We Keep Coding

Proper Coding Direct Access to the backing field of a Property C#

I have seen some code and thought that something seems wrong with it, so I would like to know if it is acceptable for good coding or not, my first thought is no.
Consider:
class MyClass
{
private string m_MySuperString;
public string MySuperString
{
get { return m_MySuperString; }
set { m_MySuperString = value; }
}
public void MyMethod()
{
if (blah != yada)
{
m_MySuperString = badabing;
}
}
public void MyOtherMethod()
{
if (blah == yada)
{
m_MySuperString = badaboom;
}
}
}
Is this kind of direct access to the Backing Field an acceptable practice or is it bad coding - or should I ask what is the point of the Property Accessor, and if this is done internally in a class with public members , access is allowed by multiple components - is it possible to have a crash - I would venture in a multi threaded application a crash should be expected.
Please any thoughts ?
I have looked at this Link on SO and others>
Why use private members then use public properties to set them?
EDIT
Let me be clear since there is good info being provided and rather respond to all answers and comments directly.
I am not asking about what properties are for, not if I can do auto implemented properties, private setters, OnValueChange notifications, logic on the properties.
My question is in regards to accessing that backing field directly - for example if you have say a mutlithreaded scenario - isn't the whole point of the synclock on the getters/setters - to control access to the backingfield ? Will this kind of code be acceptable in that scenario - just adding a syncLock to the getter and setter ?? Keep in mind the code in the constructor of myClass is an example - the code can be in any additional method - such as the updated class - Method1
END EDIT

Properties in Object Oriented Programming (OOP) help to enforce Encapsulation. The idea is that only the object itself is allowed to interact with its own data (i.e. fields). Access to the object's data from outside is only allowed through methods. In Java, for instance, you have to explicitly write get- and set-methods. Properties in C# have a special syntax that combines both of these methods in one construct, but the getters and setters are in fact methods.
This also means that an object is absolutely allowed to access its own fields directly.
There are cases, however, where property getters and setters perform additional logic. A setter might raise the PropertyChanged event or do some validation. A getter might combine several fields or yield a formatted or calculated value. If you need this additional logic to be performed, then you must access the properties instead of the fields. If a property is auto-implemented, then you have no choice (in C#), since the backing field is hidden and not accessible. (In VB it is hidden from IntelliSense but accessible from within the class.)

I recommend checking out Chapter 8, Section 1 of #JonSkeet's C# In Depth (from which I've shamelessly taken the below snippets for the purpose of education) for more information on automatically implemented properties. In short answer to your question, no, there's nothing wrong with this code.
Consider that the following snippet:
public string Name { get; set; }
is compiled as
private string <Name>k__BackingField;
public string Name
{
get { return <Name>k__BackingField; }
set { <Name>k__BackingField = value; }
}
...so the compiler is already doing the work for you that you've done above. There are ways to modify what it's doing, but those don't really answer the question. One example given in the book for thread safety is this:
//code above, plus
private static int InstanceCounter { get; set; }
private static readonly object counterLock = new object();
public InstanceCountingPerson(string name, int age) {
Name = name;
Age = age;
lock (counterLock) // safe property access
{
InstanceCounter++;
// and whatever else you have to do with the lock enabled
}
}
--Which is a pattern also referenced in this SO question. However, as pointed out there, locks are (a) potentially slow, (b) might not actually ensure their job is done because they have to be released at some point, and (c) rely on the trust system, because they sort of naively assume that anything wanting to access that object will make proper use of the lock (not always true, at least not in some of the code I've seen :D ). The advantage of the getter and setter methods is that you can enforce the pattern of using the lock (read: properly encapsulate the field, as others have suggested) for any instance of your class.
Another pattern you might consider, however, is Inversion of Control. With a Dependency Injection container, you can specify the level of thread safety you are comfortable with. If you are comfortable with everyone waiting for a singleton instance of your object, you can declare that all references to the object's interface reference the same object (and must wait for the object to become available), or you can determine that a thread-safe instance of the object should be created each time it is requested. See this SO answer for more details.
Note:
Any peer-reviewed criticism of the above ideas will be graciously accepted and added to the answer, as I'm sort of a thread safety dilettante at this point.

In the use case described , You can define this as follows using auto-implemented properties
public string MySuperString{ get; set ;}
you should use a backing filed if you need to do some input verification or the property is different than the internal fields for example
public string FullName{ get { return firstName + LastName} }
another benefit of using properties is you can define them in an interface , which is better in the long run for future features to be added

C#, making public members their methods private

I the following class:
public class Humptydump
{
public Humptydump()
{ }
public Rectangle Rectangle { public get; private set; }
}
in this class the Rectangle class comes from system.drawing,
how do i make it so people cannot access the methods of the rectangle, but can get the rectangle itself?

In your case, it will "just work".
Since Rectangle is a struct, your property will return a copy of the Rectangle. As such, it will be impossible for anybody to modify your Rectangle directly unless you expose methods to allow this.
That being said, it's impossible, in general, to provide access to a type without also providing access to methods defined on the type. The methods go along with the type. The only alternative in those cases would be to create a new type that exposed the data you choose without the data or methods you wish to be exposed, and provide access to that.

If rectangle was not a struct, one possible thing would be deriving it and hiding those methods:
public class DerivedClass : BaseClass
{
new private SomeReturnType SomeMethodFromBaseClasse(SameParametersAsInBaseClassAndSameSignature
{
//this simply hides the method from the user
//but user will still have the chance to cast to the BaseClass and
//access the methods from there
}
}

Are you talking about the Rectangle object specifically, or on a more general term and just using that as an example?
If you're talking on a more general term, this is something that comes up very often in refactoring patterns. This most commonly happens with collections on objects. If you expose, for example, a List<T> then even if the setter is private then people can still modify the collection through the getter, since they're not actually setting the collection when they do so.
To address this, consider the Law of Demeter. That is, when someone is interacting with a collection exposed by an object, should they really be interacting with the object itself? If so, then the collection shouldn't be exposed and instead the object should expose the functionality it needs to.
So, again in the case of a collection, you might end up with something like this:
class SomeObject
{
private List<AnotherObject> Things;
public void AddAnotherObject(AnotherObject obj)
{
// Add it to the list
}
public void RemoveAnotherObject(AnotherObject obj)
{
// Remove it from the list
}
}
Of course, you may also want to expose some copy of the object itself for people to read, but not modify. For a collection I might do something like this:
public IEnumerable<AnotherObject> TheObjects
{
get { return Things; }
}
That way anybody can see the current state of the objects and enumerate over them, but they can't actually modify it. Not because it doesn't have a setter, but because the IEnumerable<T> interface doesn't have options to modify the enumeration. Only to enumerate over it.
For your case with Rectangle (or something similar which isn't already a struct that's passed by value anyway), you would do something very similar. Store a private object and provide public functionality to modify it through the class itself (since what we're talking about is that the class needs to know when its members are modified) as well as functionality to inspect it without being able to modify what's being inspected. Something like this, perhaps:
class SomeObject
{
private AnotherObject Thing;
public AnotherObject TheThing
{
get { return Thing.Copy(); }
}
public void RenameThing(string name)
{
Thing.Name = name;
}
// etc.
}
In this case, without going into too much detail about what AnotherObject is (so consider this in some ways pseudo-code), the property to inspect the inner object returns a copy of it, not the actual reference to the actual object. For value types, this is the default behavior of the language. For reference types, you may need to strike a balance between this and performance (if creating a copy is a heavy operation).
In this case you'll also want to be careful of making the interface of your object unintuitive. Consuming code might expect to be able to modify the inner object being inspected, since it exposes functionality to modify itself. And, indeed, they can modify the copy that they have. How you address this depends heavily on the conceptual nature of the objects and how they relate to one another, which a contrived example doesn't really convey. You might create a custom DTO (even a struct) which returns only the observable properties of the inner object, making it more obvious that it's a copy and not the original. You might just say that it's a copy in the intellisense comments. You might make separate properties to return individual data elements of the inner object instead of a single property to return the object itself. There are plenty of options, it's up to you to determine what makes the most sense for your objects.

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-.

How should I design my object model so that my DAL can populate read-only fields?

In order to separate concerns, on my current project, I've decided to completely separate my DAL and BLL/Business objects in separate assemblies. I would like to keep my business objects as simple structures without any logic to keep things extremely simple. I would like if I could keep my Business Logic separate from my DAL also. So my application will tell my DAL to load my objects, my DAL will run off to the database and get the data, populate the object with the data and then pass it back to my BLL.
Question - how can I have my DAL in a separate assembly and push data into the read only fields?
If I set the getter as protected then inherited objects can access it which isn't really what I want as I'd be returning the inherited object types, not the original object types.
If I set the getter as internal, then my DAL must reside in the same assembly as my BLL which I don't want.
If I set the getter as public, then anyone can read/write to it when it should be read only.
Edit: I note that I can have a return type of ObjectBase but actually be returning an object or collection of objects that are derived form ObjectBase so to the outside world (outside my DAL) the properties would be read-only, but my derived types (only accessible inside my DAL) the properties are actually read/write.

You can set the read only property via a constructor.

This is a situation without a silver-bullet; the simplest options are limited or don't meet your requirements and the thorough solutions either begin to have smells or begin to veer away from simplicity.
Perhaps the simplest option is one that I haven't seen mentioned here: keeping the fields / properties private and passing them as out / ByRef parameters to the DAL. While it wouldn't work for large numbers of fields it would be simple for a small number.
(I haven't tested it, but I think it's worth exploring).
public class MyObject()
{
private int _Id;
public int Id { get { return _Id; } } // Read-only
public string Name { get; set; }
// This method is essentially a more descriptive constructor, using the repository pattern for seperation of Domain and Persistance
public static MyObject GetObjectFromRepo(IRepository repo)
{
MyObject result = new MyObject();
return repo.BuildObject(result, out _Id);
}
}
public class MyRepo : IRepository
{
public MyObject BuildObject(MyObject objectShell, out int id)
{
string objectName;
int objectId;
// Retrieve the Name and Value properties
objectName = "Name from Database";
objectId = 42;
//
objectShell.Name = objectName;
Console.WriteLine(objectShell.Id); // <-- 0, as it hasn't been set yet
id = objectId; // Setting this out parameter indirectly updates the value in the resulting object
Console.WriteLine(objectShell.Id); // <-- Should now be 42
}
}
It's also worth noting that trying to keep your domain / business objects to the bare-minimum can involve more than you think. If you intend to databind to them then you'll need to implement IPropertyNotifyChanged, which prevents you from using automatically-implemented properties. You should be able to keep it fairly clean, but you will have to make some sacrifices for basic functionality.

This keeps your SoC model nicely, it doesn't add in too much complexity, it prevents writing to read-only fields and you could use a very similar model for serialization concerns. Your read-only fields can still be written to by your DAL, as could your serializer if used in a similar fashion - it means that conscious effort must be taken by a developer to write to a read-only field which prevents unintentional misuse.
Model Project
namespace Model
{
public class DataObject
{
public int id { get; protected set; }
public string name { get; set; }
}
}
Data Project
namespace Data
{
class DALDataObject : DataObject
{
public DALDataObject(int id, string name)
{
this.id = id;
this.name = name;
}
}
public class Connector
{
public static DataObject LoadDataObject(int objectId)
{
return new DALDataObject(objectId, string.Format("Dummy object {0}", objectId));
}
public static IEnumerable<DataObject> LoadDataObjects(int startRange, int endRange)
{
var list = new List<DataObject>();
for (var i = startRange; i < endRange; i++)
list.Add(new DALDataObject(i, string.Format("Dummy object {0}", i)));
return list;
}
}
}

How about just live with it?
Implement with those guidelines, but don't add such a hard constraint in your model. Lets say you do so, but then come another req where you need to serialize it or do something else, and then you are tied with it.
As you said in other comment, you want pieces that are interchangeable ... so, basically you don't want something that's tied into specific relations.
Update 1: Perhaps "just live with it" was too simplistic, but I still have to stress out that you shouldn't go too deep into these things. Using simple guidelines, keeping your code clean and SOLID its the best you can do at the beginning. It won't get in the way of progress while refactoring when everything is more settled isn't hard.
Make no mistake, I am not at all a person that goes writing code without any thinking on it. But, I have gone with such approaches and only in a handful cases they pay off --- without any indication that you wouldn't have a similar result by going simple and evolving it.
IMHO this one does not fit into important architecture concerns that need to be addressed at the very beginning.
Pre-emptive follow up: beware if you can't trust your team into following simple guidelines. Also make sure to begin with some structure, pick a couple scenarios that set a structure in with real stuff, the team will know their way much better when there is something simple there.

In my opinion, the best way to handle this is to have the business objects and the DAL in the same assembly separated by namespace. This separates the concerns logically and allows you to use internal setters. I can't think of any benefit to separating them into their own assemblies because one is useless without the other.

Is using get set properties of C# considered good practice?

my question is simple, is using the get set properties of C# considered good, better even than writing getter and setter methods? When you use these properties, don't you have to declare your class data members as public ? I ask this because my professor stated that data members should never be declared as public, as it is considered bad practice.
This....
class GetSetExample
{
public int someInt { get; set; }
}
vs This...
class NonGetSetExample
{
private int someInt;
}
Edit:
Thanks to all of you! All of your answers helped me out, and I appropriately up-voted your answers.

This:
class GetSetExample
{
public int someInt { get; set; }
}
is really the same as this:
class GetSetExample
{
private int _someInt;
public int someInt {
get { return _someInt; }
set { _someInt = value; }
}
}
The get; set; syntax is just a convenient shorthand for this that you can use when the getter and setter don't do anything special.
Thus, you are not exposing a public member, you are defining a private member and providing get/set methods to access it.

Yes, members should normally never be declared public in good design for several reasons. Think about OOP where you inherit the class later. Kind of hard to override a field. :-) Also it prevents you from keeping your internals from being accessed directly.
The simplistic get; set; design was introduced in C# 2.0. It's basically the same as declaring everything with a private member backing it (decompile it out in tool like Reflector and see).
public int someInt{get;set;}
is directly equal to
private int m_someInt;
public int someInt{
get { return m_someInt; }
set { m_someInt = value; }
}
The great part about having the simplified getter/setter is that when you want to fill in the implementation with a little bit more guts later, you do not break ABI compatibility.
Don't worry about getter/setters slowing down your code through indirection. The JIT has a thing called inlineing makes using the getter/setter just as efficient as direct field access.

Yes. Data members should be private and automatic properties allow it and give public access on right way.
But you should be careful. Understand the context is very important. In threaded application, update one property following an another related property can be harmful to consistency. In that case, a setter method updating the two private data members in a proper way makes more sense.

In your first example C# automatically generates the private backing fields so technically the data member is not declared as public only the getter/setter.

because with public data member , that data member can be changed or can be read out of class
and you cannot control read/write operation accessibility but with properties you can control
read/write stream for example consider this statement :
public MyVar{private get; public set;}
means value of MyVar can be changed only inside of class and can be read out of class(read privately and read publicly) and this is not possible with just public data members

In a "pure" object oriented approach, it is not considered OK to expose the state of your objects at all, and this appliese to properties as they are implemented in .NET and get_ set_ properteis of Java/EJB. The idea is that by exposing the state of your object, you are creating external dependencies to the internal data representation of your object. A pure object design reduces all interactions to messages with parameters.
Back to the real world: if you try to implement such a strict theoretical approach on the job, you will either be laughed out of the office or beaten to a pulp. Properties are immensely popular because they are a reasonable compromise between a pure object design and fully exposed private data.

It's quite reasonable, and your professor (without context) is wrong. But anyway, using "automatic properties", is fine, and you can do it whether they are public or private.
Though in my experience, whenever I use one, I almost inevitably end up needing to write some logic in there, and hence can't use the auto props.

your professor was quite right.
Consider this trivial example of why "getters" should be avoided: There may be 1,000 calls to a getX() method in your program, and every one of those calls assumes that the return value is a particular type. The return value of getX() may be sotred in a local variable, for example, and the variable type must match the return-value type. If you need to change the way that the object is implemented in such a way that the type of X changes, you're in deep trouble. If X used to be an int, but now has to be a long, you'll now get 1,000 compile errors. If you fix the problem incorrectly by casting the return value to int, the code will compile cleanly but won't work. (The return value may be truncated.) You have to modify the code surrounding every one of those 1,000 calls to compensate for the change. I, at least, don't want to do that much work.
Holub On Patterns