Develop Reference

What does the Auto Property give me over a simple Field? [duplicate]

We're often told we should protect encapsulation by making getter and setter methods (properties in C#) for class fields, instead of exposing the fields to the outside world.
But there are many times when a field is just there to hold a value and doesn't require any computation to get or set. For these we would all do this number:
public class Book
{
private string _title;
public string Title
{
get => _title;
set => _title = value;
}
}
Well, I have a confession, I couldn't bear writing all that (really, it wasn't having to write it, it was having to look at it), so I went rogue and used public fields.
Then along comes C# 3.0 and I see they added automatic properties:
public class Book
{
public string Title { get; set; }
}
Which is tidier, and I'm thankful for it, but really, what's so different than just making a public field?
public class Book
{
public string Title;
}

In a related question I had some time ago, there was a link to a posting on Jeff's blog, explaining some differences.
Properties vs. Public Variables
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. For example:
TryGetTitle(out book.Title); // requires a variable

Ignoring the API issues, the thing I find most valuable about using a property is debugging.
The CLR debugger does not support data break points (most native debuggers do). Hence it's not possible to set a break point on the read or write of a particular field on a class. This is very limiting in certain debugging scenarios.
Because properties are implemented as very thin methods, it is possible to set breakpoints on the read and write of their values. This gives them a big leg up over fields.

Changing from a field to a property breaks the contract (e.g. requires all referencing code to be recompiled). So when you have an interaction point with other classes - any public (and generally protected) member, you want to plan for future growth. Do so by always using properties.
It's nothing to make it an auto-property today, and 3 months down the line realize you want to make it lazy-loaded, and put a null check in the getter. If you had used a field, this is a recompile change at best and impossible at worst, depending on who & what else relies on your assemblies.

Just because no one mentioned it: You can't define fields on Interfaces. So, if you have to implement a specific interface which defines properties, auto-properties sometimes are a really nice feature.

A huge difference that is often overlooked and is not mentioned in any other answer: overriding. You can declare properties virtual and override them whereas you cannot do the same for public member fields.

It's all about versioning and API stability. There is no difference, in version 1 - but later, if you decide you need to make this a property with some type of error checking in version 2, you don't have to change your API- no code changes, anywhere, other than the definition of the property.

Another advantage of auto-implemented properties over public fields is that you can make set accessors private or protected, providing the class of objects where it was defined better control than that of public fields.

There is nothing wrong in making a field public. But remember creating getter/setter with private fields is no encapsulation. IMO, If you do not care about other features of a Property, you might as well make it public.

Trivial properties like these make me sad. They are the worst kind of cargo culting and the hatred for public fields in C# needs to stop. The biggest argument against public fields is future-proofing: If you later decide you need to add extra logic to the getter and setter, then you will have to do a huge refactor in any other code that uses the field. This is certainly true in other languages like C++ and Java where the semantics for calling a getter and setter method are very different from those for setting and getting a field. However, in C#, the semantics for accessing a property are exactly the same as those for accessing a field, so 99% of your code should be completely unaffected by this.
The one example I have seen of changing a field into a property actually being a breaking change at the source level is something like:
TryGetTitle(out book.Title); // requires a variable
To this I have to ask, why TF are you passing some other class's field as a reference? Depending on that not being a property seems like the real coding failure here. Assuming that you can directly write to data in another class that you know nothing about is bad practice. Make your own local variable and set book.Title from that. Any code that does something like this deserves to break.
Other arguments I have seen against it:
Changing a field to a property breaks binary compatibility and requires any code that uses it to be recompiled: This is a concern iff you are writing code for distribution as a closed-source library. In that case, yes, make sure none of your user-facing classes have public fields and use trivial properties as needed. If however you are like 99% of C# developers and writing code purely for internal consumption within your project, then why is recompilation a big concern? Just about any other change you make is going to require recompilation too, and so what if it does? Last I checked, it is no longer 1995, we have fast computers with fast compilers and incremental linkers, even larger recompilations shouldn't need more than a few minutes, and it has been quite some time since I have been able to use "my code's compiling" as an excuse for swordfighting through the office.
You can't databind against a variable: Great, when you need to do that, make it into a property.
Properties have features that make them better for debugging like reflection and setting breakpoints: Great, one you need to use one of those things, make it into a property. When you're done debugging and ready to release, if you don't still need those functionalities, change it back into a field.
Properties allow you to override behavior in derived classes: Great, if you are making a base class where you think such a scenario is likely, then make the appropriate members into properties. If you're not sure, leave it as a field and you can change it later. Yes, that will probably require some recompilation, but again, so what?
So in summary, yes there are some legitimate uses for trivial properties, but unless you are making a closed source library for public release, fields are easy enough to convert into properties when needed, and an irrational fear of public fields is just some object oriented dogma that we would do well to rid ourselves of.

For me, the absolute deal breaker for not using public fields was the lack of IntelliSense, showing the references:
Which is not available for fields.

If you decide later to check that the title is unique, by comparing to a collection or a database, you can do that in the property without changing any code that depends on it.
If you go with just a public attribute then you will have less flexibility.
The extra flexibility without breaking the contract is what is most important to me about using properties, and, until I actually need the flexibility, auto-generation makes the most sense.

One thing you can do with Fields but not with Properties (or didn't used to be able to ... I'll come to that in a moment) is that Fields can be designated as readonly whereas Properties cannot. So Fields give you a clear way of indicating your intention that a variable is there to be set (from within the constructor) at object-instantiation time only and should not be changed thereafter. Yes, you can set a Property to have a private setter, but that just says "this is not to be changed from outside the class", which is not the same as "this is not to be changed after instantiation" - you can still change it post-instantiation from within the class. And yes you can set the backing field of your property to be readonly, but that moves post-instantiation attempts to change it to being run-time errors rather than compile-time errors. So readonly Fields did something useful which Properties cannot.
However, that changes with C# 9, whereby we get this helpful syntax for Properties:
public string Height { get; init; }
which says "this can get used from outside of the class but it may only be set when the object is initialized", whereupon the readonly advantage of Fields disappears.

One thing I find very useful as well as all the code and testing reasons is that if it is a property vs a field is that the Visual Studio IDE shows you the references for a property but not a field.

My pov after did some researches
Validation.
Allow overriding the accessor to change the behaviour of a property.
Debugging purpose. We'll be able to know when and what the property change by setting a breakpoint in the accessor.
We can have a field set-only. For instance, public set() and private get(). This is not possible with the public field.
It really gives us more possibility and extensibility.

Why do we use blank get; set; accessors in C#? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
c#: why have empty get set properties instead of using a public member variable?
string name;
vs
string name {get; set;}
Assuming your get and set are blank as above, what's the point in specifying them?

It encapsulates the compiler generated field, and provides you, the class or struct developer the ability to update it internally later without breaking your API by simply modifying the get/set part that you care about.
For instance, suddenly never want to return null? You can do that by simply changing the empty get to get { return storedName ?? ""; }. Of course, it means you suddenly need to manually control the variable, but that's a small price to pay for the flexibility.
The first use is an example of a field declaration. The second use is an example of an auto-implemented property.
It is generally bad practice to provide direct access to a field. However, the .NET team noticed that a lot of getters/setters are basically just that. For example, consider the following:
// C#
public string Name
{
get { return name; }
set { name = value; }
}
// Without properties (or a Java implementation)
public void setName(String name)
{
this.name = name;
}
public String getName()
{
return name;
}
Either way, that's a lot verbosity to really just expose a field. However, it is regularly the case that, as a developer, you need to go back and change how a field is handled internally, but you do not want to break or even affect other code if you can get away with it.
That is why using direct access to fields is bad. If you provide direct access to fields, but need to change something about using the field, then all code that uses that field must change as well. If you use a property (or even a method), then you can change the internal code and potentially not effect external code.
Consider the following example:
public string Name
{
get;
set;
}
Later you decide that you need to raise a changing and changed event around the setter. If you exposed a field, then it's time for a potentially big rewrite. If you used properties (or a method), then you can just add the logic there. You suddenly lose the benefit of auto-implementing properties, but you gained the ability to refactor your class without breaking existing code.
private string name;
public event NameChangingEventHandler NameChanging;
public event NameChangedEventHandler NameChanged;
public string Name
{
get { return name; }
set
{
OnNameChanging(/*...*/);
name = value;
OnNameChanged(/*...*/);
}
}
protected virtual void OnNameChanging(/*...*/) { }
protected virtual void OnNameChanged(/*...*/) { }
All of that maintains your public API and requires no work from users of the class (the rest of your code, or external developers using of your API). Breaking changes are not always avoidable, but avoiding direct access to fields is a good step to try to ensure that it won't happen. Auto-implemented properties are a quick, and easy way to do it.
(Unrelated: lost power while typing this and I am very happy that my browser saved most of it!)

The first one is actually a Field, but the second one is an Auto-Implemented property. The difference between them has already been discussed.

The first, assuming it's declared in class scope, is a field name. It's accessed as a field. The second is a property. A Blank get/set is known as an auto-property.

You might need to actually do something in your accessors in the future. Changing a field (which is what your first declaration is) to a property is a breaking change, so specifying accessors in advance is a small investment in the future.

Being able to add logic to a field's accessors without breaking compatibility is the standard explanation, and it's certainly a big one if you're writing a library or an application that's split among several assemblies that might be updated independently. I think it's something that one could dismiss as less of a concern if you're working on any sort of "all-in-one" software, though, since it'll all be recompiled anyway.
But even then, there's still another very compelling reason to only expose properties in your public interfaces: Even if you never need to make any internal updates, using fields can still lead to other problems on down the line because many portions of the .NET framework strongly prefer properties to fields. WPF, for example, does not generally support binding to fields. You can get around that by doing fancy things like implementing ICustomTypeDescriptor, but it's just so much easier to simply type {get; set;}.

string name {get; set;}
This is called auto implemented property. Actually, C# creates variable starting with _ itself, so on get, that variable value is fetched and on set, that variable value is set. Its just like normal properties. Where as string name; is just a field.

The first is a variable, the second is a (shorthanded) property

Properties are very nice, but as a general rule, objects shouldn't expose state to the public; they should be a black box from the perspective of outsiders. And you especially shouldn't state to direct change. State should change as a side effect of asking the object instance to do something useful in the problem domain.
If you are going to expose state, expose it as a read-only property (e.g. public widget Foo { get ; private set ; }).

When should we use private variables and when should we use properties. Do Backing Fields should be used in same class?

In most of the cases we usually creates a private variable and its corresponding public properties and uses them for performing our functionalities.
Everyone has different approach like some people uses properties every where and some uses private variables within a same class as they are private and opens it to be used by external environment by using properties.
Suppose I takes a scenario say insertion in a database.
I creates some parameters that need to be initialized.
I creates 10 private variables and their corresp public properties
which are given as
private string name;
public string Name
{
get{return name;}
set{name=value;}
}
and so on. In these cases mentioned above, what should be used internal variables or properties.
And in those cases like
public string Name
{
get{return name;}
set{name=value>5?5:0;} //or any action can be done. this is just an eg.
}
In such cases what should be done.
What is the conclusion
I actually meant to ask this.
Should we use variables within that class or not or should we use properties everywhere within same class as well.

If you use auto-implemented properties, then the field will be hidden, so you are forced to use the property, even in the class where the property is defined. Auto-implemented properties are a good idea, unless you need to add some logic to the getter/setter.

If the only use for the private variable is as a storage container, you might use:
public string Name {get; set;}
IMHO one should never make variables public - always use properties so you can add constraints or change behaviours later on whitout changing the interface.

Made things more readable:
I expose my data always through properties.
If I do not need additional logic (e.g. validation) I use implicit properties. This way there is no backing field and I cannot access it by accident. If I need to add some additional logic I can easily change the implicit property to a "traditional" one. As I use the property everywhere I do not have to worry that my extra logic is not called.
If I need something extra (like validation) then I have a private backing field, but I access this field only in the property body (get/set accessors). Again I do not need to worry if I change something in the property: My code will always use the same logic.
The only reason for not calling the property in my opinion would be if for some reason I really do not want any additional logic to be called, but this seems a dangerous thing so I rather avoid it...

I never expose public variables. Why? Because I can't lay constraints on them, whereas I can when I'm using properties. I can first check the value if it meets my constraints (e.g. an email address) and then I save it. Otherwise I throw an Exception.

You should never expose public variables without a very good reason. It is tough to say never, because if you trying to interop with comm type components you might be required too.
Anything publicly exposed should be a property. Why is that?
The reason is if you need to change the source of the value, or add some business logic checking if it is a public member you are going to require anything using the code to change. If it is a property you can change the internal logic and not require anybody using it to change the code.
I personally use properties and only create members variables when I want a property to do more than getting or setting (since this is easy with C# 3.0 with shortcut properties).
If I want to keep a property from being publicly exposed I make it as private, and only expose it when I have too.

We require explicit private variables in some situation like validation before set.Sometime we also need to conversion of input, for instance , formatting the input.

Do you use Data Members or Public Properties from within the Class itself?

If I have a simple class setup like this:
class MyClass
{
private string _myName = string.Empty;
public string MyName
{
get
{
return _myName;
}
}
public void DoSomething()
{
// Get the name...
string name = string.Empty;
name = _myName;
// OR
name = MyName;
// ...and do something with it...
}
}
Which should I use, the public property, or the data member?
Obviously, in this example it doesn't make a difference, since they both just reference the same variable. But what about real world uses of Public Properties?
In general, do Public Properties perform very little, in which case it is OK to call them? Or do people put a lot of functionality into their Public Properties that should not be called by internal class references?
I saw something in another post about NOT putting lots of functionality into Properties, since examining them in the Debugger can perform unexpected results. Is that true?

Use the property - any logic that may be encapsulated within the setters and getters ought to apply, even within the class itself. If there is no logic within the getters and setters it is still not safe to use the fields themselves because if at any point you wish to add logic around the access to those fields you will have to refactor much more.

I believe that you should reference the property as a general practice. While in this particular example it really doesn't make much of a difference, the get/set accessors offer the ability to do a bit more work when grabbing a property. For example, many of our property "get" accessors perform some lookup within a more complex data structure or set default values if nothing has been defined. So that the rest of the class can take advantage of this logic, we make a habit of using the properties. Just so we don't have to think too hard about it, we try to generalize the practice.
There may be instances in which we want to directly access the underlying data member, but then that is a conscious decision with a specific reason and it tends to be the exception.

I prefer properties because they easily handle read-only situations and it's easy to wrap them with any basic validation you might need to do.

If I'm just returning the value of the internal variable, I make the variable public - there's no harm to doing so. I've always used Public Properties when I want to do something in response to either a viewing or a changing of the value - ie, write it to a database, set something else too (as in the second part of your example).
The question you have to ask is whether you want what happens inside your class to trigger these events. If you do, the same way an external caller would, then access the values via the property. If you just want to read the value, use the internal variable.
To answer your question, there's no harm to doing it either way - just consideration of the potential side-effects.

Should you access a variable within the same class via a Property?

If you have a Property that gets and sets to an instance variable then normally you always use the Property from outside that class to access it.
My question is should you also always do so within the class? I've always used the Property if there is one, even within the class, but would like to hear some arguments for and against as to which is the most correct and why.
Or is it just a matter of coding standards being used on the project?

One of the stronger argument for accessing local (class scope) variables through properties is that you add a level of abstraction in your class. If you change any logic concerning how that field is stored then the rest of your code will be left unaffected.
For example you might change that from a local variable to a property of a child object, to a database call, to a webservice call, to a static property on a class and so on. When making the change it gives you a single point of change, the property, and you do not have to update the rest of your class since they all use the property.
Also using the property enables you to apply business rules on the value of the property instead of having to enforce the same rule at each location where you'd directly access the field. Again, encapsulation
With the introduction of automatic properties there's even less reason to explicitly have a local variable, unless you need to apply business rules on the get/set

It depends on whether you want to apply any logic implemented within the property setter, and so you really have to decide on a case by case basis.
When you go directly to the private field, you know that the field is being set to exactly what you say.
When you go through the Property, the value gets set according to the setter logic, so you get any business rules or validation you want over values assigned to that field.
Pretty hard to come up with a rule about when doing either is 'correct', about the only one I'd say I follow is that in constructor initialisation I'd pretty much never use the Property.

Yes I think you should use properties internally in your classes whenever possible. Properties are more flexible and allows you to add logic for validating it's value at a central place.
You can also delay the initialization of the the field to whenever the property is used instead of being forced to do it in the constructor (or everywhere the field is used). Example:
class Test {
private int _checksum = -1;
private int Checksum {
get {
if (_checksum == -1)
_checksum = calculateChecksum();
return checksum;
}
}
}

I think it's purely preference.
Though, I find myself using the properties a lot more in C# 3.0 with the auto-property support:
class Foo {
public string Value { get; set; }
public void Write() {
Console.Write(Value);
}
}

Generally depending on the project coding standards I use a "_" or "m" preceding the name for my private class attributes. (Like below)
private int mVariable;
private int _Variable;
With those in front of the variable I recognize right away that I'm dealing with an internal variable for the class. Then when it comes to debugging later myself or someone else can immediately recognize that the code is dealing with an internal private variable and make an adjustment. So it comes down to readability for me.

Always Use Properties, Here are some of the reasons
Easy to Use. In visual Studio you can use "Prop Tab Tab". You will get the property snippet
Properties are language elements that are accessed as though they are data members
.Net framework classes uses it, the data binding code classes in the .NET Framework support properties,
Properties have all the language features of methods. Properties can be virtual