Search Results

Search found 499 results on 20 pages for 'getters setters'.

Page 2/20 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Can Eclipse generate method-chaining setters

    - by Chris R
    I'd like to generate method-chaining setters (setters that return the object being set), like so: public MyObject setField (Object value) { this.field = value; return this; } This makes it easier to do one-liner instantiations, which I find easier to read: myMethod (new MyObject ().setField (someValue).setOtherField (someOtherValue)); Can Eclipse's templates be modified to do this? I've changed the content to include return this; but the signature is not changed.

    Read the article

  • Getters and Setters are bad OO design?

    - by Dan
    Getters and Setters are bad Briefly reading over the above article I find that getters and setters are bad OO design and should be avoided as they go against Encapsulation and Data Hiding. As this is the case how can it be avoided when creating objects and how can one model objects to take this into account. In cases where a getter or setter is required what other alternatives can be used? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Enforcing a coding template in the getters of a class in java

    - by Yoav Schwartz
    Hello, I want to make sure all getters of the classes in a certain package follow a given template. For example, all getters must be of the form: XXX getYYY(){ classLock.lock(); return YYY; finally{ classLock.unlock(); } } Basically, I want that my project will not compile/run unless all getters are of that form. What is the best way to do that? I would prefer a solution that can be used as an Eclipse plugin. Thanks, Yoav

    Read the article

  • How to make Spring accept non-void setters?

    - by Chris
    Hi, I have an API which I am turning into an internal DSL. As such, most methods in my PoJos return a reference to this so that I can chain methods together declaratively as such (syntactic sugar). myComponent .setID("MyId") .setProperty("One","1") .setProperty("Two","2") .setAssociation(anotherComponent) .execute(); My API does not depend on Spring but I wish to make it 'Spring-Friendly' by being PoJo friendly with zero argument constructors, getters and setters. The problem is that Spring seems to not detect my setter methods when I have a non-void return type. The return type of this is very convenient when chaining together my commands so I don't want to destroy my programmatic API just be to compatible with Spring injection. Is there a setting in Spring to allow me to use non-void setters? Chris

    Read the article

  • Getters and Setters: Code smell, Necessary Evil, or Can't Live Without Them [closed]

    - by Avery Payne
    Possible Duplicate: Allen Holub wrote “You should never use get/set functions”, is he correct? Is there a good, no, a very good reason, to go through all the trouble of using getters and setters for object-oriented languages? What's wrong with just using a direct reference to a property or method? Is there some kind of "semantical coverup" that people don't want to talk about in polite company? Was I just too tired and fell asleep when someone walked out and said "Thou Shalt Write Copious Amounts of Code to Obtain Getters and Setters"? Follow-up after a year: It seems to be a common occurrence with Java, less so with Python. I'm beginning to wonder if this is more of a cultural phenomena (related to the limitations of the language) rather than "sage advice". The -1 question score is complete for-the-lulz as far as I am concerned. It's interesting that there are specific questions that are downvoted, not because they are "bad questions", but rather, because they hit someone's raw nerve.

    Read the article

  • Correct OOP design without getters?

    - by kane77
    I recently read that getters/setters are evil and I have to say it makes sense, yet when I started learning OOP one of the first things I learned was "Encapsulate your fields" so I learned to create class give it some fields, create getters, setters for them and create constructor where I initialize these fields. And every time some other class needs to manipulate this object (or for instance display it) I pass it the object and it manipulate it using getters/setters. I can see problems with this approach. But how to do it right? For instance displaying/rendering object that is "data" class - let's say Person, that has name and date of birth. Should the class have method for displaying the object where some Renderer would be passed as an argument? Wouldn't that violate principle that class should have only one purpose (in this case store state) so it should not care about presentation of this object. Can you suggest some good resources where best practices in OOP design are presented? I'm planning to start a project in my spare time and I want it to be my learning project in correct OOP design..

    Read the article

  • Why are getters prefixed with the word "get"?

    - by Joey
    Generally speaking, creating a fluid API is something that makes all programmers happy; Both for the creators who write the interface, and the consumers who program against it. Looking beyond conventions, why is it that we prefix all our getters with the word "get". Omitting it usually results in a more fluid, easy to read set of instructions, which ultimately leads to happiness (however small or passive). Consider this very simple example. (pseudo code) Conventional: person = new Person("Joey") person.getName().toLower().print() Alternative: person = new Person("Joey") person.name().toLower().print() Of course this only applies to languages where getters/setters are the norm, but is not directed at any specific language. Were these conventions developed around technical limitations (disambiguation), or simply through the pursuit of a more explicit, intentional feeling type of interface, or perhaps this is just a case of trickle a down norm. What are your thoughts? And how would simple changes to these conventions impact your happiness / daily attitudes towards your craft (however minimal). Thanks.

    Read the article

  • "Default approach" when creating a class from scratch: getters for everything, or limited access?

    - by Prog
    Until recently I always had getters (and sometimes setters but not always) for all the fields in my class. It was my 'default': very automatic and I never doubted it. However recently some discussions on this site made me realize maybe it's not the best approach. When you create a class, you often don't know exactly how it's going to be used in the future by other classes. So in that sense, it's good to have getters and setter for all of the fields in the class. So other classes could use it in the future any way they want. Allowing this flexibility doesn't require you to over engineer anything, only to provide getters. However some would say it's better to limit the access to a class, and only allow access to certain fields, while other fields stay completely private. What is your 'default' approach when building a class from scratch? Do you make getters for all the fields? Or do you always choose selectively which fields to expose through a getter and which to keep completely private?

    Read the article

  • Responding to setters

    - by Simon Cave
    What is the best way to respond to data changes when property setters are called. For example, if I have a property called data, how can I react when [object setData:newData] is called and still use the synthesised setter. Instinctively, I would override the synthesised setter like so: - (void)setData:(DataObject *)newData { // defer to synthesised setter [super setData:newData]; // react to new data ... } ...but of course this doesn't make sense - I can't use super like this. So what is the best way to handle this situation? Should I be using KVO? Or something else?

    Read the article

  • Auto-implemented getters and setters vs. public fields

    - by tclem
    I see a lot of example code for C# classes that does this: public class Point { public int x { get; set; } public int y { get; set; } } Or, in older code, the same with an explicit private backing value and without the new auto-implemented properties: public class Point { private int _x; private int _y; public int x { get { return _x; } set { _x = value; } } public int y { get { return _y; } set { _y = value; } } } My question is why. Is there any functional difference between doing the above and just making these members public fields, like below? public class Point { public int x; public int y; } To be clear, I understand the value of getters and setters when you need to do some translation of the underlying data. But in cases where you're just passing the values through, it seems needlessly verbose.

    Read the article

  • Convert Line breaks to html break for all field getters in Symfony project

    - by Ben
    I am working on a Symfony project and I currently have this: <?php echo preg_replace('/\n/','<br />', $review->getComments()); ?> and would very much like to be able to make all getters add html line breaks so i don't have to pepper my code with preg_replace. the $object-getFieldname methods are work automatically so I am looking to extend this somewhere to globally add a new method. What is the best approach here?

    Read the article

  • Which order to define getters and setters in? [closed]

    - by N.N.
    Is there a best practice for the order to define getters and setters in? There seems to be two practices: getter/setter pairs first getters, then setters (or the other way around) To illuminate the difference here is a Java example of getter/setter pairs: public class Foo { private int var1, var2, var3; public int getVar1() { return var1; } public void setVar1(int var1) { this.var1 = var1; } public int getVar2() { return var2; } public void setVar2(int var2) { this.var2 = var2; } public int getVar3() { return var3; } public void setVar3(int var3) { this.var3 = var3; } } And here is a Java example of first getters, then setters: public class Foo { private int var1, var2, var3; public int getVar1() { return var1; } public int getVar2() { return var2; } public int getVar3() { return var3; } public void setVar1(int var1) { this.var1 = var1; } public void setVar2(int var2) { this.var2 = var2; } public void setVar3(int var3) { this.var3 = var3; } } I think the latter type of ordering is clearer both in code and in class diagrams but I do not know if that is enough to rule out the other type of ordering.

    Read the article

  • FitNesse doesn't call setters in my fixture

    - by Maurits Rijk
    I have copied a trivial example from the FitNesse Two-Minute example: package com.mrijk; import fit.ColumnFixture; public class Foobar extends ColumnFixture { private double numerator; private double denominator; public void setNumerator(double numerator) {this.numerator = numerator;} public void setDenominator(double denominator) {this.denominator = denominator;} public double quotient() {return numerator/denominator;} } However all test fail with: "Could not find field: denominator.", so obviously the setDenominator is not found/used. When I make the the variables numerator and denominator public instead of private, the tests run successfully. I must be overlooking something, but can't see it yet. Anyone?

    Read the article

  • Using getters/setters in Java

    - by Crystal
    I'm having some trouble with the idea of accessing variables from other classes. I had a post here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3011642/having-access-to-a-private-variable-from-other-classes-in-java where I got some useful information, and thought an example would be better show it, and ask a separate question as well. I have a form that I can input data to, and it has a List variable. I didn't make it static at first, but I thought if I needed to get the total size from another class, then I wouldn't create an instance of that class in order to use the function to getTotalContacts. I basically want to update my status bar with the total number of contacts that are in my list. One of the members said in the above post to use the original Foo member to get the contacts, but I'm not sure how that works in this case. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks. import java.awt.*; import java.awt.event.*; import javax.swing.*; import java.util.List; import java.util.ArrayList; public class AddressBook { public static void main(String[] args) { EventQueue.invokeLater(new Runnable() { public void run() { AddressBookFrame frame = new AddressBookFrame(); frame.setDefaultCloseOperation(JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE); JMenuBar menuBar = new JMenuBar(); frame.setJMenuBar(menuBar); JMenu fileMenu = new JMenu("File"); JMenuItem openItem = new JMenuItem("Open"); JMenuItem saveItem = new JMenuItem("Save"); JMenuItem saveAsItem = new JMenuItem("Save As"); JMenuItem printItem = new JMenuItem("Print"); JMenuItem exitItem = new JMenuItem("Exit"); fileMenu.add(openItem); fileMenu.add(saveItem); fileMenu.add(saveAsItem); fileMenu.add(printItem); fileMenu.add(exitItem); menuBar.add(fileMenu); JMenu editMenu = new JMenu("Edit"); JMenuItem newItem = new JMenuItem("New"); JMenuItem editItem = new JMenuItem("Edit"); JMenuItem deleteItem = new JMenuItem("Delete"); JMenuItem findItem = new JMenuItem("Find"); JMenuItem firstItem = new JMenuItem("First"); JMenuItem previousItem = new JMenuItem("Previous"); JMenuItem nextItem = new JMenuItem("Next"); JMenuItem lastItem = new JMenuItem("Last"); editMenu.add(newItem); editMenu.add(editItem); editMenu.add(deleteItem); editMenu.add(findItem); editMenu.add(firstItem); editMenu.add(previousItem); editMenu.add(nextItem); editMenu.add(lastItem); menuBar.add(editMenu); JMenu helpMenu = new JMenu("Help"); JMenuItem documentationItem = new JMenuItem("Documentation"); JMenuItem aboutItem = new JMenuItem("About"); helpMenu.add(documentationItem); helpMenu.add(aboutItem); menuBar.add(helpMenu); frame.setVisible(true); } }); } } class AddressBookFrame extends JFrame { public AddressBookFrame() { setLayout(new BorderLayout()); setTitle("Address Book"); setSize(DEFAULT_WIDTH, DEFAULT_HEIGHT); AddressBookToolBar toolBar = new AddressBookToolBar(); add(toolBar, BorderLayout.NORTH); AddressBookStatusBar aStatusBar = new AddressBookStatusBar(); add(aStatusBar, BorderLayout.SOUTH); AddressBookForm form = new AddressBookForm(); add(form, BorderLayout.CENTER); } public static final int DEFAULT_WIDTH = 500; public static final int DEFAULT_HEIGHT = 500; } /* Create toolbar buttons and add buttons to toolbar */ class AddressBookToolBar extends JPanel { public AddressBookToolBar() { setLayout(new FlowLayout(FlowLayout.LEFT)); JToolBar bar = new JToolBar(); JButton newButton = new JButton("New"); JButton editButton = new JButton("Edit"); JButton deleteButton = new JButton("Delete"); JButton findButton = new JButton("Find"); JButton firstButton = new JButton("First"); JButton previousButton = new JButton("Previous"); JButton nextButton = new JButton("Next"); JButton lastButton = new JButton("Last"); bar.add(newButton); bar.add(editButton); bar.add(deleteButton); bar.add(findButton); bar.add(firstButton); bar.add(previousButton); bar.add(nextButton); bar.add(lastButton); add(bar); } } /* Creates the status bar string */ class AddressBookStatusBar extends JPanel { public AddressBookStatusBar() { setLayout(new FlowLayout(FlowLayout.LEFT)); this.statusBarString = new JLabel("Total: " + AddressBookForm.getTotalContacts()); add(this.statusBarString); } public void updateLabel() { contactsLabel.setText(AddressBookForm.getTotalContacts().toString()); } private JLabel statusBarString; private JLabel contactsLabel; } class AddressBookForm extends JPanel { public AddressBookForm() { // create form panel this.setLayout(new GridLayout(2, 1)); JPanel formPanel = new JPanel(); formPanel.setLayout(new GridLayout(4, 2)); firstName = new JTextField(20); lastName = new JTextField(20); telephone = new JTextField(20); email = new JTextField(20); JLabel firstNameLabel = new JLabel("First Name: ", JLabel.LEFT); formPanel.add(firstNameLabel); formPanel.add(firstName); JLabel lastNameLabel = new JLabel("Last Name: ", JLabel.LEFT); formPanel.add(lastNameLabel); formPanel.add(lastName); JLabel telephoneLabel = new JLabel("Telephone: ", JLabel.LEFT); formPanel.add(telephoneLabel); formPanel.add(telephone); JLabel emailLabel = new JLabel("Email: ", JLabel.LEFT); formPanel.add(emailLabel); formPanel.add(email); add(formPanel); // create button panel JPanel buttonPanel = new JPanel(); JButton insertButton = new JButton("Insert"); JButton displayButton = new JButton("Display"); ActionListener insertAction = new AddressBookListener(); ActionListener displayAction = new AddressBookListener(); insertButton.addActionListener(insertAction); displayButton.addActionListener(displayAction); buttonPanel.add(insertButton); buttonPanel.add(displayButton); add(buttonPanel); } public static int getTotalContacts() { return addressList.size(); } //void addContact(Person contact); private JTextField firstName; private JTextField lastName; private JTextField telephone; private JTextField email; private JLabel contacts; private static List<Person> addressList = new ArrayList<Person>(); private class AddressBookListener implements ActionListener { public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) { String buttonPressed = e.getActionCommand(); System.out.println(buttonPressed); if (buttonPressed == "Insert") { Person aPerson = new Person(firstName.getText(), lastName.getText(), telephone.getText(), email.getText()); addressList.add(aPerson); } else { for (Person p : addressList) { System.out.println(p); } } } } } My other question is why do I get the error, "int cannot be dereferenced contactsLabel.setText(AddressbookForm.getTotalContacts().toString()); Thanks!

    Read the article

  • .NET Reflector and getters/setters issue

    - by Humberto
    I'm using an up-to-date .NET Reflector to disassemble an internal legacy app whose source code is almost impossible to recover. I need to find the cause of a nasty bug, and then possibly patch it. Reflector did a good job as usual in the re-creation of the project's structure, but soon I discovered that every property call was left "expanded" to its get_() and set_() method signatures, rendering the source code impossible to compile. A quick Visual Studio "Search/Replace" with regex solved these cases, but it's awkward. Is there a way to make Reflector behave correctly?

    Read the article

  • Java language convention; getters/setters

    - by Skogen
    Public class Example { private int number; public Example(int number){ this.number = number; } public int getNumber(){ return number; } public void setNumber(int number){ this.number = number; } public static void main(String[] args){ Example e = new Example(5); What is preffered when accessing a variable within its own class; "e.number" or "e.getNumber()" ?

    Read the article

  • Using setters On Int?

    - by fuzzygoat
    Just curious, given: unsigned int pulseCounter_001; @property(nonatomic, assign)unsigned int pulseCounter_001; @synthesize pulseCounter_001; Is there any reason to use: [self setPulseCounter_001:0]; Or just use: pulseCounter_001 = 0; Style wise I think the latter says "we are setting an int" better, just curious as to any overheads involved in each? gary

    Read the article

  • Packages name conflicting with getters and setters?

    - by MrKishi
    Hello, folks. So, I've came across this compilation error a while ago.. As there's an easy fix and I didn't find anything relevant at the time, I eventually let it go. I just remembered it and I'm now wondering if this is really part of the language grammar (which I highly doubt) or if it's a compiler bug. I'm being purely curious about this -- it doesn't really affect development, but it would be nice to see if any of you have seen this already. package view { import flash.display.Sprite; public class Main extends Sprite { private var _view:Sprite = new Sprite(); public function Main() { this.test(); } private function test():void { trace(this.view.x, this.view.y); //1178: Attempted access of inaccessible property x through a reference with static type view:Main. //1178: Attempted access of inaccessible property y through a reference with static type view:Main. //Note that I got this due to the package name. //It runs just fine if I rename the package or getter. } public function get view():Sprite { return this._view; } } }

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET C# Application Object Getters and Setters

    - by kellax
    I have had a hard time finiding a newbie friendly example of accessing Application Object. I have few things ( arrays ) i would like to store in Application Object to keep as persistant data for about 2h till AppRecycle Anyhow i know how to set an Application Object variable this way: // One way String[] users = new String[1000]; Application["users"] = users; // Another way Application.Add("users", users); However i do not know how to access these variables once in Application Object there is a Getter method Get however it requires int index and other one Contents which get's everything. Here i try to retrive my String[] array but gives me a error that i am trying to convert Object to String. String[] usersTable = Application["users"]; // Since this is an object i also tried Application.users but gives error

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >