Develop Reference

Object Oriented - Class Variables

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.

Why is my C# struct is being reset when passed into a method

I am creating a simple text-game. My Character struct keeps resetting it Can value. What am I doing wrong and how do I fix it? Here is the code:
namespace MyNamespace
{
struct Character
{
public float Can;
//...
}
class MainClass
{
public static void Move (Character a)
{
bool cal = true;
while (cal)
{
Thread.Sleep(500);
if(a.Can <= 100)
{
a.Can += 1;
}
else
{
cal = false;
}
}
}
}
//...
}

A struct is a value type. When you pass it to a method or assign it to another variable, data are copied. You will then operate on a copy.
Consider your method call Dinlen (oyuncu);. It copies the Karakter oyuncu, and then changes the field Can of the copy.
Consider using reference types (class) instead. If you use a struct, consider making it an immutable type. Read the thread Why are mutable structs evil?

If you want to pass a struct to a method for the purpose of having that method modify it, the method must use a ref qualifier on the parameter. If you pass a struct to a method without a ref parameter, there is no way that the method can modify any fields of that struct.
Note that some people may suggest replacing the struct with a class so that one won't have to use the ref qualifier. That is a dangerous notion, since every method receiving a reference to a mutable class object will be free to cause the object to be mutated at any time thereafter. There's no clean way to pass a reference to a mutable class object without allowing the recipient to mutate it, nor is there any way to be certain that code which is given a class-object reference won't persist it and use it to modify the object at any arbitrary future time. Structures don't have either of these problems.
If an object holds a value-type field e.g. MyBounds of type Drawing.Rectangle, and I call Foo(MyBounds) I can be assured that there is no possibility that Foo will change MyBounds. Further, if I call Bar(ref MyBounds) I can expect that Bar might change MyBounds, but all changes will be complete before the method returns. If Rectangle had been a mutable class type, then without examining Foo and Bar I would have no way of knowing whether the properties of MyBounds might be changed at any arbitrary time in the future.
Someone who doesn't understand that structs are different from classes may be confused by the way structs behave, but all structs with exposed public fields behave the same way, so if one understands how one such struct works, one will understand them all. There is one evil aspect of structures, which is that instance methods and properties defined on a struct will receive this as a ref parameter, but if one attempts to do something like:
readonly System.Drawing.Rectangle myRect = whatever;
...
myRect.Offset(4,2);
the system will recognize that myRect cannot be passed as a ref parameter (since it's read-only) and will, without any diagnostic, change the code to:
readonly System.Drawing.Rectangle myRect = whatever;
...
System.Drawing.Rectangle temp = myRect;
temp.Offset(4,2);
What is evil there, however, is not the fact that Rectangle is mutable, but rather the fact that the compiler assumes the above code substitution is legitimate when calling any and all value-type methods. Unless or until Microsoft gets around to adding an attribute to indicate that calling a particular method on a read-only structure should result in an error rather than performing such substitution, the only safe way to code struct methods that operate on a structure "in-place" would be to use a format like: static void Offset(ref Rectangle it, int x, int y);, in which case Rectangle.Offset(ref myRect, 4, 2); would fail as it should.

I believe the problem is you are passing the struct as a variable into your first method, but struct's are value types - i.e. they are copied, not passed by reference.
Changing your struct to class will have the behaviour you require.
P.S. Is there a reason you chose a struct? They are normally used for more advanced scenarios, where the developer knows more about the benefits and flaws of using this type.

When you are passing struct instance into method, a copy of struct is created (it is passed by value). Any changes to struct inside method does not affect original struct which you passed.
Solutions? Use class instead of struct. Instances of classes passed by reference. Well you can pass structs by reference, but why would you trying to use structs like classes? Use classes instead.
class Karakter
{
public string Isim { get; set; }
public float Can { get; set; }
public int Seviye { get; set; }
public int Exp { get; set; }
public float Guc { get; set; }
public string Irk { get; set; }
public int vExp { get; set; }
public override string ToString()
{
return String.Format("Adınız:{0}\nIrkınız:{1}\nCan:{2}\nGuc:{3}",
Isim, Irk, Can, Guc);
}
}
BTW I think it will be useful for you to read about Value and Reference Types in .NET

You might want to consider using a class instead of a struct.

As said, a struct is a value type and passed by copy. You can pass it by ref like this:
public static void Move (ref Character a)
{
...
}
and call it like this:
var a = new Character();
MainClass.Move(ref a);

C# static class and data members question

I am not sure how to implement what I have in mind using C# .Net 3.5. I have a static class called Common which contains common methods. One of the method is PrepareReportParameters. This method accepts a string ReportParams and parse it to get the parameter values. I load this ReportParams string into a Dictionary . And then verify whether the required elements exist. I check that like:
if (ReportParamList.ContainsKey("PAccount"))
{
ReportParamList.TryGetValue("PAccount", out PrimaryAccount);
}
where PrimaryAccount is a static variable in my Common class. And I can access this elsewhere as Common.PrimaryAccount.
Though, this approcah of accessing the report parameters will work but I want PrimaryAccount to be accessed as Common.ReportParameters.PrimaryAccount.
Here is the problem, I don't know what type ReportParameters should be and how can I have all the report parameters added to this type? How should I define ReportParameters? Does it sound feasible or it doesn't make any sense. Please H E L P!

It sounds like you're basically used to using global variables to pass around state. That's generally a really bad idea.
Why doesn't your method just return the primary account value? That can then be passed to other things which need it.
If you find yourself with a lot of static members - and in particular if other classes are fetching mutable static variables - consider whether there's a more OO design you could apply. It'll be easier to understand, easier to test, and easier to maintain.
EDIT: Okay, so currently you have:
public static class Common
{
public static int PrimaryAccount;
// other static fields
public static void PrepareReportParameters(string reportParameters)
{
// Code to set the fields
}
}
Instead of that, use a normal class:
public class ReportParameters
{
public int PrimaryAccount { get; private set; }
// Other properties
private ReportParameters(int primaryAccount, ....)
{
this.PrimaryAccount = primaryAccount;
}
// Could use a constructor instead, but I prefer methods when they're going to
// do work
public static ReportParameters Parse(string report)
{
// Parse the parameter, save values into local variables, then
return new ReportParameters(primaryAccount, ...);
}
}
Then call this from the rest of your code, and pass the ReportParameters reference to anything that needs it.

You could create a class called ReportParameters with the relevant strongly-typed properties, and give Common a static instance of it?

I'm not sure this is the best design. Theres a certain amount of 'code smell' to having Common.PrimaryAccount only to be allowed to be accessed after PrepareReportParameters is called. Maybe you'd consider an instance class, passing in the parameters in the constructor?

More private than private? (C#)

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
}

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.