Are getters and setters poor design? Contradictory advice seen

java

best-practices

design-patterns

encapsulation

byAlex Kataev·Nov 15, 2024

Getters and setters are central to encapsulation in Java. They regulate access and keep loose coupling in check, making code changes less disruptive. However, they can be overused, leading to an anemic model and compromising encapsulation principles.

Example:

private int age;

// Getter, simple enough!
public int getAge() {
    return age;
}

// Setter, with a pinch of validation just for fun.
public void setAge(int age) {
    if (age > 0) {
        this.age = age;
    }else{
       System.out.println("Age cannot be negative. Let's not bend time!");
    }
}

The getAge and setAge methods offer controlled access and validation, embodying encapsulation. But remember, don't make setters a "free for all"! Guard the state integrity.

More than simple value setters

Getters and setters aren't the be-all and end-all. Here's a more nuanced approach:

Create action-specific methods (addScore(), kill()) that make more sense than a vanilla setter.
Use smart IDE generation to make getters/setters that gel with JavaBeans conventions.
For simple data objects, public fields might be just fine.
Future-proof your code. Today's getter/setter may meet tomorrow's unforseen implementation changes.

Action-driven design

Consider designing methods around actions, not just setting values:

public void damage(int points) {
    health -= points;
    // Oops! Health went down. Better check if we're still alive.
    if (health <= 0) kill();
}

public void kill() {
    // Game over man, game over!
    alive = false;
}

public void addScore(int points) {
    // Ka-ching! More points!
    score += points;
}

Methods like damage(), kill(), and addScore() hide the complexity of state changes, demonstrating robust design.

Balancing act: Design vs. utility

Pragmatism is key. Some thoughts:

Use getters/setters to insulate your API from code changes.
Validators within setters prevent clearly Illegal states.
Don't overwhelm clients of your class. Tweak exposed methods for ease of use.
Game developers - structure your code around game logic and simplify game modes handling.

Encapsulation: beyond getters and setters

Encapsulation isn't black and white. Think colors:

Behavioral approach: Instead of setAccountBalance(), transferFunds().
Selective exposure: Use public fields for non-sensitive data.
Internal state management: Objects should manage their own world. Try methods like increment() and toggleActive().

Ready for the future

Embrace change and adaptability:

Keep API consistency across versions with getters/setters
Future-proof your class. Expose state through methods. Groom your code for changing internal implementations.
Getter/setter usage could signal a class's readiness level within the project lifecycle

Back to basics: simplicity

Trim and optimize:

Single responsibility principle (SRP) should guide getters/setters
Clever class design can reduce the need for getters/setters
Not everything deserves a setter. Let's avoid anti-patterns and only create what is necessary.

explain-codes / Java / Are getters and setters poor design? Contradictory advice seen

Linked

How to initialize HashSet values by construction?



Is there a way to automatically generate getters and setters in Eclipse?



What is the equivalent of the C++ Pair in Java?



Difference between DTO, VO, POJO, JavaBeans?



How to convert an Array to a Set in Java

