Does anyone know of a utility that automatically generate getters and setter classes from a list of variable names???

Might stop me getting RSI!

 

 

i gave up on gets/sets about 2weeks after my lecturer introduced them to us :/

if a var can be modified, then make it public. Though adding a get/set method does provide encapsulation, it also requires more typing, bloats code and is also a fraction slower.

Sometimes gets/sets serve a purpose, but most of the time theyre just a waste of time.

Its quite funny watching a newbie programmer start writing a class, they identify the classes required attributes, then write 200lines of gets and sets before they even consider tackling the 'hard' bit[s] of the class :]

rob,

Answer supplied by Friends of the Water Cooler. Please suggest to forum admin via Discuss the JDC Web Site forum that off-topic threads be supported in some manner.

 

 

Most IDEs can autogenerate them.


Off topic discussion is moved to http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/ChatClient.html

 

 

NetBeans (and its Sun sibling Forte for Java) does that.

Thomas

 

 

I really dont have a problem with getters and setters (apart from having to write them), the jre is optimized for gets and sets so the performance argument doesnt hold (or cool) any water.
Forcing people to use get and set methods means you can do whatever you want to the inner workings of the class as long as you leave the get/set methods there and they still give the expected result. I try not to make variables public unless they are static and final.

 

 

Thanks all... I will download NetBeans.

 

 

Giving up on gets/sets is a mistake... take it from an EXPERIENCED programmer.


Adding get/set methods provide more then just the encapsulation. It provides you easier debug not to mention easier way to read the code.


If you think set/get is a waste of time your attitude will get you into trouble. Consider code with a full set of public variables in a 'complex' system (well, lets just say 1500 classes).

During development a bug is discovered and you realize that the bug is due to a change in a specific variable. How do you, quickly and simply, find out what classes are changing the variable. It could be anywhere; but by having a get and set method for that variable you could add a simple code like "new Exception().printStackTrace();" into the set method and get a trace when the bug happens. This way you would know within secondes what object is changing the variable making the debugging easy.

What if you would like to override a class and to something before or after a variable is manipulated? This would be impossible if all variables are public. You will loose all control of you code.

There are many more reasons for adding the get/set methods but it will take me all day to write them all here.

I say: "have all variables protected, GET OFF YOUR ***, and add the 200 lines of code" if not for you then for the one that later will be using or fixing the code.


What do think of code guidlines that are forced by most software companies? This is more important then most NEWBIES think; wait a few years and you will get the point..

What about comments? Do you find them funny and useless? hope you don't...for your sake.

Thinking it funny that people take the time and effort to make their code more readable, understandable, accessable, flexible and over all more pretty makes you the newbie.

It scares me to think that the new breed of programmers will think it funny to write GOOD code.

bopen, bwise, bbetter...

 

 

'ALL' variables should be private.
think twice about setters.
minimize getters.
there are exceptions to the 'rules'
http://forum.java.sun.com/thread.jsp?forum=31&thread=186158
bflexible

 

 

Its even funnier to watch a smart a[/b]ssed kid who thinks he knows it all, trying to change code when a desgn change requires him to change the type of an attribute on a class.

And even funnier still when hundreds/thousands of lines of code are added redunantly to format values which have been received raw from a class.

And its ******* hillarious watching him attempting to untangle the web of closly coupled classes.

They may be a pain in the *** to write, and they are "dirty" up your code, but they are essential for encapsulation.

 

 

you assume 2 much. Uni was a long time ago 4 me.


Encapsulation encapsulates the idea of ezier debuggin :]

gets/sets do not automatically give you code readability, and badly named gets/sets can detract from readability.


ok, you've applied my philosophy to your field, now let me apply yours to mine.

I write games for Java enabled mobile phones(J2ME MIDP1.0), on this platform code size (and memory usage) is a SERIOUS concern.
FYI. the Nokia 6310i mobile phone has approx. 140k of heap, and a jar size limited of 30k.

EVERY line of code has to be optimal, in both space and time,

The cost of gets/sets; inheritance; interfaces and all the other wonderful OO design features of java are serious performance inhibitors, and consequently are used only when absolutly necessary.


don't write buggy code ;] (that was a j/k btw)

btw, im curious how exactly do u realise that the bug is related to a specific variable? gets/sets help debugging, but they are not the magic bullet of debugging techniques.


you are still argueing a different point to me - the abstraction of gets/sets do serve a purpose, however they also impose a cost.


my point here, is that training programmers to follow guidelines before you have taught them the fundamentals of problem solving is futile.


no, all good code should be commented. But I have to admit, I don't waste time commenting code as i write it, i find it slows down my coding. However I will always go back and comment any code if it is to be used by some1 else.


hmm, unprovoked flaming - now whos the newbie :/


What frustrates me, is why good design always means slower performance.
It shouldn't, and until Java progresses to the point where the runtime cost of good design is not significant, I will still regard Java as a primitive language.

 

 

damn the firewall @work!! :(

(and no, 4some reason the http doesn't work either)

 

 

an object with only variables, getters and setters has no 'class' at all, merely a glorified struct. one way to use this object is call a getter method, operate on the returned object; or instantiate a new object and call the setter method.

There is no encapsulation, the internals are exposed and any changes to the internals, breaks all the classes using it because of the coupling.
the operations occuring outside of the object, can be refactored inside the object with a suitably named 'behavioural' method name. Then get rid of the getter and setter for that variable. This gives 'better' encapsulation and also endows the object with some behaviour and 'class'.

 

 

yup, totally agree