Related
First off, I have read through a list of postings on this topic and I don't feel I have grasped properties because of what I had come to understand about encapsulation and field modifiers (private, public..ect).
One of the main aspects of C# that I have come to learn is the importance of data protection within your code by the use of encapsulation. I 'thought' I understood that to be because of the ability of the use of the modifiers (private, public, internal, protected). However, after learning about properties I am sort of torn in understanding not only properties uses, but the overall importance/ability of data protection (what I understood as encapsulation) within C#.
To be more specific, everything I have read when I got to properties in C# is that you should try to use them in place of fields when you can because of:
1) they allow you to change the data type when you can't when directly accessing the field directly.
2) they add a level of protection to data access
However, from what I 'thought' I had come to know about the use of field modifiers did #2, it seemed to me that properties just generated additional code unless you had some reason to change the type (#1) - because you are (more or less) creating hidden methods to access fields as opposed to directly.
Then there is the whole modifiers being able to be added to Properties which further complicates my understanding for the need of properties to access data.
I have read a number of chapters from different writers on "properties" and none have really explained a good understanding of properties vs. fields vs. encapsulation (and good programming methods).
Can someone explain:
1) why I would want to use properties instead of fields (especially when it appears I am just adding additional code
2) any tips on recognizing the use of properties and not seeing them as simply methods (with the exception of the get;set being apparent) when tracing other peoples code?
3) Any general rules of thumb when it comes to good programming methods in relation to when to use what?
Thanks and sorry for the long post - I didn't want to just ask a question that has been asked 100x without explaining why I am asking it again.
1) why I would want to use properties
instead of fields (especially when it
appears I am just adding additional
code
You should always use properties where possible. They abstract direct access to the field (which is created for you if you don't create one). Even if the property does nothing other than setting a value, it can protect you later on. Changing a field to a property later is a breaking change, so if you have a public field and want to change it to a public property, you have to recompile all code which originally accessed that field.
2) any tips on recognizing the use of
properties and not seeing them as
simply methods (with the exception of
the get;set being apparent) when
tracing other peoples code?
I'm not totally certain what you are asking, but when tracing over someone else's code, you should always assume that the property is doing something other than just getting and setting a value. Although it's accepted practice to not put large amounts of code in getters and setter, you can't just assume that since it's a property it will behave quickly.
3) Any general rules of thumb when it
comes to good programming methods in
relation to when to use what?
I always use properties to get and set methods where possible. That way I can add code later if I need to check that the value is within certain bounds, not null etc. Without using properties, I have to go back and put those checks in every place I directly accessed the field.
One of the nice things about Properties is that the getter and the setter can have different levels of access. Consider this:
public class MyClass {
public string MyString { get; private set; }
//...other code
}
This property can only be changed from within, say in a constructor. Have a read up on Dependency Injection. Constructor injection and Property injection both deal with setting properties from some form of external configuration. There are many frameworks out there. If you delve into some of these you will get a good feel for properties and their use. Dependency injection will also help you with your 3rd question about good practice.
When looking at other people's code, you can tell whether something is a method or a property because their icons are different. Also, in Intellisence, the first part of a property's summary is the word Property.
You should not worry about the extra code needed for accessing fields via properties, it will be "optimized" away by the JIT compiler (by inlining the code). Except when it is too large to be inlined, but then you needed the extra code anyway.
And the extra code for defining simple properties is also minimal:
public int MyProp { get; set; } // use auto generated field.
When you need to customize you can alway define your own field later.
So you are left with the extra layer of encapsulation / data protection, and that is a good thing.
My rule: expose fields always through properties
While I absolutely dislike directly exposing fields to the public, there's another thing: Fields can't be exposed through Interfaces; Properties can.
There are several reasons why you might want to use Properties over Fields, here are just a couple:
a. By having the following
public string MyProperty { get; private set; }
you are making the property "read only". No one using your code can modify it's value. There are cases where this isn't strictly true (if your property is a list), but these are known and have solutions.
b. If you decide you need to increase the safety of your code use properties:
public string MyProperty
{
get { return _myField; }
set
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(value))
{
_myField = value;
}
}
}
You can tell they're properties because they don't have (). The compiler will tell you if you try to add brackets.
It's considered good practise to always use properties.
There are many scenarios where using a simple field would not cause damage, but
a Property can be changed more easily later, i.e. if you want to add an event whenever the value changes or want to perform some value/range checking.
Also, If you have several projects that depend on each other you have to recompile all that depend on the one where a field was changed to a property.
Using fields is usually practiced in private classes that is not intended to share data with other classes, When we want our data to be accessible by other classes we use properties which has the ability to share data with other classes through get and set which are access methods called Auto Properties that have access to data in private classes, also you can use both with access modifiers Full Property in the same class allowing the class to use data privately as data field and in the same time link the private field to a property that makes the data accessible to other classes as well, see this simple example:
private string _name;
public string Name
{
get
{
return _name;
}
set
{
_name = value;
}
}
The private string _name is used by the class only, while the Name property is accessible by other classes in the same namespace.
why I would want to use properties instead of fields (especially when it appears I am just adding additional code
You want to use properties over fields becuase, when you use properties you can use events with them, so in a case when you want to do some action when a property changes, you can bind some handlers to PropertyChanging or PropertyChanged events. In case of fields this is not possible. Fields can either be public or private or protected, in case of props you can make them read-only publicly but writable privately.
any tips on recognizing the use of properties and not seeing them as simply methods (with the exception of the get;set being apparent) when tracing other peoples code?
A method should be used when the return value is expected to be dynamic every-time you call, a property should be used when the return value is not that greatly dynamic.
Any general rules of thumb when it comes to good programming methods in relation to when to use what?
Yes, I strongly recommend to read Framework Design guidelines for best practices of good programming.
Properties are the preferred way to cover fields to enforce encapsulation. However, they are functional in that you can expose a property that is of a different type and marshal the casting; you can change access modifiers; they are used in WinForms data binding; they allow you to embed lightweight per-property logic such as change notifications; etc.
When looking at other peoples code, properties have different intellisense icons to methods.
If you think properties are just extra code, I would argue sticking with them anyway but make your life easier by auto-generating the property from the field (right-click -> Refactor -> Encapsulate Field...)
Properties allow you to do things other than set or get a value when you use them. Most notably, they allow you to do validation logic.
A Best Practice is to make anything exposed to the public a Property. That way, if you change the set/get logic at a later time, you only have to recompile your class, not every class linked against it.
One caveat is that things like "Threading.Interlocked.Increment" can work with fields, but cannot work with properties. If two threads simultaneously call Threading.Interlocked.Increment on SomeObject.LongIntegerField, the value will get increased by two even if there is no other locking. By contrast, if two threads simultaneously call Threading.Interlocked.Increment on SomeObject.LongIntegerProperty, the value of that property might get incremented by two, or by one, or by -4,294,967,295, or who knows what other values (the property could be written to use locking prevent values other than one or two in that scenario, but it could not be written to ensure the correct increment by two).
I was going to say Properties (setters) are a great place to raise events like NotifyPropertyChanged, but someone else beat me to it.
Another good reason to consider Properties: let's say you use a factory to construct some object that has a default constructor, and you prepare the object via its Properties.
new foo(){Prop1 = "bar", Prop2 = 33, ...};
But if outside users new up your object, maybe there are some properties that you want them to see as read-only and not be able to set (only the factory should be able to set them)? You can make the setters internal - this only works, of course, if the object's class is in the same assembly as the factory.
There are other ways to achieve this goal but using Properties and varying accessor visibility is a good one to consider if you're doing interface-based development, or if you expose libraries to others, etc.
what I mean by that is:
I basically have a class that has too many properties and functions now. To remain performant and understandable, it needs to shrink somehow. But I still need all those properties and methods somewhere.
It's like this right now:
class Apple
float seedCount;
...
...about 25 variables and properties here.
void Update() <-- a huge method that checks for each property and updates if so
In most cases the class needs almost none of those properties. In some cases in needs to be able to grow very selectively and gain a feature or lose a feature.
The only solution I have come up with, is that I create a bunch of classes and place some properties in there. I only initialize this classes object when one of those properties is needed, otherwise it remains null.
class Apple
Seed seed;
Many problems because of that:
I constantly have to check for every single object and feature each frame. If the seed is not initialized I don't have to calculate anything for it. If it is, I have to.
If I decided to put more than 1 property/feature into the Seed class, I need to check every single one of those aswell.
It just gets more and more complicated. The problem I have is therefore, that I need granular control over all the features and can't split them intelligently into larger subclasses. Any form of subclass would just contain a bunch of properties that need to be checked and updated if wanted.
I can't exactly create subclasses of Apple, because of the need for such high granular control. It would be madness to create as many classes as there are combinations of properties.
My main goal: I want short code.
It would be madness to create as many classes as there are combinations of properties.
Sounds like you might be looking for the Decorator Pattern. It's purpose is to make it easier to manage objects that can have many different combinations of properties without an exponentially growing heirarchy. You just have one small subclass for each property or behavior (not necessarily one C# property, just something you can group together) and then you can compose them together at runtime.
In your case, each Apple decorator class will override your Update method, and make the calculations necessary for its parts, and then call base.Update to pass it to the next in line.
Your final answer will heavily depend on exactly what your "Apple" really is.
After reviewing your comments and samples in my other answer, I've thought about the Decorator pattern and how it was being used vs how you want things to work. I've come to the conclusion that Decorator is not right for this purpose. I'm thinking Strategy instead. I have modified the previous sample code for you to take a look at.
I've gotten rid of the decorators altogether. The Broodfather abstract class remains. It has two additional properties an IBroodfatherMagicAbility and an IBroodfatherBloodthirstAbility. This two properties will allow you to access the different attributes that pertain to those abilities, however the key to this all is that the strategy for implementing the abilities can change at runtime (see Strategy pattern).
There are two classes each that implement a "strategy" for both bloodthrist and magic.
IBroodfatherBloodthirstAbility.cs - this is the interface that all "bloodthirst strategies" must implement.
BroodfatherNonBloodThristy.cs - class that implements the attributes for non-bloodthirsty.
BroodfatherBloodThristy.cs - class that implements the attributes for bloodthirsty.
IBroodfatherMagicAbility.cs - this is the interface that all "magical strategies" must implement.
BroodfatherNonMagical.cs - class that implements a strategy for non-magical.
BroodfatherMagical.cs - class that implements a strategy for magical.
BasicBroodfather.cs - this is similar to the previous example, except that now when an instance is created the magic and bloodthrist properties get set to new instances of the non-magical and non-bloodthristy strategy objects.
Program.cs is the driver that shows the classes and how the different strategies can get swapped in and out at runtime.
I think you'll find that more suited to how you wanted things to work.
you may use a nested class in Apple class
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173120(VS.80).aspx
I think the key thing here is that you are trying to hold everything in one class. Because of that, the class must be constantly checking what it has and what it doesn't. The solution is to create subclasses or decorators that already know whether or not they have a particular thing. Then they don't have to be checking it each time.
Because you have so many properties which may be combined in different ways, it sounds like the decorator solution is more up your alley.
I think you're in the right path: composition. You compose your class with the other classes that are needed. But you also need to delegate responsibility accordingly. In your example, it's the Seed class that should be responsible for checking it's internal state, and Apple just delegates to it.
As for the optional features problem, maybe you can use null objects instead of null references. This way, you don't need to check for null everytime, and the code is more consistent.
I've been pondering this question for a bit and I've come up with an alternate solution. This may be a bit unorthodox and anti-object oriented, but if you're not faint of heart read on...
Building upon the Apple example: the Apple class can contain many properties, these properties which could be categorized into related groups. For the example I rolled with an Apple class with some properties related to the apple's seeds and others related to the apple's skin.
Apple
a. Seed
a1. GetSeedCount
a2. ...
b. Skin
b1. GetSkinColor
b2. ...
I'm using a dictionary object to store all the apples properties.
I wrote extension methods to define accessors to the properties, using different classes to keep them separate and organized.
By using a dictionary for the properties, you can iterate through all properties stored thusfar at any point (if you have to check all of them, as it sounded like you needed in your update method). Unfortunately you lose strong typing of the data (at least in my sample I did because I'm using a Dictionary< string, string>. You could have separate dictionaries for every type needed, but that would require more plumbing code to route the property access to the correct dictionary.
Using extension methods to define accessors to the properties allows you to separate the code for each logical categories of properties. This keeps things organized into separate chunks of related logic.
Here is a sample I came up with to test how this would work, given with the standard warning that if you were to continue down this path robustification would be in order (validation, error handling, etc.).
Apple.cs
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Text;
public class Apple
{
// Define the set of valid properties for all apple objects.
private static HashSet<string> AllowedProperties = new HashSet<string>(
new string [] {
"Color",
"SeedCount"
});
// The main store for all properties
private Dictionary<string, string> Properties = new Dictionary<string, string>();
// Indexer for accessing properties
// Access via the indexer should be restricted to the extension methods!
// Unfortunately can't enforce this by making it private because then extension methods wouldn't be able to use it as they are now.
public string this[string prop]
{
get
{
if (!AllowedProperties.Contains(prop))
{
// throw exception
}
if (Properties.ContainsKey(prop))
{
return this.Properties[prop];
}
else
{
// TODO throw 'property unitialized' exeception || lookup & return default value for this property || etc.
// this return is here just to make the sample runable
return "0";
}
}
set
{
if (!AllowedProperties.Contains(prop))
{
// TODO throw 'invalid property' exception
// these assignments are here just to make the sample runable
prop = "INVALID";
value = "0";
}
this.Properties[prop] = value.ToString();
}
}
public override string ToString()
{
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
foreach (var kv in this.Properties)
{
sb.AppendFormat("{0}={1}\n", kv.Key, kv.Value);
}
return sb.ToString();
}
}
}
AppleExtensions.cs
namespace AppleExtensionMethods
{
using System;
using ConsoleApplication1;
// Accessors for Seed Properties
public static class Seed
{
public static float GetSeedCount(this Apple apple)
{
return Convert.ToSingle(apple["SeedCount"]);
}
public static void SetSeedCount(this Apple apple, string count)
{
apple["SeedCount"] = count;
}
}
// Accessors for Skin Properties
public static class Skin
{
public static string GetSkinColor(this Apple apple)
{
return apple["Color"];
}
public static void SetSkinColor(this Apple apple, string color)
{
apple["Color"] = ValidSkinColorOrDefault(apple, color);
}
private static string ValidSkinColorOrDefault(this Apple apple, string color)
{
switch (color.ToLower())
{
case "red":
return color;
case "green":
return color;
default:
return "rotten brown";
}
}
}
}
Here is a test drive:
Program.cs
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
using System;
using AppleExtensionMethods;
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Apple apple = new Apple();
apple.SetSkinColor("Red");
apple.SetSeedCount("8");
Console.WriteLine("My apple is {0} and has {1} seed(s)\r\n", apple.GetSkinColor(), apple.GetSeedCount());
apple.SetSkinColor("green");
apple.SetSeedCount("4");
Console.WriteLine("Now my apple is {0} and has {1} seed(s)\r\n", apple.GetSkinColor(), apple.GetSeedCount());
apple.SetSkinColor("blue");
apple.SetSeedCount("0");
Console.WriteLine("Now my apple is {0} and has {1} seed(s)\r\n", apple.GetSkinColor(), apple.GetSeedCount());
apple.SetSkinColor("yellow");
apple.SetSeedCount("15");
Console.WriteLine(apple.ToString());
// Unfortunatly there is nothing stopping users of the class from doing something like that shown below.
// This would be bad because it bypasses any behavior that you have defined in the get/set functions defined
// as extension methods.
// One thing in your favor here is it is inconvenient for user of the class to find the valid property names as
// they'd have to go look at the apple class. It's much easier (from a lazy programmer standpoint) to use the
// extension methods as they show up in intellisense :) However, relying on lazy programming does not a contract make.
// There would have to be an agreed upon contract at the user of the class level that states,
// "I will never use the indexer and always use the extension methods!"
apple["Color"] = "don't panic";
apple["SeedCount"] = "on second thought...";
Console.WriteLine(apple.ToString());
}
}
}
Addressing your comment from 7/11 (the date, not the store) :)
In the sample code you provided, there is a comment that states:
"As you can see, I can't call
BasicBroodmother methods on "monster"
You realize you could do something like this at that point:
BasicBroodmother bm = monster as BasicBroodmother;
if (bm != null)
{
bm.Eat();
}
There isn't much meat to your code, (I understand it was just an example), but when I look at it I get the feeling that you should be able to improve the design. My immediate thought was having an abstract class for broodmother which would contain default implementations of any attributes/actions that are common to all broodmothers. Then specialized broodmothers, like the magical broodmother, would contain any specialized attributes/actions specific to the magical broodmother, but also inherit from the abstract class and if necessary override the nessecary base attributes/actions.
I would take a look at the Strategy pattern for the design of the actions so that the actions (i.e. behaviours like eat, spawn, attack) can be swappable based the type of monster.
[edit 7/13]
Don't have time to go into details right now (need sleep), but I put together some sample code showing a different approach.
The code consists of:
Broodfather.cs - abstract class filled with all things common to different Broodfathers "types."
BasicBroodFather.cs - concrete class that inherits from Broodfather.
BroodfatherDecorator.cs - abstract class to be inherited by all Broodfather decorators.
MagicalBroodfather.cs - this class decorates/wraps a Broodfather with "magic"
BloodthirstyBroodfather.cs - this class decorates/wraps a Broodfather with "bloodthirst"
program.cs - demonstrates two examples: The first starts with a basic broodfather that gets wrapped by magic then by bloodthirst. The second starts with a basic broodfather and wraps it in the other order bloodthirst, then magic.
Maybe your methods are not were they are supposed to be?
If you separated the Seed class from the Apple class, why don't you move the methods that use the Seed information to the Seed class too?
If those methods need information on other Apple properties, you can pass it as a parameter.
By doing this, I guess you can eliminate the initialization checks...
This is a great book about how to solve this kind of problem:
Refactoring
My main goal: I want short code.
Options:
Rewrite all functions as static and create a class for each one.
Rewrite your codebase in Perl.
Remove all comments.
I'm fairly new to C#, and I think properties are a wonderful thing. So wonderful, in fact, that I can't see any real advantage to using fields, instead. Even for private fields, it seems like the flexibility and modularity that properties offer can at best save you serious headaches, and at worst have no effect at all.
The only advantage I can see for fields is that you can initialize them inline. But most of the time, you want to initialize them in the constructor, anyway. If you aren't using inline initialization, is there any reason not to use properties all the time?
Edit: Some people have brought up the need to back up properties with fields (either explicitly or automatically). Let clarify my question: Is there any reason to use fields except to back up properties? I.e., is there any time that SomeType someField; is preferable to SomeType SomeProperty { get; set; }?
Edit 2: DanM, Skurmedel, and Seth all gave really useful answers. I've accepted DanM's, as it is the most complete, but if someone were to summarize their responses into a single answer, I'd be happy to accept it.
Typically, properties need a backing field unless they are simple getter/setter "automatic properties".
So, if you're just doing...
public string Name { get; set; } // automatic property
...you don't need a field, and I agree, no reason to have one.
However, if you're doing...
public string Name
{
get { return _name; }
set
{
if (value = _name) return;
_name = value;
OnPropertyChange("Name");
}
}
...you need that _name backing field.
For private variables that don't require any special get/set logic, it's really a judgment call whether to do a private automatic property or just a field. I usually do a field, then, if I need it to be protected or public, I will change it to an automatic property.
Update
As noted by Yassir, if you use automatic properties, there's still a field lurking behind the scenes, it's just not something you actually have to type out. So, the bottom line is: properties don't store data, they provide access to data. Fields are what actually hold the data. So, you need them even if you can't see them.
Update 2
Regarding your revised question...
is there any time that SomeType someField; is preferable to SomeType SomeProperty { get; set; }?
...one thing that comes to mind: If you have a private field, and (according to convention for private fields) you call it _name, that signals to you and anyone reading your code that you are working directly with private data. If, on the other hand, you make everything a property, and (according to convention for properties) call your private property Name, now you can't just look at the variable and tell that it is private data. So, using only properties strips away some information. I haven't tried working with all properties to gauge whether that is crucial information, but something is definitely lost.
Another thing, more minor, is that public string Name { get; set; } requires more typing (and is a little messier) than private string _name.
Just try using a Property when using ref/out args:
someObject.SomeMethod(ref otherObject.SomeProperty);
It won't compile.
Properties are a wonderful thing -- but there is overhead associated with property access. Not necessarily a problem, but something to be aware of.
Avoiding Overuse of Property Getters and Setters
Most people don't realize that property getters and setters are similar to methods when it comes to overhead; it's mainly syntax that differentiates them. A non-virtual property getter or setter that contains no instructions other than the field access will be inlined by the compiler, but in many other cases, this isn't possible. You should carefully consider your use of properties; from inside a class, access fields directly (if possible), and never blindly call properties repeatedly without storing the value in a variable. All that said, this doesn't mean that you should use public fields!
Source: http://dotnet.sys-con.com/node/46342
If you want to have something readonly you pretty much have to use a field as there is no way to tell an automatic property to generate a read-only field.
I do this quite often.
Contrived example:
class Rectangle
{
private readonly int _width;
private readonly int _height;
public Rectangle(int width, int height)
{
_width = width;
_height = height;
}
public int Width { get { return _width; } }
public int Height { get { return _height; } }
}
This means nothing inside of Rectangle can alter the width or height after construction. If one tries to the compiler will complain.
If I instead had used an automatic property with a private setter the compiler wouldn't protect me from myself.
Another reason I see is, if a piece of data doesn't have to be exposed (stay private) why make it a property?
While I agree with what I perceive as the "intent" in David Basarab's statement : "There is no reason to publicly expose fields," I'd like to add a slightly different emphasis :
I'd modify the quote from David above to read : "There is no reason to publicly expose fields ... outside a class ... except through the conscious choice of encapsulating the fields in Properties through which access is rigorously controlled.
Properties are not simply a "veneer" of syntax over Fields "tacked onto" C# : they are a fundamental language feature designed for good reasons including :
controlling what is exposed and not exposed outside classes (encapsulation, data hiding)
allowing certain actions to be performed when a Property is accessed or set : actions that are best expressed in the Property 'get and 'set, rather than being "elevated" to externally defined methods.
Interfaces by design cannot define 'fields : but can define Properties.
Good OO Design means making conscious choices about "state" :
local variable fields : what state is private to a method and transient : local variables typically only valid within the scope of a method body, or even with as "narrow a lifespan" as within the scope of something like a 'for loop. Of course you can regard parameter variables in a method as "local" also.
class instance fields : what state is private to a class, and has independent existence for each instance of a class, but is most likely required to be used in several places in the class.
static instance fields : what state will be a property of the class only, independent of the number of instances of the class.
state deliberately and consciously exposed "outside" the class : the key idea being that there is at least one level of indirection interposed between the class and "consumers" of the data the class exposes. The "flip side" of "exposure" is, of course, the conscious intention of hiding (encapsulating, isolating) implementation code.
a. via public properties : all aspects of this well-covered in all the other answers here
b. via indexers
c. via methods
d. public static variables are usually found in utility classes, which are often static classes.
Suggest you review : MSDN on 'Fields ... MSDN on Properties ... MSDN on Indexers
I don't see why you'd use private autoproperties. What advantage is there to
private int Count {get; set;}
over
private int count
Fields and properties are not interchangeable. I guess what you're saying is accessing private fields through private properties. I do this when it makes sense but for the most part, it's not necessary. The JIT optimizer will inline access to a private field through a private property in most cases anyway. And wrapping a private field in a private property is not considered a breaking change anyway since private members are not a part of your interface.
Personally, I would never expose any protected/public instance fields. It's generally acceptable though to expose a public static field with a readonly modifier as long as the field type is itself immutable. This is often seen with SomeStruct.Empty static fields.
As others have noted, you will need a private backing field for properties anyway.
Also there is a speed advantage in using fields over properties. In 99.99 % of the cases it won't matter. But in some it might.
Fields are the only place you can store state. Properties are actually just a pair of methods with special syntax that allows them to be mapped to the get or set method depending on how they're being used: if a property modifies or accesses state, that state still has to be stored in a field.
You don't always see the fields. With C# 3 automatic properties, the field is created for you by the compiler. But it's still there. Furthermore, automatic properties have some significant limitations (e.g. no INotifyPropertyChanged support, no business logic in setters) that mean they're often inappropriate, and you need to create an explicit field and a manually defined property anyway.
As per David's answer, you're right if you're talking about an API: you almost never want to make the internal state (fields) part of the API.
The syntax for fields is a lot quicker to write than for properties, so when it's safe to use a field (private to the class) why not use it and save that extra typing? If auto-implemented properties had the nice short concise syntax and you had to do extra work to make a plain old field, people might just start use properties instead. Also, it's a convention now in C#. That's how people think, and it's what they expect to see in code. If you do something different form the normal, you will confuse everyone.
But you could ask why the syntax for fields doesn't create an auto-implemented property instead of a field, so you get the best of both worlds - properties everywhere and a concise syntax.
There's a very simple reason why we still need to have explicit fields:
C# 1.0 didn't have all these nice features that we have now, so fields were a fact of life - you couldn't really live without them. Lots and lots of code relies on fields and properties being visibly different things. It simply cannot be changed now without breaking tons of code.
I would suspect also that there are performance implications, but perhaps that can be solved by the jitter.
So we're stuck with fields forever, and since they're there and they've taken the best syntax, it makes sense to use them when it's safe to do so.
There is no reason to publicly expose fields.
If you public expose a field you can't change the source of the information, from inline defination to configuration file without refactoring.\
You could use a field to hide internal data. I rarely favor that, I only use fields when I am doing something to hide publicly and using it in a property. (i.e. I am not using Automatic property generation)
Speed. If a field gets set or read billions of times over the course of a simulation then you want to use a field and not a property to avoid the overhead och a sub routine call. Conforming to OO (DDD?) as far as possible, in these instances, I'd recommend resorting to fields only in class dedicated to representing some sort of "value" like person. Logic should be kept to a minimum. Rather, have a personcreator or a personservicer.
But if you have these issues then you're probably not programming c++ and not c#, aren't you?
There are several good (partial) answers by #Seth (fields perform better, so in a private context you might as well use that to your benefit when it makes sense), #Skurmedel (fields can be readonly), #Jenk (fields can be used for ref/out). But I'd like to add one more:
You can use the streamlined initialization syntax for setting the value of a field, but not a property. i.e.:
private int x = 7;
vs
private int x { get; set; }
// This must go in the constructor, sometimes forcing you to create
// a constructor that has no other purpose.
x = 7;
Seen a few examples of code where this happens:
public class Foo
{
string[] m_workID;
public string[] WorkID
{
get
{
return m_workID;
}
private set
{
m_workID = value;
}
}
}
What's the point of this?
Since the use m_workID unnescessary.
In general, the point is to separate implementation (the field) from API (the property).
Later on you can, should you wish, put logic, logging etc in the property without breaking either source or binary compatibility - but more importantly you're saying what your type is willing to do, rather than how it's going to do it.
I have an article giving more benefits of using properties instead of public fields.
In C# 3 you can make all of this a lot simpler with automatically implemented properties:
public class Foo
{
public string[] WorkID { get; private set; }
}
At that point you still have a public getter and a private setter, but the backing field (and property implementation) is generated for you behind the scenes. At any point you can change this to a "normal" fully-implemented property with a backing field, and you'll still have binary and source compatibility. (Compatibility of serialized objects is a different matter, mind you.)
Additionally, in this case you can't mirror the behaviour you want (the ability to read the value publicly but write it privately) with a field - you could have a readonly field, but then you could only write to it within the constructor. Personally I wish there were a similar shorthand for this:
public class Foo
{
private readonly int id;
public int Id { get { return id; } }
...
}
as I like immutable types, but that's a different matter.
In another different matter, it's generally not a good idea to expose arrays like this anyway - even though callers can't change which array WorkID refers to, they can change the contents of the array, which is probably not what you want.
In the example you've given you could get away without the property setter, just setting the field directly within the same class, but it would mean that if you ever wanted to add logging etc you'd have to find all those writes.
A property by itself doesn't provide anywhere to put the data - you need the field (m_workID) for storage, but it entirely correct to hide that behind a property for many, many reasons. In C# 3.0 you can reduce this to:
public string[] WorkID {get; private set;}
Which will do much of the same. Note that exposing an array itself may be problematic, as there is no mechanism for protecting data in an array - at least with an IList<string> you could (if needed) add extra code to sanity check things, or could make it immutable. I'm not saying this needs fixing, but it is something to watch.
In addition to the Object Oriented philosophy of data encapsulation, it helps when you need to do something every time your property is read/write.
You can have to perform a log, a validation, or any another method call later in your development.
If your property is public, you'll have to look around all your code to find and modify your code. And what if your code is used as a library by someone else ?
If your property is private with appropriate get/set methods, then you change the get/set and that's all.
You can use C# 3.0 auto properties feature to save time typing:
public class Foo
{
public string[] WorkID
{
get; private set;
}
}
In addition properties gives you lot of advantages in comparison to fields:
properties can be virtual
properties hide implementation details (not all properties are just trivial variable accessors)
properties can contain validation and logging code and raise change events
interfaces cannot contains fields but properties
A lot of times you only want to provide read access to a field. By using a property you can provide this access. As you mention you may want to perform operations before the field is accessed (lazy loading, e.g.). You have a lot of code in there that just isn't necessary anymore unless you're still working in .Net 2.0-.
I am working on some legacy code and have come across something that I'm not sure of. We have a class y that is declared inside of another class x. Class y is only ever used inside of class x but my question is why wouldn't you create a separate class file and put class y in there instead of declaring it inside of class x? Isn't this violating OOP's or is it just a matter of style since it is only ever used inside of this class. I'm refactoring some of this code and my first reaction would be to separate class y out into it's own file.
namespace Library
{
public class x
{
// methods, properties, local members of class x
class y
{
// methods, properties, local members of class y
}
}
}
You create an inner class because it is only ever used within the scope of class x and it logically fits in the factoring/architecture of class x.
Class y might also be privy to implementation details of class x that are not meant to be known to the public.
This has permissions implications. A top-level "class y" would be "internal" - however, here "y" is private to "x". This approach is helpful for implementation details (for example cache rows etc). Likewise, y has access to all private state of x.
There are also implications with generics; x<T>.y is generic "of T", inherited from the outer class. You can see this here, where Bar has full use of T - and note that any static fields of Bar are scoped per-T.
class Foo<T> {
void Test(T value) {
Bar bar = new Bar();
bar.Value = value;
}
class Bar {
public T Value { get; set; }
}
}
Often people incorrectly think they need to define Bar as Bar<T> - this is now (effectively) doubly generic - i.e. Foo<TOld, T> - where TOld is the (now unavailable) T from Foo<T>. So don't do that! Or if you want it to be doubly-generic, pick different names. Fortunately, the compiler warns you about this...
This code is fine for the exact reason that you have given - "class y is only ever used inside of class x". Those are nested types and one of the guidelines for using them is that nested types should be tightly coupled to their declaring type and must not be useful as a general purpose type. That way the nested class is inacessible to other classes, but still allows you to follow object oriented principles.
I just went through code that I am updating (and I originally wrote) and removed all nested classes. Unfortunately, I originally used the nested class outside of the class it was defined in. Moving nested classes out made a huge difference to me because I originally had bad design.
If Y is only used in X and will never be used outside of X, I'd say keep it there
I think it's ok, as long as the contained class is only used as utility. I use this sort of construct for example to define complex return types for private methods.
Let me give you an example of the use of nested classes that might clarify when this kind of architecture is appropriate. I recently needed to generate an HTML table by pulling selected columns from a data table and "pivoting" them so that rows become columns and vice versa. In my case, there were two essential operations: pivoting the data and generating some rather complex output (I was not just showing the data: each data column/table row was subject to operations for extracting title, generating image tags, setting up links, etc. thus using a SQL Pivot wasn't really right either).
After an initial attempt to create one class to do the whole thing, I recognized that much of the data/methods fell into three distinct partitions: header processing, row processing, and pivoting. Thus, I decided that a better approach would be to encapsulate the logic for "header" and "row" into separate, nested classes. This allowed me to separate the data held by each row and program the pivot operations very cleanly (calling a separate row object for each column in your data table). At the end of the pivot operations, I generated output by calling the header object and then each row object in turn to generate its output back to the main class.
Separate classes weren't appropriate because A) the nested classes did need some data from the master class and B) the processing was very specific and not useful elsewhere. Just programming one big class was simply messier due to confusion surrounding terms such as "column" and "row" which differed depending on whether you were talking about data or HTML output. Also, this was unusual work in that I was generating HTML in my business class so I wanted to pull apart the pure business logic from the UI generation. In the end, nested classes provided the perfect balance, then, of encapsulation and data sharing.
You could still refactor your class y into another file, but use a parial class. The benefit of this is that you still have one class per file and don't have the refactoring hassles of moving the declaration outside of class x.
e.g. you could have a code file: x.y.cs which would look something like
partial class X
{
class Y
{
//implementation goes here
}
}