We Keep Coding

Why can't a field itself have getters/setters like properties do?

I'm a C# beginner, so easy explanations are greatly appreciated.
I was learning about properties, and got this question: properties give custom access logic to fields, but why can't the field itself contain its getter/setter? In other words, is there a reason why we can't get rid of Example and write custom get/setters under example(field)?
I could not find other posts that answer my question.
class MyClass
{
private int example = 5;
public int Example
{
get;
private set;
}
// here, this Example property only acts as a gateway for example.
// why is it not possible for the field 'example' to contain the
// get/set?
}

Property is an interface to Class, and not always is about storing data, you can always make the variable public member and will work perfectly like property, but the property has its own main job to work as an interface for that value with other classes.
While in many cases the property just works as public parameters, it is not always meant to be used in that way.

How do properties provide encapsulation?

I started learning C#, but I don't understand how properties provide encapsulation when the set method does not do any manipulation, validation, etc. My code:
class SitePage {
private string _specialString;
public string SpecialString
{
get { return _specialString; }
set { _specialString = value; }
}}
Here, instead of using the field _specialString, we are using the property SpecialString. Basically, instead of exposing the field, we are exposing the property. Why hide the field but expose the property to the client class?

When you use the c# property, the compiler is automatically creating the the field in the background. Thus, whenever you get the property, it is using a method to retrieve the value stored in the underlying field. When you set the property, it is setting that underlying field.
Using the {get;set;} syntax is essentially a shortcut when you need a simple implementation.
The real benefit is when you need to exert control over how it gets or sets those values.
for example, you can make use of this syntax:
public SpecialString{get;private set;}
This will make it so that you can retrieve the value for the property from outside the class, but you can only set the value internally, using the class's own internal logic.
Or you could do something like this:
private string _specialString;
public string SpecialString{
get;
set{
if(value.Length < 5)
{
throw new Exception();
}
else
{
this._specialstring = value;
}
}
Or you could trigger other methods to fire when you get or set a certain property. Think of properties as a gatekeeper. You can set whatever rules you want in order to let data pass in or out.

Pretty much the idea is that you usually want to return a copy. This becomes really important when you are handling sensitive data like tax information. You don't want just anyone or anything being able to access someone's tax information directly. A lot of programs won't NEED a system like this, but is still considered good practice just because it keeps you in the habit of it.
Going through an intermediary like this ensures that everything is done deliberately, and allows you to do some error checking only changing it, but not forcing it to run locally in the file. For instance, if you had a number that should never be negative, you could include an error check for that inside of your set method, instead of having to do that everywhere you use the variable.
If you need more detail or examples, just let me know. I don't feel like I explained that very well, but I hopefully explained it well enough to give you an rough idea as to why you would code this way.

Typically, properties make up the public interface and fields are the backing data. You can also have an auto-implemented property by writing it like this:
public string SpecialString { get; set; }
This way, the compiler will build the backing field automatically.
There are other advantages to having a public property be the interface for a private backing field, like when you want to see if the value has changed and raise an event.
private string _specialString;
public string SpecialString
{
get
{
return _specialString;
}
set
{
if (_specialString != value)
{
_specialString = value;
OnValueChanged();
}
}
}

readonly class design when a non-readonly class is already in place

I have a class that upon construction, loads it's info from a database. The info is all modifiable, and then the developer can call Save() on it to make it Save that information back to the database.
I am also creating a class that will load from the database, but won't allow any updates to it. (a read only version.) My question is, should I make a separate class and inherit, or should I just update the existing object to take a readonly parameter in the constructor, or should I make a separate class entirely?
The existing class is already used in many places in the code.
Thanks.
Update:
Firstly, there's a lot of great answers here. It would be hard to accept just one. Thanks everyone.
The main problems it seems are:
Meeting expectations based on class names and inheritance structures.
Preventing unnecessary duplicate code
There seems to be a big difference between Readable and ReadOnly. A Readonly class should probably not be inherited. But a Readable class suggests that it might also gain writeability at some point.
So after much thought, here's what I'm thinking:
public class PersonTestClass
{
public static void Test()
{
ModifiablePerson mp = new ModifiablePerson();
mp.SetName("value");
ReadOnlyPerson rop = new ReadOnlyPerson();
rop.GetName();
//ReadOnlyPerson ropFmp = (ReadOnlyPerson)mp; // not allowed.
ReadOnlyPerson ropFmp = (ReadOnlyPerson)(ReadablePerson)mp;
// above is allowed at compile time (bad), not at runtime (good).
ReadablePerson rp = mp;
}
}
public class ReadablePerson
{
protected string name;
public string GetName()
{
return name;
}
}
public sealed class ReadOnlyPerson : ReadablePerson
{
}
public class ModifiablePerson : ReadablePerson
{
public void SetName(string value)
{
name = value;
}
}
Unfortunately, I don't yet know how to do this with properties (see StriplingWarrior's answer for this done with properties), but I have a feeling it will involve the protected keyword and asymmetric property access modifiers.
Also, fortunately for me, the data that is loaded from the database does not have to be turned into reference objects, rather they are simple types. This means I don't really have to worry about people modifying the members of the ReadOnlyPerson object.
Update 2:
Note, as StriplingWarrior has suggested, downcasting can lead to problems, but this is generally true as casting a Monkey to and Animal back down to a Dog can be bad. However, it seems that even though the casting is allowed at compile time, it is not actually allowed at runtime.
A wrapper class may also do the trick, but I like this better because it avoids the problem of having to deep copy the passed in object / allow the passed in object to be modified thus modifying the wrapper class.

The Liskov Substitution Principle says that you shouldn't make your read-only class inherit from your read-write class, because consuming classes would have to be aware that they can't call the Save method on it without getting an exception.
Making the writable class extend the readable class would make more sense to me, as long as there is nothing on the readable class that indicates its object can never be persisted. For example, I wouldn't call the base class a ReadOnly[Whatever], because if you have a method that takes a ReadOnlyPerson as an argument, that method would be justified in assuming that it would be impossible for anything they do to that object to have any impact on the database, which is not necessarily true if the actual instance is a WriteablePerson.
Update
I was originally assuming that in your read-only class you only wanted to prevent people calling the Save method. Based on what I'm seeing in your answer-response to your question (which should actually be an update on your question, by the way), here's a pattern you might want to follow:
public abstract class ReadablePerson
{
public ReadablePerson(string name)
{
Name = name;
}
public string Name { get; protected set; }
}
public sealed class ReadOnlyPerson : ReadablePerson
{
public ReadOnlyPerson(string name) : base(name)
{
}
}
public sealed class ModifiablePerson : ReadablePerson
{
public ModifiablePerson(string name) : base(name)
{
}
public new string Name {
get {return base.Name;}
set {base.Name = value; }
}
}
This ensures that a truly ReadOnlyPerson cannot simply be cast as a ModifiablePerson and modified. If you're willing to trust that developers won't try to down-cast arguments in this way, though, I prefer the interface-based approach in Steve and Olivier's answers.
Another option would be to make your ReadOnlyPerson just be a wrapper class for a Person object. This would necessitate more boilerplate code, but it comes in handy when you can't change the base class.
One last point, since you enjoyed learning about the Liskov Substitution Principle: By having the Person class be responsible for loading itself out of the database, you are breaking the Single-Responsibility Principle. Ideally, your Person class would have properties to represent the data that comprises a "Person," and there would be a different class (maybe a PersonRepository) that's responsible for producing a Person from the database or saving a Person to the database.
Update 2
Responding to your comments:
While you can technically answer your own question, StackOverflow is largely about getting answers from other people. That's why it won't let you accept your own answer until a certain grace period has passed. You are encouraged to refine your question and respond to comments and answers until someone has come up with an adequate solution to your initial question.
I made the ReadablePerson class abstract because it seemed like you'd only ever want to create a person that is read-only or one that is writeable. Even though both of the child classes could be considered to be a ReadablePerson, what would be the point of creating a new ReadablePerson() when you could just as easily create a new ReadOnlyPerson()? Making the class abstract requires the user to choose one of the two child classes when instantiating them.
A PersonRepository would sort of be like a factory, but the word "repository" indicates that you're actually pulling the person's information from some data source, rather than creating the person out of thin air.
In my mind, the Person class would just be a POCO, with no logic in it: just properties. The repository would be responsible for building the Person object. Rather than saying:
// This is what I think you had in mind originally
var p = new Person(personId);
... and allowing the Person object to go to the database to populate its various properties, you would say:
// This is a better separation of concerns
var p = _personRepository.GetById(personId);
The PersonRepository would then get the appropriate information out of the database and construct the Person with that data.
If you wanted to call a method that has no reason to change the person, you could protect that person from changes by converting it to a Readonly wrapper (following the pattern that the .NET libraries follow with the ReadonlyCollection<T> class). On the other hand, methods that require a writeable object could be given the Person directly:
var person = _personRepository.GetById(personId);
// Prevent GetVoteCount from changing any of the person's information
int currentVoteCount = GetVoteCount(person.AsReadOnly());
// This is allowed to modify the person. If it does, save the changes.
if(UpdatePersonDataFromLdap(person))
{
_personRepository.Save(person);
}
The benefit of using interfaces is that you're not forcing a specific class hierarchy. This will give you better flexibility in the future. For example, let's say that for the moment you write your methods like this:
GetVoteCount(ReadablePerson p);
UpdatePersonDataFromLdap(ReadWritePerson p);
... but then in two years you decide to change to the wrapper implementation. Suddenly ReadOnlyPerson is no longer a ReadablePerson, because it's a wrapper class instead of an extension of a base class. Do you change ReadablePerson to ReadOnlyPerson in all your method signatures?
Or say you decide to simplify things and just consolidate all your classes into a single Person class: now you have to change all your methods to just take Person objects. On the other hand, if you had programmed to interfaces:
GetVoteCount(IReadablePerson p);
UpdatePersonDataFromLdap(IReadWritePerson p);
... then these methods don't care what your object hierarchy looks like, as long as the objects you give them implement the interfaces they ask for. You can change your implementation hierarchy at any time without having to change these methods at all.

Definitely do not make the read-only class inherit from the writable class. Derived classes should extend and modify the capabilities of the base class; they should never take capabilities away.
You may be able to make the writable class inherit from the read-only class, but you need to do it carefully. The key question to ask is, would any consumers of the read-only class rely on the fact that it is read-only? If a consumer is counting on the values never changing, but the writable derived type is passed in and then the values are changed, that consumer could be broken.
I know it is tempting to think that because the structure of the two types (i.e. the data that they contain) is similar or identical, that one should inherit from the other. But that is often not the case. If they are being designed for significantly different use cases, they probably need to be separate classes.

A quick option might be to create an IReadablePerson (etc) interface, which contains only get properties, and does not include Save(). Then you can have your existing class implement that interface, and where you need Read-only access, have the consuming code reference the class through that interface.
In keeping with the pattern, you probably want to have a IReadWritePerson interface, as well, which would contain the setters and Save().
Edit On further thought, IWriteablePerson should probably be IReadWritePerson, since it wouldn't make much sense to have a write-only class.
Example:
public interface IReadablePerson
{
string Name { get; }
}
public interface IReadWritePerson : IReadablePerson
{
new string Name { get; set; }
void Save();
}
public class Person : IReadWritePerson
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public void Save() {}
}

The question is, "how do you want to turn a modifiable class into a read-only class by inheriting from it?"
With inheritance you can extend a class but not restrict it. Doing so by throwing exceptions would violate the Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP).
The other way round, namely deriving a modifiable class from a read-only class would be OK from this point of view; however, how do you want to turn a read-only property into a read-write property? And, moreover, is it desirable to be able to substitute a modifiable object where a read-only object is expected?
However, you can do this with interfaces
interface IReadOnly
{
int MyProperty { get; }
}
interface IModifiable : IReadOnly
{
new int MyProperty { set; }
void Save();
}
This class is assignment compatible to the IReadOnly interface as well. In read-only contexts you can access it through the IReadOnly interface.
class ModifiableClass : IModifiable
{
public int MyProperty { get; set; }
public void Save()
{
...
}
}
UPDATE
I did some further investigations on the subject.
However, there is a caveat to this, I had to add a new keyword in IModifiable and you can only access the getter either directly through the ModifiableClass or through the IReadOnly interface, but not through the IModifiable interface.
I also tried to work with two interfaces IReadOnly and IWriteOnly having only a getter or a setter respectively. You can then declare an interface inheriting from both of them and no new keyword is required in front of the property (as in IModifiable). However when you try to access the property of such an object you get the compiler error Ambiguity between 'IReadOnly.MyProperty' and 'IWriteOnly.MyProperty'.
Obviously, it is not possible to synthesize a property from separate getters and setters, as I expected.

I had the same problem to solve when creating an object for user security permissions, that in certain cases must be mutable to allow high-level users to modify security settings, but normally is read-only to store the currently logged-in user's permissions information without allowing code to modify those permissions on the fly.
The pattern I came up with was to define an interface which the mutable object implements, that has read-only property getters. The mutable implementation of that interface can then be private, allowing code that directly deals with instantiating and hydrating the object to do so, but once the object is returned out of that code (as an instance of the interface) the setters are no longer accessible.
Example:
//this is what "ordinary" code uses for read-only access to user info.
public interface IUser
{
string UserName {get;}
IEnumerable<string> PermissionStrongNames {get;}
...
}
//This class is used for editing user information.
//It does not implement the interface, and so while editable it cannot be
//easily used to "fake" an IUser for authorization
public sealed class EditableUser
{
public string UserName{get;set;}
List<SecurityGroup> Groups {get;set;}
...
}
...
//this class is nested within the class responsible for login authentication,
//which returns instances as IUsers once successfully authenticated
private sealed class AuthUser:IUser
{
private readonly EditableUser user;
public AuthUser(EditableUser mutableUser) { user = mutableUser; }
public string UserName {get{return user.UserName;}}
public IEnumerable<string> PermissionNames
{
//GetPermissions is an extension method that traverses the list of nestable Groups.
get {return user.Groups.GetPermissions().Select(p=>p.StrongName);
}
...
}
A pattern like this allows you to use code you've already created in a read-write fashion, while not allowing Joe Programmer to turn a read-only instance into a mutable one. There are a few more tricks in my actual implementation, mainly dealing with persistence of the editable object (since editing user records is a secured action, an EditableUser cannot be saved with the Repository's "normal" persistence method; it instead requires calling an overload that also takes an IUser which must have sufficient permissions).
One thing you simply must understand; if it is possible for your program to edit the records in any scope, it is possible for that ability to be abused, whether intentionally or otherwise. Regular code reviews of any usage of the mutable or immutable forms of your object will be necessary to make sure other coders aren't doing anything "clever". This pattern also isn't enough to ensure that an application used by the general public is secure; if you can write an IUser implementation, so can an attacker, so you'll need some additional way to verify that your code and not an attacker's produced a particular IUser instance, and that the instance hasn't been tampered with in the interim.

Why use private members then use public properties to set them?

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-.

C# Automatic Properties

I'm a bit confused on the point of Automatic properties in C# e.g
public string Forename{ get; set; }
I get that you are saving code by not having to declare a private variable, but what's the point of a property when you are not using any get or set logic? Why not just use
public string Forename;
I'm not sure what the difference between these 2 statements is, I always thought you used properties if you wanted additional get/set logic?

Properties can have code put into them without breaking contract, fields can't have code put into them without changing them to properties (and breaking the interface). Properties can be read only or write only, fields can't. Properties can be data bound, fields can't.

You can write
public string Forename{ get; private set; }
to get read-only properties... Still not nearly as versatile as real properties, but it's a compromise that for some works.

I'm not sure what the difference between these 2 statements is, I always thought you used properties if you wanted additional get/set logic?
In the first case, the compiler will automatically add a field for you, and wrap the property. It's basically the equivalent to doing:
private string forename;
public string Forename
{
get
{
return this.forename;
}
set
{
this.forename = value;
}
}
There are many advantages to using properties over fields. Even if you don't need some of the specific reasons, such as databinding, this helps to future-proof your API.
The main problem is that, if you make a field, but in v2 of your application, need a property, you'll break the API. By using an automatic property up front, you have the potential to change your API at any time, with no worry about source or binary compatibility issues.

It is meant that you expect to add the logic later.
If you do so and have it as property from the beginning, you will not have to rebuild the dependent code. If you change it from a variable to a property, then you will have to.

Consider looking at some related threads about Difference Between Automatic Properties and Public Fields, Fields vs Properties, Automatic Properties - Useful or Not?, Why Not to Use Public Fields.

Public data members are evil (in that the object doesn't control modification of it's own state - It becomes a global variable). Breaks encapsulation - a tenet of OOP.
Automatic properties are there to provide encapsulation and avoid drudgery of writing boiler plate code for simple properties.
public string ID { get; set;}
You can change automatic properties to non-automatic properties in the future (e.g. you have some validation in a setter for example)... and not break existing clients.
string m_ID;
public string ID
{
get { return m_ID; }
set
{
//validate value conforms to a certain pattern via a regex match
m_ID = value;
}
}
You cannot do the same with public data attributes. Changing a data attribute to a property will force existing clients to recompile before they can interact again.

When adding auto properties the compiler will add get set logic into the application, this means that if you later add to this logic, and references to your property from external libraries will still work.
If you migrated from a public variable to a property, this would be a breaking change for other libraries that reference yours - hence, why not start with an auto property? :)

For one, you can set the property to virtual and implement logic in an inheriting class.
You can also implement logic in the same class afterwards and there won't be side-effects on any code relying on the class.

Not all properties need get/set logic. If they do, you use a private variable.
For example, in a MV-something pattern, your model would not have much logic. But you can mix and match as needed.
If you were to use a field like you suggested in place of a property, you can't for example define an interface to describe your class correctly, since interfaces cannot contain data fields.

A property is like a contract, and you can change the implemenation of a property without affecting the clients using your classes and properties. You may not have any logic today, but as business requirements change and if you want to introduce any code, properties are your safest bet. The following 2 links are excellent c# video tutorials. The first one explains the need of properties over just using fields and the second video explains different types of properties. I found them very useful.
Need for the Properties in C#
Poperties in C#, Read Only, Write Only, Read/Write, Auto Implemented

Take a look at the following code and explanation.
The most common implementation for a property is getter or a setter that simply reads and writes to a private field of the same type as a property. An automatic property declaration instructs the compiler to provide this implementation. The compiler automatically generates a private backing field.
Look into the following code:-
public class Stock
{
decimal currentPrice ; // private backing field.
public decimal CurrentPrice
{
get { return currentPrice ; }
set { currentPrice = value ; }
}
}
The same code can be rewritten as :-
public class Stock
{
public decimal CurrentPrice { get ; set ; } // The compiler will auto generate a backing field.
}
SOURCE:- C# in a Nutshell