We Keep Coding

Is there any reason to use field over automatic property? [duplicate]

I just realized that the C# property construct can also be used with a private access modifier:
private string Password { get; set; }
Although this is technically interesting, I can't imagine when I would use it since a private field involves even less ceremony:
private string _password;
and I can't imagine when I would ever need to be able to internally get but not set or set but not get a private field:
private string Password { get; }
or
private string Password { set; }
but perhaps there is a use case with nested / inherited classes or perhaps where a get/set might contain logic instead of just giving back the value of the property, although I would tend to keep properties strictly simple and let explicit methods do any logic, e.g. GetEncodedPassword().
Does anyone use private properties in C# for any reason or is it just one of those technically-possible-yet-rarely-used-in-actual-code constructs?
Addendum
Nice answers, reading through them I culled these uses for private properties:
when private fields need to be lazily loaded
when private fields need extra logic or are calculated values
since private fields can be difficult to debug
in order to "present a contract to yourself"
to internally convert/simplify an exposed property as part of serialization
wrapping global variables to be used inside your class

I use them if I need to cache a value and want to lazy load it.
private string _password;
private string Password
{
get
{
if (_password == null)
{
_password = CallExpensiveOperation();
}
return _password;
}
}

The primary usage of this in my code is lazy initialization, as others have mentioned.
Another reason for private properties over fields is that private properties are much, much easier to debug than private fields. I frequently want to know things like "this field is getting set unexpectedly; who is the first caller that sets this field?" and it is way easier if you can just put a breakpoint on the setter and hit go. You can put logging in there. You can put performance metrics in there. You can put in consistency checks that run in the debug build.
Basically, it comes down to : code is far more powerful than data. Any technique that lets me write the code I need is a good one. Fields don't let you write code in them, properties do.

perhaps there is a use case with nested / inherited classes or perhaps where a get/set might contain logic instead of just giving back the value of the property
I personally use this even when I don't need logic on the getter or setter of a property. Using a property, even a private one, does help future-proof your code so that you can add the logic to a getter later, if required.
If I feel that a property may eventually require extra logic, I will sometimes wrap it into a private property instead of using a field, just so I don't have to change my code later.
In a semi-related case (though different than your question), I very frequently use the private setters on public properties:
public string Password
{
get;
private set;
}
This gives you a public getter, but keeps the setter private.

One good usage for private get only properties are calculated values. Several times I've had properties which are private readonly and just do a calculation over other fields in my type. It's not worthy of a method and not interesting to other classes so private property it is.

Lazy initialization is one place where they can be neat, e.g.
private Lazy<MyType> mytype = new Lazy<MyType>(/* expensive factory function */);
private MyType MyType { get { return this.mytype.Value; } }
// In C#6, you replace the last line with: private MyType MyType => myType.Value;
Then you can write: this.MyType everywhere rather than this.mytype.Value and encapsulate the fact that it is lazily instantiated in a single place.
One thing that's a shame is that C# doesn't support scoping the backing field to the property (i.e. declaring it inside the property definition) to hide it completely and ensure that it can only ever be accessed via the property.

The only one usage that I can think of
private bool IsPasswordSet
{
get
{
return !String.IsNullOrEmpty(_password);
}
}

Properties and fields are not one to one. A property is about the interface of a class (whether talking about its public or internal interface), while a field is about the class's implementation. Properties should not be seen as a way to just expose fields, they should be seen as a way to expose the intent and purpose of the class.
Just like you use properties to present a contract to your consumers on what constitutes your class, you can also present a contract to yourself for very similar reasons. So yes, I do use private properties when it makes sense. Sometimes a private property can hide away implementation details like lazy loading, the fact that a property is really a conglomeration of several fields and aspects, or that a property needs to be virtually instantiated with each call (think DateTime.Now). There are definitely times when it makes sense to enforce this even on yourself in the backend of the class.

I use them in serialization, with things like DataContractSerializer or protobuf-net which support this usage (XmlSerializer doesn't). It is useful if you need to simplify an object as part of serialization:
public SomeComplexType SomeProp { get;set;}
[DataMember(Order=1)]
private int SomePropProxy {
get { return SomeProp.ToInt32(); }
set { SomeProp = SomeComplexType.FromInt32(value); }
}

I use private properties to reduce code for accessing sub properties which often to use.
private double MonitorResolution
{
get { return this.Computer.Accesories.Monitor.Settings.Resolution; }
}
It is useful if there are many sub properties.

One thing I do all the time is store "global" variables/cache into HttpContext.Current
private static string SomeValue{
get{
if(HttpContext.Current.Items["MyClass:SomeValue"]==null){
HttpContext.Current.Items["MyClass:SomeValue"]="";
}
return HttpContext.Current.Items["MyClass:SomeValue"];
}
set{
HttpContext.Current.Items["MyClass:SomeValue"]=value;
}
}

I use them every now and then. They can make it easier to debug things when you can easily put in a breakpoint in the property or you can add a logging statement etc.
Can be also be useful if you later need to change the type of your data in some way or if you need to use reflection.

I know this question is very old but the information below was not in any of the current answers.
I can't imagine when I would ever need to be able to internally get but not set
If you are injecting your dependencies you may well want to have a Getter on a Property and not a setter as this would denote a readonly Property. In other words the Property can only be set in the constructor and cannot be changed by any other code within the class.
Also Visual Studio Professional will give information about a Property and not a field making it easier to see what your field is being used.

It is a common practice to only modify members with get/set methods, even private ones. Now, the logic behind this is so you know your get/set always behave in a particular way (for instance, firing off events) which doesn't seem to make sense since those won't be included in the property scheme... but old habits die hard.

It makes perfect sense when there is logic associated with the property set or get (think lazy initialization) and the property is used in a few places in the class.
If it's just a straight backing field? Nothing comes to mind as a good reason.

Well, as no one mentioned you can use it to validate data or to lock variables.
Validation
string _password;
string Password
{
get { return _password; }
set
{
// Validation logic.
if (value.Length < 8)
{
throw new Exception("Password too short!");
}
_password = value;
}
}
Locking
object _lock = new object();
object _lockedReference;
object LockedReference
{
get
{
lock (_lock)
{
return _lockedReference;
}
}
set
{
lock (_lock)
{
_lockedReference = value;
}
}
}
Note: When locking a reference you do not lock access to members of the referenced object.
Lazy reference: When lazy loading you may end up needing to do it async for which nowadays there is AsyncLazy. If you are on older versions than of the Visual Studio SDK 2015 or not using it you can also use AsyncEx's AsyncLazy.

One more usage would be to do some extra operations when setting value.
It happens in WPF in my case, when I display some info based on private object (which doesn't implement INotifyPropertyChanged):
private MyAggregateClass _mac;
private MyAggregateClass Mac
{
get => _mac;
set
{
if(value == _mac) return;
_mac = value;
PropertyChanged?.Invoke(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(nameof(DisplayInfo)));
}
}
public string DisplayInfo => _mac.SomeStringInformationToDisplayOnUI;
One could also have some private method, such as
private void SetMac(MyAggregateClass newValue)
to do that.

Some more exotic uses of explicit fields include:
you need to use ref or out with the value - perhaps because it is an Interlocked counter
it is intended to represent fundamental layout for example on a struct with explicit layout (perhaps to map to a C++ dump, or unsafe code)
historically the type has been used with BinaryFormatter with automatic field handling (changing to auto-props changes the names and thus breaks the serializer)

Various answers have mentioned using properties to implement a lazy member. And this answer discussed using properties to make live aliases. I just wanted to point out that those two concepts sometimes go together.
When using a property to make an alias of another object's public property, the laziness of that property is preserved:
[DebuggerBrowsable(DebuggerBrowsableState.Never)]
private IDbConnection Conn => foo.bar.LazyDbConnection;
On the other hand, retrieving that property in the constructor would negate the lazy aspect:
Conn = foo.bar.LazyDbConnection;

Looking into the guideline (Properties (C# Programming Guide)) it seems no one expects to use properties as private members.
Properties enable a class to expose a public way of getting and setting values, while hiding implementation or verification code.
In any case it can be interchanged by one or two methods and vice versa.
So the reason can be to spare parentheses on getting and get field syntax on setting.

Why do Attribute members need to be public?

Problem
Attempting to use the attribute
internal class FooAttribute : Attribute
{
internal string Bar { get; set; }
}
like this
[Foo(Bar = "hello world")]
public class MyOtherClass { }
(in the same assembly) yields
error CS0617: 'Bar' is not a valid named attribute argument. Named attribute arguments must be fields which are not readonly, static, or const, or read-write properties which are public and not static.
However, I can perfectly fine access Bar from "in code", e.g.
FooAttribute attribute = new FooAttribute { Bar = "hello world" };
Solution
However, if I change the attribute to
internal class FooAttribute : Attribute
{
public string Bar { get; set; }
^^^^^^
}
I can use it as intended.
Note that I only had to mark the property public - not the attribute itself as well. This "fixed" the issue, despite effectively not changing the visibility of Bar.
Why are attributes "special" in this case - why does the compiler require their fields to be public?
The documentation on the error doesn't mention why they need to be public either.

Why are attributes "special" in this case
You're identifying the wrong part of it as special. The special thing about attributes is that there is a syntax for a combination of construction and setting of public properties for an object associated with fields, classes, methods, etc.
In other words the special thing about attributes is that they are attributes!
Indeed, it's not even the attribute that is special; as you said yourself you can create an instance of the same class with an initialiser the same as you can any other. It's the attribute syntax that's special.
It has to allow the ability to call a public constructor (or construction would never be possible) and it has to allow the setting of public properties (or properties would never be set). It's noteworthy also that this predates the introduction of initialiser syntax into C#, so once upon a time it was only possible to combine construction and immediate setting of public properties in one syntactic unit in the case of attributes.
So considered thus, there's no point comparing with how things work with initialisers as they didn't exist when the relevant design decisions were being made.
So, let's just consider [Foo(Bar = "hello world")] on its own, and think about when Bar should be settable in this way.
The reasons to allow it when Bar is public should be pretty obvious.
The reasons to not allow it when Bar is private should also be pretty obvious.
When its internal there are two reasonable choices; to not allow or to allow when the attribute exists within the given assembly.
So the question then is how useful is it to have an attribute which is public (if it was internal itself we could achieve the same thing with all-public properties) and can hence be used in other assemblies but which has internal properties that can only be set in attribute use from the same assembly. If this was super-useful then it would be worth the extra work and complexity of allowing it. If it was not super-useful then better for both theory (the spec) and practice (the compiler) to not allow it.
It would seem it was not considered super-useful.

c# using field with get and set methods vs using property

What is the difference in functionality between using a field with get and set methods versus using a property to attribute a value to an object through a class? For example, when setting up a value val in a class, are there any reasons to choose one of the two classes below over the other (other than length of code written and interface compatibility):
class FieldTest
{
public FieldTest()
{
}
private string val;
public void SetVal(string temp)
{
val = temp;
}
public string GetVal()
{
return val;
}
}
Versus
class PropertyTest
{
public PropertyTest()
{
}
public string val { get; set; }
}
Tested Usage in Visual Studio 2010:
class TestFunctions
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
FieldTest Test_Fields = new FieldTest();
Test_Fields.SetVal("Test");
string temp_str = Test_Fields.GetVal();
PropertyTest Test_Property = new PropertyTest();
Test_Property.val = "test";
string temp_str_prop = Test_Property.val;
System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show("Field: " + temp_str + "\n\nProperty: " + temp_str_prop);
}
}
I know only a field can use ref and out keywords, but the other advantages usually attributed to a property--encapsulation, versioning, etc-- seem to be the same with these two setups.
I've checked articles such as Difference between Property and Field in C# 3.0+ and What is the difference between a Field and a Property in C#?. Though they give good descriptions of the ideas behind properties and fields, I have not been able to find a specific answer to my question.
Thanks in advance for clarification.
EDIT 2015-07-29:
I believe this to be a separate question from other StackOverflow answers, such as those found here, as these answers did not seem to specifically address using fields with their own get and set methods as a replacement for a property.
My statement above, "I know only a field can use ref and out keywords..." comes from answers similar to the following (found here):
      "Fields may be used for out / ref parameters, properties may not. Properties support additional
       logic – this could be used to implement lazy loading among other things."

The functionality is almost identical. For "normal" code use-cases, these snippets will act exactly the same, as a property is in effect just a hidden field with two hidden methods (get and set).
However, there is a difference when it comes to reflection. Properties show up as PropertyInfo, and methods MethodInfo. You also can only bind to properties (in WPF/WinRT). Serialization also only works against properties. Both of these (and doubtlessly others) fail because they use reflection to find the members to act against.
So depending on your use case, they are the same. Generally speaking, I would stick with properties.

In the .NET world properties are how you attribute data to objects. Methods are typically actions associated with the objects. Fields usually store internal (private) object instance state.
Under the hood, read/write property accessors get compiled to get and set methods.
Additionally, many technologies do not work with methods. Data Annotations, Entity Framework, and serialization are a few that pop instantly to mind.

I would always vote for properties rather than getter and setter.
First of all - using Property is neat and clean. The code is more clear, less junky and easy to understand.
If you use Automatic Property you just need one line of code for one Property where you need at least 6 for a getter and setter approach. So if your class has 20 attributes then total 120 lines of codes? Oh Man!!!
but the other advantages usually attributed to a property--encapsulation, versioning, etc-- seem to be the same with these two setups. => I disagree, consider a scenario where you want to force all implementation of an interface with an attribute to be readonly. That is easily doable with a readonly property in the interface. Now try that with getter and setter. Frankly you can't.
Then there comes Serialization. You cannot serialize a computed value unless that is a property. Methods are never serialized.

Let's take a look at your second code:
class PropertyTest
{
public PropertyTest()
{
}
public string val { get; set; }
}
As said in the Auto-Implemented Properties page on MSDN, when you declare an auto-implemented property like in your example, the compiler creates a private, anonymous backing field that can only be accessed through the property's get and set accessors.
In other words, it would be like writing this code:
public class PropertyTest
{
public PropertyTest()
{
}
private string _val;
public string val
{
get { return _val; }
set { val = value; }
}
}
So, properties are a way to encapsulate fields. As you can see on MSDN, too:
A property is a member that provides a flexible mechanism to read,
write, or compute the value of a private field. Properties can be used
as if they are public data members, but they are actually special
methods called accessors. This enables data to be accessed easily and
still helps promote the safety and flexibility of methods.
In my opinion, you should always prefer to use the property implementation than the getter/setter methods. Not because it seems cleaner and flexible to make things like compute values, but it is actually easier to implement (you write less code on auto-implemented properties).
We could say that there are almost no difference from the properties than the getter/setter methods too, if we look at the part where MSDN says "but they are actually special methods called accessors". But again, we have the example of brainless coder above, we have Framework behaviours that encourages us to use properties: methods can not be serialized, while properties can.

Can an AttributeClass determine the property it has been applied to [duplicate]

I'm creating a custom attribute in C# and I want to do different things based on whether the attribute is applied to a method versus a property. At first I was going to do new StackTrace().GetFrame(1).GetMethod() in my custom attribute constructor to see what method called the attribute constructor, but now I'm unsure what that will give me. What if the attribute was applied to a property? Would GetMethod() return a MethodBase instance for that property? Is there a different way of getting the member to which an attribute was applied in C#?
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Method | AttributeTargets.Property,
AllowMultiple = true)]
public class MyCustomAttribute : Attribute
Update: okay, I might have been asking the wrong question. From within a custom attribute class, how do I get the member (or the class containing the member) to which my custom attribute was applied? Aaronaught suggested against walking up the stack to find the class member to which my attribute was applied, but how else would I get this information from within the constructor of my attribute?

Attributes provide metadata and don't know anything about the thing (class, member, etc.) they are decorating. On the other hand, the thing being decorated can ask for the attributes it is decorated with.
If you must know the type of the thing being decorated you will need to explicitly pass it to your attribute in its constructor.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Method | AttributeTargets.Property,
AllowMultiple = true)]
public class MyCustomAttribute : Attribute
{
Type type;
public MyCustomAttribute(Type type)
{
this.type = type;
}
}

Since there seems to be a lot of confusion with respect to how the stack frames and methods work, here is a simple demonstration:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MyClass c = new MyClass();
c.Name = "MyTest";
Console.ReadLine();
}
class MyClass
{
private string name;
void TestMethod()
{
StackTrace st = new StackTrace();
StackFrame currentFrame = st.GetFrame(1);
MethodBase method = currentFrame.GetMethod();
Console.WriteLine(method.Name);
}
public string Name
{
get { return name; }
set
{
TestMethod();
name = value;
}
}
}
The output of this program will be:
set_Name
Properties in C# are a form of syntactic sugar. They compile down to getter and setter methods in the IL, and it's possible that some .NET languages might not even recognize them as properties - property resolution is done entirely by convention, there aren't really any rules in the IL spec.
Now, let's say for the moment that you had a really good reason for a program to want to examine its own stack (and there are precious few practical reasons to do so). Why in the world would you want it to behave differently for properties and methods?
The whole rationale behind attributes is that they are a kind of metadata. If you want a different behaviour, code it into the attribute. If an attribute can mean two different things depending on whether it's applied to a method or property - then you should have two attributes. Set the target on the first to AttributeTargets.Method and the second to AttributeTargets.Property. Simple.
But once again, walking your own stack to pick up some attributes from the calling method is dangerous at best. In a way, you are freezing your program's design, making it far more difficult for anybody to extend or refactor. This is not the way attributes are normally used. A more appropriate example, would be something like a validation attribute:
public class Customer
{
[Required]
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Then your validator code, which knows nothing about the actual entity being passed in, can do this:
public void Validate(object o)
{
Type t = o.GetType();
foreach (var prop in
t.GetProperties(BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public))
{
if (Attribute.IsDefined(prop, typeof(RequiredAttribute)))
{
object value = prop.GetValue(o, null);
if (value == null)
throw new RequiredFieldException(prop.Name);
}
}
}
In other words, you're examining the attributes of an instance that was given to you but which you don't necessarily know anything about the type of. XML attributes, Data Contract attributes, even Attribute attributes - almost all attributes in the .NET Framework are used this way, to implement some functionality that is dynamic with respect to the type of an instance but not with respect to the state of the program or what happens to be on the stack. It is very unlikely that you are actually in control of this at the point where you create the stack trace.
So I'm going to recommend again that you don't use the stack-walking approach unless you have an extremely good reason to do so which you haven't told us about yet. Otherwise you are likely to find yourself in a world of hurt.
If you absolutely must (don't say we didn't warn you), then use two attributes, one that can apply to methods and one that can apply to properties. I think you'll find that to be much easier to work with than a single super-attribute.

GetMethod will always return you the function name. If it is a property, you will get either get_PropertyName or set_PropertyName.
A property is basically a type of method, so when you implement a property, the compiler creates two separate functions in the resulting MSIL, a get_ and a a set_ methods. This is why in the stack trace you receive these names.

custom attributes are activated by some code calling the GetCustomAttributes method on the ICustomAttributeProvider (reflection object) that represents the location where the attribute is applied. So in the case of a property, some code would obtain the PropertyInfo for the property and then call GetCustomAttributes on that.
If you want to build out some validation framework you would need to write the code that inspects types & members for custom attributes. You could for example have an interface that attributes implement to participate in your validation framework. Could be as simple as the following:
public interface ICustomValidationAttribute
{
void Attach(ICustomAttributeProvider foundOn);
}
Your code could look for this inteface on (for example) a Type:
var validators = type.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(ICustomValidationAttribute), true);
foreach (ICustomValidationAttribute validator in validators)
{
validator.Attach(type);
}
(presumably you would walk the whole reflection graph and do this for each ICustomAttributeProvider). For an example of a similar approach in action in the .net FX you can look at WCF's 'behaviors' (IServiceBehavior, IOperationBehavior, etc).
Update: the .net FX does have a sort-of general purpose, but basically undocumented interception framework in the form of ContextBoundObject and ContextAttribute. You can search the web for some examples of using it for AOP.

Disadvantages of using properties only with no corresponding fields in .NET?

I have classes which have automatic properties only like public customerName {get; set;}. They are public because they are accessed outside the class. They can also be accessed inside the class. They offer good encapsulation and better debugging. I can put a breakpoint on one if I need to know who is accessing it and when.
My question is what are the disadvantages of using properties only with no corresponding fields? I can make the setter or getter private, internal.. etc which means I also have flexibility of scoping it when needed.

Serialization with BinaryFormatter - you have big problems if you need to change your property to a "regular" property later, for example to add some validation / eventing /etc - sinc BinaryFormatter uses the field names. And you can't duplicate this, since the field name the compiler generates cannot be written as legal C#.
Which is a good reason to look at a contract-based serializer instead. See this blog entry for more info.

You can't create truly read only property, because you have to define both setter and getter. You can only use private setter to achieve pseudo-readonly property from outside.
Otherwise, as said above there are no other disadvantages.

There are no disadvantages for simple properties. The compiler creates the backing field for you. This blog entry explains how the compiler treats automatically implemented properties.

Not really a disadvantage, but you have to be aware of the default values of automatic properties. With "classic" properties we always used to initialize the backing fields, e.g. like this:
private bool _flag = true;
public bool Flag
{
get { return _flag; }
set { _flag = value; }
}
This made it obvious what the default value of the property is.
With automatic properties, you have to know what the default values are for the different types (e.g. false for bool). If you don't want the property to have the default value you have to initialize it in the constructor:
class MyClass
{
public bool Flag { get; set; }
public MyClass()
{
Flag = true;
}
}
This means, you have to implement a constructor if you want to initialize your properties to non default values or if a property is of a reference type (class).
But as I wrote, I do not really think of this as a disadvantage, just something you have to know.

The thing is, there is a corresponding field. You just don't see it because the compiler creates it for you. Automatic properties are just syntactic sugar or shorthand way to create the field.

No major things. Just edge cases like where you need to pass a property to a method where the parameter is passed by reference (ref or out) which isn't possible with a property (because internally, they're just get_Property/set_Property methods implemented by the compiler, not special fields of some kind) and you would need an explicit private backing field for this.
EDIT: Oh, and seconding the 'no readonly' properties, which is actually fairly common.

If you don't need to perform any specific logic in the get and/or set accessors, there's no disadvantage...

I say that they are bad from a code readability standpoint. Syntax sugar is nice for writing code but horrible for reading code. As developers the code we leave behind will ultimately be inherited by some poor developer that will have to make sense out of what we did and what is going on in the code. I really am against changing a language to simply save keystrokes when there is an established syntax for the same constructs.