from normal public members - for instance, using m_ItemName for private items instead of ItemName for public ones.
If you're using the C# 3.0 compiler you can define properties which have compiler-generated backing fields like this:
public int MyInt { get; set; }
That will mean there is only one way to access the property, sure it doesn't mean you can only access the field but it does mean that there's nothing but the property to access.
I agree with the general rule that the class should trust itself (and by inference anybody coding within the class).
It is a shame that the field is exposed via intellisense.
Sadly placing [EditorBrowsable(EditorBrowsableState.Never)] does not work within that class (or indeed the assembly(1))
In Visual C#, EditorBrowsableAttribute does not suppress members from a class in the same assembly.
If you really do wish to solve this aspect of it the the following class may be useful and makes the intent clear as well.
public sealed class TriggerField<T>
{
private T data;
///<summary>raised *after* the value changes, (old, new)</summary>
public event Action<T,T> OnSet;
public TriggerField() { }
///<summary>the initial value does NOT trigger the onSet</summary>
public TriggerField(T initial) { this.data=initial; }
public TriggerField(Action<T,T> onSet) { this.OnSet += onSet; }
///<summary>the initial value does NOT trigger the onSet</summary>
public TriggerField(Action<T,T> onSet, T initial) : this(onSet)
{
this.data=initial;
}
public T Value
{
get { return this.data;}
set
{
var old = this.data;
this.data = value;
if (this.OnSet != null)
this.OnSet(old, value);
}
}
}
Allowing you to (somewhat verbosely) use it like so:
public class Foo
{
private readonly TriggerField<string> flibble = new TriggerField<string>();
private int versionCount = 0;
public Foo()
{
flibble.OnSet += (old,current) => this.versionCount++;
}
public string Flibble
{
get { return this.flibble.Value; }
set { this.flibble.Value = value; }
}
}
alternatively you can go for a less verbose option but accessing Flibble is by the not idiomatic bar.Flibble.Value = "x"; which would be problematic in reflective scenarios
public class Bar
{
public readonly TriggerField<string> Flibble;
private int versionCount = 0;
public Bar()
{
Flibble = new TriggerField<string>((old,current) => this.versionCount++);
}
}
or solution if you look at the community content!
The new Lazy class in .net 4.0
provides support for several common
patterns of lazy initialization
In my experience this is the most common reason I wish to wrap a field in a private properly, so solves a common case nicely. (If you are not using .Net 4 yet you can just create your own “Lazy” class with the same API as the .Net 4 version.)
See this and this and this for details of using the Lazy class.
Use the "veryprivate" construct type
Example:
veryprivate void YourMethod()
{
// code here
}
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 4 months ago.
Improve this question
I'm not talking about generic classes that declare properties or fields with the type of a generic parameter. I'm talking about generic properties which could be applied to both generic and non-generic classes.
I'm not talking about this:
public class Base<T>
{
public T BaseProperty { get; set; }
}
I'm talking about this:
public class Base
{
public T BaseProperty<T>
{
get
{
// Insert magic
}
set
{
// Insert magic
}
}
}
Or this:
public class Base<U>
{
public T BaseProperty<T>
{
get
{
// Insert magic
}
set
{
// Insert magic
}
}
public U OtherBaseProperty { get; set; }
}
The usage would go something like this:
var b = new Base();
b.BaseProperty<int> = 42;
int i = b.BaseProperty<int>;
b.BaseProperty<string> = "Hi";
string s = b.BaseProperty<string>;
Or for the second example:
var b = new Base<string>();
b.BaseProperty<int> = 42;
int i = b.BaseProperty<int>;
b.OtherBaseProperty = "Hi";
string s = b.OtherBaseProperty;
The // Insert Magic refers to handling each call to the generic property getter or setter that has a different type for the type parameter.
For example this:
b.BaseProperty<int> = 42;
Needs to be handled differently to:
b.BaseProperty<string> = "Hi";
I would envisage that for each type T if the getter is called before the setter is called then default(T) is returned.
When the setter is called the value is stored per type T so that when the getter is subsequently called the previous value that was set for that type is returned.
Note that under the covers properties are just methods.
Do you think this would be useful?
I've had a couple of times where I would have liked the ability to do this, yes.
However, the syntax involved would be pretty ugly, and it's sufficiently rarely useful that I think I prefer to just suck it up and go with generic methods.
No .
Without a killer use case, no. You can already achieve the same thing with a pair of generic methods, should you need it.
No.
Generic methods make sense, because they embody some (generic) operation that can sensibly be applied to different types.
But properties only make sense as uniquely named values with definite content. 'Generic properties', like you suggest, really only amounts to like-named properties with different signature and different content.
Here's one example where it would have been handy for me, if it would have been possible.
var settings = new Settings();
int timeout = settings<int>["CacheInMinutes"];
Where Settings loads an XML file of configuration variables.
That, compared to:
var settings = new Settings();
int timeout = int.Parse(settings["CacheInMinutes"]);
Really not much of a difference, but hey, I still would have preferred the generic indexer.
well, I have the situation that need generic property in non-generic class.
Example you have IComponent class that want to provide its parent IContainer with property Parent, since the component can belong to any container type. so you need to provide generic property rather than generic method
Component c = new Component();
Container p = new Container();
p.Add(c);
and then you access its parent using generic property (not aplicable now)
c.Parent.ContainerProperty;
c.Parent.ContainerMethod();
rather using verbose method like
c.Parent().ContainerProperty;
c.Parent().ContainerMethod();
Well, in this case generic property is more beautiful and make sense, since you don't need to input any argument.
If for some bizarre reason you decided you wanted it, you could sort of fake it with methods:
public class Thing
{
Dictionary<Type, object> xDict = new Dictionary<Type,object>();
public void set_X<T>(T x)
{
xDict[typeof(T)] = x;
}
public T get_X<T>()
{
return (T)xDict[typeof(T)];
}
}
Why you would want to is an entirely different matter, though. It generally makes more sense to start with something you want to do than some way you want to do it.