I often have a situation like this when creating simple data objects. I have a property called Label that should have a default based on the Name of the object. So if no label is set then the Name is used otherwise use the set Label. A simple example in C#
public class FooBat {
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Label {
get {
if (_label == null) return Name;
return _label;
}
set { _label = value; }
}
}
Now the problem is if you want to edit this object you can't just bind to the Label property or you will get the default value and it will look as if there is a value there when there really isn't. So what I end up doing is create another, read-only property that does the defaulting and I use that is all instances except for when the base object is being edited. This leads to many extra properties with weird names like LabelWithDefault. Another alternative I've tried is to make Label handle the defaulting and make a new property called RealLabel that is used for editing the base object. This is just as bad.
I've thought of moving the defaulting code somewhere else but I haven't found a good place for it in any "normal" model that does not replicate the defaulting code many times.
What I have started to do now is initialize the Label field when the Name field is set (and the Label field is not) and then treat the Label field as a normal field. This works but now the code for defaulting is tied to the wrong property. Why should the Name know that the Label field cares about it? So this is also not "right."
Does anyone have any better ways of handling this problem?
I think there is a little confusion about what I'm asking for. Basically I need two different views to the same object for two different uses. In the first is the editing of the object itself where I want unset fields to show as empty (unset). The second is for all other cases (including when the object is the value of a field of another object) where I want to show each field with its dynamically determined default. Just setting the default the first time doesn't no help because if the (in this case) Name field changes then the Label field must also change until the Label field is set.
The answers are getting closer but I still think that they are too targeted to the example I gave. I was trying to give a concrete example for expository purposes but in reality this is more of a best-practices issue. The example I gave was C# and for a string property but I have the same problem with most languages and systems that I use that have frameworks where the data access and data display are handled for you as well as for data types other than strings. Changing the object that is queried from the data source is possible but often tricky and knowing when to make the change (use a sublclass in this case but not in that one) is particularly difficult.
public class FooBat {
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Label {
get {
if (_label == null)
_label = Name;
return _label;
}
set { _label = value; }
}
}
Regarding your update:
You could subclass your object. The base-class would return null if the field has not been set and the sub-class would return your default value. Thus if you need to query if a value has been set, you would cast to the base-class.
Deleted previous answers/updates for brevity.
Update 2:
I would have to say the best way is to track whether the property has been set or not with an IsPropertySet bool. The Getter for the property would check that value to see if it should be returning its own value or the default value. And the setter for the property would set the IsPropertySet according to the set value (true if the value is not null, false if it is). The code that is using the class could then look at the IsPropertySet value to determine if it is receiving a set value or the default when it calls the Property's Getter.
public class FooBat {
public string Name { get; set; }
public bool IsLabelSet { get; set; }
public string Label {
get {
if (IsLabelSet)
return _label;
else
return Name;
}
set {
IsLabelSet = value != null;
_label = value;
}
}
}
I use a Nameable interface a lot (with getName()). Before I start, I'll suggest that you don't want to do this at all. It should be the domain of your display logic, not your domain objects. Usually it's the code consuming the FooBat that is able to make this decision in a better way than the object itself. That aside...
public interface Label{
string getLabel();
boolean isDefault(); //or isValued() or use instanceof expressions
}
public interface Nameable{
string getName();
}
public class FooBat implements Nameable {
public string Name { get; set; }
public Label Label {
get {
if (_label == null) {
_label = new DefaultLabel(this);
}
return _label;
}
set { _label = value; }
}
}
public class DefaultLabel implements Label{
public DefaultCharSequence(Nameable named){
this.named = named;
}
public string getLabel(){
return named.getName();
}
public boolean isDefault(){ return true; }
}
public class StringLabel implements Label {
...
}
It all essentially boils down to returning a better class for your label object.
Related
I am trying to make a property in my class. What would I need to do where once the property is initialized, it cannot be changed?
These are the actual instructions:
Create a class in the existing namespace, either in an existing code
file or in a new file, to represent the amount in pounds of dirt
sample. In this class (a) do not create constructors. (b) inherit the
sand class (to make use of the sand property). (c) add a property to
represent the sample name. This property may not be changed once
initialized. (d) add a property to represent and process assignments
the quantity of clay, with a minimum value of 0. (e) add methods to
return the weight of the sample, the percentage of sand in the sample
and the percentage of clay in the sample.
I am on part (c). I have tried to exclude setters. Then, I've tried to use readonly, but it cannot work because my class cannot have constructors.
public class AmountSand //parent class
{
public class AmountSand {
private double quantity;
public double Sand {
get {
return quantity;
}
set {
if (value >= 0) quantity = value;
}
}
}
public class AmountDirt: AmountSand { //part (b): inherited the parent class, AmountSand
private string name = null;
private double clay;
public string Name { //here is where the specific property starts
get {
return name;
}
set {
if (name == null)
name = value;
}
} //ends
public double Clay {
get {
return clay;
}
set {
if (value >= 0) clay = value;
}
}
Depends on from where you would like it to be initialized.
EDIT: sorry, i didn't read that your class could have ctors, but i'll keep this in for completeness. It seems kinda weird that your class can't have ctors. May I ask why?
From the ctor:
class MyClass
{
public MyClass()
{
Name = "Muhammed";
}
public MyClass(string newName)
{
Name = newName;
}
public string Name{get;}
}
If you'd like it to be initialized from outside the class, your code is not too far off. You could even remove the backing property. I'd use
if(string.IsNullOrEmpty(Name))
rather than comparing to null.
if you'd like it to be set from a method inside your class:
public string Name{get; private set;}
Strings are already immutable by nature, so you need to clarify what you're trying to accomplish.
However, if you simply don't want anything else to be able to set the value other than the class itself, then you can make the set accessor private.
I have some doubts on the auto-implemented property. Why do we first get, and then set the value?
What you've have posted is not an auto property.
Below is an example class that contains 1 auto property and a custom property similar to what you have done.
public class MyPropertyClass
{
public MyPropertyClass(bool affectLogic)
{
_affectLogic = affectLogic;
}
private readonly bool _affectLogic;
public string MyAutoProperty { get; set; }
private string _myPropertyWithLogic;
public string MyPropertyWithLogic
{
get
{
if (_affectLogic)
_myPropertyWithLogic = "Some value";
return _myPropertyWithLogic;
}
set
{
if (_affectLogic)
{
_myPropertyWithLogic = "Some value";
}
else
{
_myPropertyWithLogic = value;
}
}
}
}
The autoproperty "MyAutoProperty" provides a mechanism for simply getting and setting property values.
What you have posted in a standard property that allows you to perhaps manipulate or return the property value based upon certain conditions. In your post you are checking to see if the value posted in is null before setting.
If you do not need to access the property outside of the class then you do not need to have the get method. If you remove the get then you are creating a "WriteOnly" property which is bad practice.
Create a public method on the class that accepts the "Alert" value. If you dont need to access the property outside of the class then dont create a property at all.
public void SetMyProperty(string value)
{
_myPropertyWithLogic = value;
}
In C#, can you use a property without a field?
Edit for clarification:
private string _name;
public string Name
{
get { return _name; }
set { _name value; }
}
It seem's like they are always paired, is there a circumstance where we don't use the field at all?
All properties must have a field, assuming they are simple properties to store a value (*). However, the language (as of version 3.0) offers a way to declare the field implicitly. For example:
public int Value { get; set; }
That would declare a property named Value with an implicit field backing it and the getter and setter both public. You can include an accessibility keyword on either the getter or setter to restrict access to the property. For example:
public int Value { get; private set; }
In this case, only the owning type may call the setter, but any class can call the getter.
The next version of C# will have additional features for dealing with these "automatic properties", allowing you to provide a concise initialization syntax for them. For now, you have to initialize them in a constructor.
EDIT: based on your edited question, it seems worthwhile to address this specific question: "is there a circumstance where we don't use the field at all?"
The answer to that is, it's not common for no field to be involved at all. But it is possible, and it's not uncommon for a property to not use a field as storage for the property. For example, imagine a Rectangle object with an Area property:
class Rectangle
{
public double Width { get; private set; }
public double Height { get; private set; }
public double Area { get { return Width * Height; } }
}
Obviously there are fields involved (two of them), but there is not a field specifically dedicated to the Area property.
Another example would be where the property delegates. For example, in a WinForms Form subclass, it's common to expose specific control values via a property:
class MyForm : Form
{
public string EditText
{
get { return textBox1.Text; }
set { textBox1.Text = value; }
}
}
Again, the textBox1 field is being used here. But it actually represents something other than the property itself. The property is using a member of the object that field references.
I hope that clarifies the relationship between fields and properties adequately for you. Please feel free to ask for further clarifications if needed.
(*) Note that the only real rule for properties is that they have at least one of the getter or setter, and those methods can do whatever you want. I assume we are talking about simple value-based properties here.
A property is not required to have a field
public string Version
{
get
{
return "1.3.Awesome";
}
}
If you're asking what I think you are, the answer is yes, you just put get; set; inside the property declaration. C# encapsulates a variable for you.
EDIT: example
//no need for field declaration
public string Name
{
get;
set;
}
New to C#, and I understand that encapsulation is just a way of "protecting data". But I am still unclear. I thought that the point of get and set accessors were to add tests within those methods to check to see if parameters meet certain criteria, before allowing an external function to get and set anything, like this:
private string myName;
public string MyName;// this is a property, speical to c#, which sets the backing field.
private string myName = "mary";// the backing field.
public string MyName // this is a property, which sets/gets the backing field.
{
get
{
return myName;
}
set
{
if (value != "Silly Woman"){
myName = value;
}
}
}
But I've been seeing code in c# which just looks like this:
public string MyName { get; set; }
Why would you just have a get and set with nothing in there, - isn't that the same as just declaring your private backing field public? If you can just get and set it from outside, why wouldn't you just do it directly?
Indeed, creating an auto-property as follows:
public string Name { get; set; }
is identical to building a property backed by a field:
private string _name;
public string Name {
get { return _name; }
set { _name = value; }
}
The point of these properties is not to hide data. As you observed, they don't do this. Instead, these properties can do other stuff instead of just working with a field:
public string Name {
get { return _name; }
set { if (value == null) throw new Exception("GTFO!"); _name = value; }
}
Another thing is, you can make properties virtual:
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
which, if overridden, can provide different results and behaviours in a derived class.
By using public string MyName { get; set; }, you leave an ability to change its logic later without the need to recompile/change other code that uses your property.
For example, if you are making a library and v1 uses a field and v2 uses a property, applications that work with v1 will not work with v2 without recompilation (and, potentially, code changes if they are written in some .NET language that has different syntax for accessing fields).
Another important difference is in serialization scenarios -- a lot of them do not support fields. Also any interface that requires a property can not be implemented without using one, but depending on interface it may not be required to do any additional checks/logic in it.
It makes it easier to add logic later. If you have a class that has a public field that you want to change to a property, you have to recompile everything that uses your class. That's a key point that I didn't understand initially.
If you have a class:
public class MyClass
{
public string MyString;
}
You could access the value like this:
var myClass = new MyClass();
string s = myClass.MyString;
Now change that to a property:
public class MyClass
{
public string MyString { get; set; }
}
How is it accessed? The exact same way:
var myClass = new MyClass();
string s = myClass.MyString;
So no big deal, right? Well, actually....
Properties are actually compiled into getter and setter methods:
get_MyString() and set_MyString(string value)
So the two methods do produce different compiled code. Now if all your code that uses this class is in the same project, is not as big a deal, because it will all be compiled together. But if you have an API library that you've distributed, it can be a much bigger deal to update.
Because it is easier to change the Code if you want to add the checks/tests later on.
Especially if you have many inheritance and many classes in your code it is very hard to change the implementation from a public variable to a public Property.
Moreover you can add to the get and set within the property different attributes, e.g. if you are using reflection. The get and set of the property are internally different methods. If you have just a public variable /field it is not possible to added different properties to the different access ways.
Yeah, but you can easily change it to:
public string MyName { get; private set; }
Plus, properties are used in other scenarios, like DataContracts and Serialization... so, this is a nice feature... (Mostly, syntactic sugar. I think) EDIT: I take that back.. you can apply virtual to it, so it's not the same
Can anyone clearly articulate when you use a field and when to use a property in class design?
Consider:
public string Name;
Or:
private string _Name;
public string Name
{
get { return _Name; }
set { _Name = value; }
}
I realize that the second method is more proper and flexible, so that's what I try to use, generally.
But then why do I see people use the first method? Are they just lazy, or is there some specific situation where it's the correct choice? Is it just a matter of preference?
Well in C# 3.0 you can actually write:
public string Name {get; set;}
Which allows you to be proper and lazy.
Generally speaking, with properties, you get proper encapsulation. You have the choice to allow setting a value, or getting it, or both. Using a public member, you don't have that option.
It's probably one-part preference, and one-part how your team decides to handle quick and dirty class definitions, but I would say, use properties for get/sets.
To answer
Can anyone clearly articulate when you use an attribute and when to use a property in class design?
You shouldn't ever use a public attribute. You should always use a property instead. It's safer and more flexible. That said, people will be lazy, and just use a public member. However, with C# 3.0 you can use a more terse syntax to define properties, which should satisfy your inner laziness.
Simply type prop and hit <tab> to expedite the laziness in adding a property.
Just some additional information to Alan's reply:
public string Name {get; set;}
is the same as
private string _Name;
public string Name{
get { return _Name; }
set { _Name = value; }
}
If you want to disallow the set function of Name, you can have
public string Name {get; private set;}
Properties are more maintainable than fields, you can encapsulate logic in your setters/getters, allowing you to hide the implementation.
They also make refactoring easier.
More information:
Property Usage Guidelines
Field Usage Guidelines
Using properties you can control it's security:
public string Foo { protected get; private set; }
Properties gives easy way to raise events:
public string Foo
{
get { return _foo; }
}
set
{
bool cancel = false;
if(BeforeEvent != null) // EventHandler<CancelEventArgs> BeforeEvent
{
CancelEventArgs e = new CancelEventArgs();
BeforeEvent(this, e);
cancel = e.Cancel;
}
if(!cancel)
{
_foo = value;
if(AfterEvent != null) // EventHandler<EventArgs> AfterEvent
{
AfterEvent(this, new EventArgs());
}
}
}
Also I often use code like this:
string Foo
{
set
{
IsFooSet = value != null;
}
}
bool IsFooSet
{
get { return _isFoo; }
set
{
_isFoo = value;
if(value) // some event raise or controls on form change
}
}
When you make the field public, you allow the user to do whatever they want to do to the field. They can assign unexpected values, invalid values, values that can cause overflow, etc.
With the property, you have control over whether to allow the setting of new values to the field, massaging the value before storing it, notifying interested parties about the change of the field's value, etc. And the same idea for returning value through the getter. For .NET framework from 2.0 up, you can set the accessor for the getter, setter. Say, you only want the user to only have read access to the field, then you make the getter public, but the setter private or protected.
In addition to the already-given reasons for preferring properties, there's also lots of cool stuff in System.ComponentModel to do with data binding and change notification that only works with properties, rather than fields. For example, look at the documentation around PropertyChangedHandler.
A property like defined above acts like a getter and setter. The only benefits of using a property is that you can treat it like a variable with access restriction.
public string Name { get; private set; }
This property can be accessed publicly, but can only be set privately. (You wouldn't want anyone changing your name with out your consent now would you! ;) )