Develop Reference

Purpose of property with empty set get

Can someone tell me, what is the porpose of using a public property for a private class member but not implementing anything in the set and get part? I know that it could be just for examples and that later on you can implement something but I don't know if there is any meaning using it like that

I am going to assume you know there is a private field generated by the C# compiler as the field backing up this property. It is syntactic sugar. I am also going to assume you know this is an auto-implemented property. So what is the point of a property if it public with no logic in the get or set. In other words, any class can access it and set its value. So why choose this property over a public field?
Purpose of it is:
Today the get and set is empty but it may need code in the future. To avoid breaking a contract in the future, you use an empty get and set.
Most .NET databinding can be done against properties but not fields. So although it is empty, it still serves a far greater purpose.
The get and set can have access modifiers. For example, you can say set is private but get is public.
A field cannot be used in interfaces but properties can.

This is an "auto-implemented" property in C#. In effect, the property acts as a full property, i.e.:
This:
public int Number { get; set; }
Is equivalent to:
private int _number;
public int Number
{
get
{
return this._number;
}
set
{
this._number = value;
}
}
This prevents you from having to type out the full property declaration. This is useful when you don't have any additional logic in the getter and/or setter.
If you're creating simple data mapping and transfer classes, auto-implementing properties can make the class definition far more concise.

When you see
public int Count { get; set; }
as a member of a class, that is not nothing. You're just deferring to the default implementation of auto-properties. It's roughly,
private int _count;
public int get__Count()
{
return _count;
}
public void set__Count(int value)
{
_count = value;
}
You just have syntactic sugar in C# to use these methods roughly like a field, i.e.
instanceOfObject.Count = 42; // Not a field access, but behind the scenes a method call.

Getters, setters, and properties best practices. Java vs. C#

I'm taking a C# class right now and I'm trying to find out the best way of doing things. I come from a Java background and so I'm only familiar with Java best-practices; I'm a C# novice!
In Java if I have a private property, I do this;
private String name;
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public String getName() {
return this.name;
}
In C#, I see that there are many ways of doing this.
I can do it like Java:
private string name;
public void setName(string name) {
this.name = name;
}
public string getName() {
return this.name;
}
Or I can do it this way:
private string name;
public string Name {
get { return name; }
set { name = value; }
}
Or:
public string Name { get; set; }
Which one should I use, and what are the caveats or subtleties involved with each approach? When creating classes, I am following general best-practices that I know from Java (especially reading Effective Java). So for example, I am favoring immutability (providing setters only when necessary). I'm just curious to see how these practices fit in with the various ways of providing setters and getters in C#; essentially, how would I translate best-practices from the Java world into C#?
EDIT
I was posting this as a comment to Jon Skeet's answer but then it got long:
What about a non-trivial property (i.e., with significant processing and validation perhaps)? Could I still expose it via a public property but with the logic encapsulated in get and set? Why would/should I do this over having dedicated setter and getter methods (with associated processing and validation logic).

Pre-C# 6
I'd use the last of these, for a trivial property. Note that I'd call this a public property as both the getters and setters are public.
Immutability is a bit of a pain with automatically implemented properties - you can't write an auto-property which only has a getter; the closest you can come is:
public string Foo { get; private set; }
which isn't really immutable... just immutable outside your class. So you may wish to use a real read-only property instead:
private readonly string foo;
public string Foo { get { return foo; } }
You definitely don't want to write getName() and setName(). In some cases it makes sense to write Get/Set methods rather than using properties, particularly if they could be expensive and you wish to emphasize that. However, you'd want to follow the .NET naming convention of PascalCase for methods, and you wouldn't want a trivial property like this to be implemented with normal methods anyway - a property is much more idiomatic here.
C# 6
Hooray, we finally have proper read-only automatically implemented properties:
// This can only be assigned to within the constructor
public string Foo { get; }
Likewise for read-only properties which do need to do some work, you can use member-bodied properties:
public double Area => height * width;

If all you need is a variable to store some data:
public string Name { get; set; }
Want to make it appear read-only?
public string Name { get; private set; }
Or even better...
private readonly string _name;
...
public string Name { get { return _name; } }
Want to do some value checking before assigning the property?
public string Name
{
get { return m_name; }
set
{
if (value == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("value");
m_name = value;
}
}
In general, the GetXyz() and SetXyz() are only used in certain cases, and you just have to use your gut on when it feels right. In general, I would say that I expect most get/set properties to not contain a lot of logic and have very few, if any, unexpected side effects. If reading a property value requires invoking a service or getting input from a user in order to build the object that I'm requesting, then I would wrap it into a method, and call it something like BuildXyz(), rather than GetXyz().

Use properties in C#, not get/set methods. They are there for your convenience and it is idiomatic.
As for your two C# examples, one is simply syntactic sugar for the other. Use the auto property if all you need is a simple wrapper around an instance variable, use the full version when you need to add logic in the getter and/or setter.

In C# favor properties for exposing private fields for get and/or set. The thie form you mention is an autoproperty where the get and set automatically generate a hidden pivot backing field for you.
I favor auto properties when possible but you should never do a set/get method pair in C#.

public string Name { get; set; }
This is simply a auto-implemented property, and is technically the same as a normal property. A backing field will be created when compiling.
All properties are eventually converted to functions, so the actual compiled implementation in the end is the same as you are used to in Java.
Use auto-implemented properties when you don't have to do specific operations on the backing field. Use a ordinary property otherwise. Use get and set functions when the operation has side effects or is computationally expensive, use properties otherwise.

Regardless of which way you choose in C# the end result is the same. You will get a backinng variable with separate getter and setter methods. By using properties you are following best practices and so it's a matter of how verbose you want to get.
Personally I would choose auto-properties, the last version: public string Name { get; set; }, since they take up the least amount of space. And you can always expand these in the future if you need add something like validation.

Whenever possible I prefer public string Name { get; set; } as it's terse and easily readable. However, there may be times when this one is necessary
private string name;
public string Name {
get { return name; }
set { name = value; }
}

In C# the preferred way is through properties rather than getX() and setX() methods. Also, note that C# does not require that properties have both a get and a set - you can have get-only properties and set-only properties.
public boolean MyProperty
{
get { return something; }
}
public boolean MyProperty
{
set { this.something = value; }
}

First let me try to explain what you wrote:
// private member -- not a property
private string name;
/// public method -- not a property
public void setName(string name) {
this.name = name;
}
/// public method -- not a property
public string getName() {
return this.name;
}
// yes it is property structure before .Net 3.0
private string name;
public string Name {
get { return name; }
set { name = value; }
}
This structure is also used nowadays but it is most suitable if you want to do some extra functionality, for instance when a value is set you can it to parse to capitalize it and save it in private member for alter internal use.
With .net framework 3.0
// this style is introduced, which is more common, and suppose to be best
public string Name { get; set; }
//You can more customize it
public string Name
{
get;
private set; // means value could be set internally, and accessed through out
}
Wish you better luck in C#

As mentioned, all of these approaches result in the same outcome. The most important thing is that you pick a convention and stick with it. I prefer using the last two property examples.

like most of the answers here, use Automatic properties. Intuitive, less lines of code and it is more clean. If you should serialize your class, mark the class [Serializable]/ with [DataConract] attribute. And if you are using [DataContract] mark the member with
[DataMember(Name="aMoreFriendlyName")]
public string Name { get; set; }
Private or public setter depends on your preference.
Also note that automatic properties require both getters and setters(public or private).
/*this is invalid*/
public string Name
{
get;
/* setter omitted to prove the point*/
}
Alternatively, if you only want get/set, create a backing field yourself

Which one should I use, and what are the caveats or subtleties involved with each approach?
When going with properties there is one caveat that has not been mentioned yet: With properties you cannot have any parametrization of your getters or setters.
For example imagine you want to retrieve a list items and want to also apply a filter at the same time. With a get-method you could write something like:
obj.getItems(filter);
In contrast, with a property you are forced to first return all items
obj.items
and then apply the filter in the next step or you have to add dedicated properties that expose items filtered by different criteria, which soon bloats your API:
obj.itemsFilteredByX
obj.itemsFilteredByY
What sometimes can be a nuisance is when you started with a property, e.g. obj.items and then later discovered that getter- or setter-parametrization is needed or would make things easier for the class-API user. You would now need to either rewrite your API and modify all those places in your code that access this property or find an alternative solution. In contrast, with a get-method, e.g. obj.getItems(), you can simply extend your method's signature to accept an optional "configuration" object e.g. obj.getItems(options) without having to rewrite all those places that call your method.
That being said, (auto-implemented) properties in C# are still very useful shortcuts (for the various reasons mentioned here) since most of the time parametrization may not be needed – but this caveat stands.

How to implement a read only property

I need to implement a read only property on my type. Moreover the value of this property is going to be set in the constructor and it is not going to be changed (I am writing a class that exposes custom routed UI commands for WPF but it does not matter).
I see two ways to do it:
class MyClass
{
public readonly object MyProperty = new object();
}
class MyClass
{
private readonly object my_property = new object();
public object MyProperty { get { return my_property; } }
}
With all these FxCop errors saying that I should not have public member variables, it seems that the second one is the right way to do it. Is this correct?
Is there any difference between a get only property and a read only member in this case?

The second way is the preferred option.
private readonly int MyVal = 5;
public int MyProp { get { return MyVal;} }
This will ensure that MyVal can only be assigned at initialization (it can also be set in a constructor).
As you had noted - this way you are not exposing an internal member, allowing you to change the internal implementation in the future.

C# 6.0 adds readonly auto properties
public object MyProperty { get; }
So when you don't need to support older compilers you can have a truly readonly property with code that's just as concise as a readonly field.
Versioning:
I think it doesn't make much difference if you are only interested in source compatibility.
Using a property is better for binary compatibility since you can replace it by a property which has a setter without breaking compiled code depending on your library.
Convention:
You are following the convention. In cases like this where the differences between the two possibilities are relatively minor following the convention is better. One case where it might come back to bite you is reflection based code. It might only accept properties and not fields, for example a property editor/viewer.
Serialization
Changing from field to property will probably break a lot of serializers. And AFAIK XmlSerializer does only serialize public properties and not public fields.
Using an Autoproperty
Another common Variation is using an autoproperty with a private setter. While this is short and a property it doesn't enforce the readonlyness. So I prefer the other ones.
Readonly field is selfdocumenting
There is one advantage of the field though:
It makes it clear at a glance at the public interface that it's actually immutable (barring reflection). Whereas in case of a property you can only see that you cannot change it, so you'd have to refer to the documentation or implementation.
But to be honest I use the first one quite often in application code since I'm lazy. In libraries I'm typically more thorough and follow the convention.

With the introduction of C# 6 (in VS 2015), you can now have get-only automatic properties, in which the implicit backing field is readonly (i.e. values can be assigned in the constructor but not elsewhere):
public string Name { get; }
public Customer(string name) // Constructor
{
Name = name;
}
private void SomeFunction()
{
Name = "Something Else"; // Compile-time error
}
And you can now also initialise properties (with or without a setter) inline:
public string Name { get; } = "Boris";
Referring back to the question, this gives you the advantages of option 2 (public member is a property, not a field) with the brevity of option 1.
Unfortunately, it doesn't provide a guarantee of immutability at the level of the public interface (as in #CodesInChaos's point about self-documentation), because to a consumer of the class, having no setter is indistinguishable from having a private setter.

In C# 9, Microsoft introduced a new way to have properties set only on initialization using the init accessor, like so:
public class Person
{
public string FirstName { get; init; }
public string LastName { get; init; }
}
This way, you can assign values when initializing a new object:
var person = new Person
{
Firstname = "John",
LastName = "Doe"
}
But later on, you cannot change it:
person.LastName = "Denver"; // throws a compiler error

You can do this:
public int Property { get { ... } private set { ... } }

I agree that the second way is preferable. The only real reason for that preference is the general preference that .NET classes not have public fields. However, if that field is readonly, I can't see how there would be any real objections other than a lack of consistency with other properties. The real difference between a readonly field and get-only property is that the readonly field provides a guarantee that its value will not change over the life of the object and a get-only property does not.

yet another way (my favorite), starting with C# 6
private readonly int MyVal = 5;
public int MyProp => MyVal;
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-guide/classes-and-structs/properties#expression-body-definitions

The second method is preferred because of the encapsulation. You can certainly have the readonly field be public, but that goes against C# idioms in which you have data access occur through properties and not fields.
The reasoning behind this is that the property defines a public interface and if the backing implementation to that property changes, you don't end up breaking the rest of the code because the implementation is hidden behind an interface.

Should I use public properties and private fields or public fields for data?

In much of the code I have seen (on SO, thecodeproject.com and I tend to do this in my own code), I have seen public properties being created for every single private field that a class contains, even if they are the most basic type of get; set; like:
private int myInt;
public int MyInt
{
get { return myInt; }
set { myInt = value }
}
My question is: how does this differ from:
public int MyInt;
and if we should use properties instead of public fields why should we use them in this specific case? (I am not talking about more complex examples where the getters and setters actually do something special or there is only one get or set (read/write only) rather than just returning/setting a value of a private field). It does not seem to add any extra encapsulation, only give a nice icon in IntelliSense and be placed in a special section in class diagrams!

See this article http://blog.codinghorror.com/properties-vs-public-variables/
Specifically
Reflection works differently on variables vs. properties, so if you rely on reflection, it's easier to use all properties.
You can't databind against a variable.
Changing a variable to a property is a breaking change.

Three reasons:
You cannot override fields in subclasses like you can properties.
You may eventually need a more complex getter or setter, but if it's a field, changing it would break the API.
Convention. That's just the way it's done.
I'm sure there are more reasons that I'm just not thinking of.
In .Net 3.x you can use automatic properties like this:
public int Age { get; set; }
instead of the old school way with declaring your private fields yourself like this:
private int age;
public int Age
{
get { return age; }
set { age = value; }
}
This makes it as simple as creating a field, but without the breaking change issue (among other things).

When you create private field name and a simple public property Name that actually gets and sets the name field value
public string Name
{
get { return name; }
}
and you use this property everywhere outside your class and some day you decide that the Name property of this class will actually refer to the lastName field (or that you want to return a string "My name: "+name), you simply change the code inside the property:
public string Name
{
get { return lastName; //return "My name: "+name; }
}
If you were using public field name everywhere in the outside code then you would have to change name to lastName everywhere you used it.

Well it does make a difference. Public data can be changed without the object instance knowing about it. Using getters and setters the object is always aware that a change has been made.
Remember that encapsulating the data is only the first step towards a better structured design, it's not an end-goal in itself.

You have to use properties in the following cases:
When you need to serialize data in the property to some format.
When you need to override properties in derived class.
When you implement get and set methods with some logic. For example, when you implement Singleton pattern.
When you're derived from interface, where property was declared.
When you have specific issues related to Reflection.

It... depends?
I always use getters & setters, since they created this shortcut:
public int Foo { get; set; }
At compile time it is translated. Now you can't get fancy with it, but it is there, and if you need to get fancy you just spell it out later.
However public, private, protected... it's all a matter of who you want to be able to tweak the data. We use inheritance a lot and this is a very common method for us, so that only chidren can edit certain properties.
protected _foo;
public Foo
{
get { return _foo; }
} //lack of set intentional.

I can't believe that with 11 answers, nobody has said this:
Not all private fields should be exposed as public properties. You should certainly use properties for anything that needs to be non-private, but you should keep as much of your class private as possible.

There are many reasons why.
Mainly:
You can do some other functions when the variable is set
You can prevent setting and provide only get
Some 'things' only work on properties (DataBinding, for example)
You can hide the implementation of the property [perhaps it is a ViewState variable, in ASP.NET).

The point is - what if further down the line you want to make sure that every time myInt is referenced something special happens (a log file is written to, it's changed to 42 etc)? You can't do that without getters and setters. Sometimes it's wise to program for what you might need, not what you need right now.

Actually, if you're using Silverlight, you'll realise that fields cannot be set a static resources and thus you'll have to use a property (even to access a const).
I've realised that when I tried to federate the region names I use in Composite Guidance (PRISM).
However, that's just a language limitations and apart from static/const fields I alsways use properties.

The idea is you should not accidentally/unintentionally change the value of a class private field outside.
When you use get and set, that means you are changing the class private field intentionally and knowingly.

Setting a value into a private field only changes that field,but making them in property you can handle another arguments for example,you can call a method after setting a value
private string _email;
public string Email
{
get
{
return this._email;
}
set
{
this._email = value;
ReplaceList(); //**
}
}

In simpler words, answer to your question is the access modifiers i.e. public and private.
If you use:
public int myInt;
public int MyInt
{
get { return myInt; }
set { myInt = value }
}
then both MyInt property and myInt variable is available in the project to be modified.
Means, if your class suppose A is inherited by class suppose B,
then myInt and MyInt both are available for modification and no check can be applied.
Suppose you want myInt value can be set in derive class if some particular condition pass.
This can be achieved only by making field private and property to be public.
So that only property is available and conditions can be set based on that.

Default value of a property

If you have an object like this:
public class Foo
{
private int _id;
public int id
{
get { return _id; }
set { _id = value; }
}
private string _name;
public string name
{
get { return _name; }
set { _name = value; }
}
}
And you want to initialize id to -1 and name to String.Empty what is the best practice? (and why)
Doing:
private int _id = -1
Or
Setting _id = -1 and name = String.Empty in the constructor?

This is more of a style question than anything else. There are only a few cases where it is a functional issue
When you have many constructors which all initialize the fields to the same value. At that point you have redundant code and should either refactor your constructors or use field initializers.
Don't use a field initializer if it depends on the value of another field in the same class hierarchy. In the abscence of partial classes the outcome is predictable but still can throw people for a loop..

depends on when you want it to be set...
private int _id = -1
will initialize _id before the constructor is called.

The field approach is concise, which gets a lot of votes, but my preference (for simple properties) would be to use auto-properties, in which case you are forced to use the constructor:
public Foo() {
Id = -1;
Name = "";
}
public int Id {get;set;}
public string Name {get;set;}
You might also consider using [DefaultValue(-1)] etc, which helps designers and serializers, but this does not affect the initial value of an auto implemented property (or a regular property) - it is additional info only.

Setting it "inline" rather than using the constructor seems, to me, to indicate intention better. Functionally they're the same.

A CLR wizard might correct me, but I believe those two approaches are functionally identical, but you could make an argument that setting the default values in the constructor is more explicit and obvious, but also a bit messier.

Inline initialization is added to the top of the constructor by the C# compiler so there is really no difference. Personally I prefer always adding constructors even if it is only a default constructor.

It's mainly the question of style preference. I usually assign them in the constructor, because it is a sane place for all the data and procedures that take place when object is instantiated.