26

In C#, you can use properties to make a data field publicly accessible (allowing the user to directly access it), and yet retain the ability to perform data validation on those directly-accessed fields. Does Java have something similar? For Instance, suppose there exists a C# class with the following implementation(see below):

public class newInt{

    public newInt(){...}

    public int x{
        get{ return this.x }
        set{ this.x = isValid(value) }
    }
}

private static int isValid(int value){...}

This definition in the class allows the user to "naturally" use the data field 'x' when retrieving values from it and assigning values to it. Below is how it would be used in main.

public class Test{

    public static void main(String[] args){

        newInt a = new newInt();
        a.x = 50;

        int b = a.x;
    }
}

The question is... can java do this as well? if so, what is it called?

Fábio Batista
  • 25,002
  • 3
  • 56
  • 68
tyrone302
  • 685
  • 1
  • 7
  • 6
  • 1
    [lombok](http://projectlombok.org/) could help you somewhat - though not property syntax, it does make dealing with getters/setters a lot easier. – Zabba Oct 31 '11 at 01:51
  • Related post - [does java have something similar to C# properties?](https://stackoverflow.com/q/2963243/465053) – RBT Aug 21 '18 at 09:52
  • @Scott That is not what OP asked. That functionality (something very similar) is already provided by Lombok soon after Java 5 came out. – Jayadevan Vijayan Apr 25 '21 at 02:45
  • Traditional Java does not support, but Groovy supports it. Since they are compatible and approximately all Java is valid Groovy, that is a way to go if you need properties in Java. – Jayadevan Vijayan Apr 25 '21 at 02:48

5 Answers5

28

No.

That's why Java has getters/setters.

In C# you typically have something like:

public class SomeObject
{
    private string _title = "";

    public string Title { get { return _title; } set { _title = value; } }
}

or with Auto-Properties:

public class SomeObjectAutoProperties
{
    public string Title { get; set; }
}

The Java getter/setter equivalent would be:

public class SomeObject
{
    private String _title = "";

    public string getTitle() { return _title; }

    public void setTitle(String value) { _title = value; }
}
StayOnTarget
  • 11,743
  • 10
  • 52
  • 81
Justin Niessner
  • 242,243
  • 40
  • 408
  • 536
  • 2
    @Justin - I don't like the concept of using public fields, but it doesn't seem like it would be a breaking change; accessing a public field or a property of the same name would have the same syntax. – Jon Onstott Apr 23 '10 at 19:10
  • and... a breaking change .. is... ? .. what? :P :P something that makes your code not compile anymore? A get the point about reflection and somehow databind, they are C# specific problems don't they? – OscarRyz Apr 23 '10 at 19:11
  • @Justin : on the original answer. The problem with Java getters and setters is that you can't use them as if they were attributes, I mean you have to type `int b = o.getX(); o.setX( 10 );` I don't want to imply that make your answer wrong. Actually this is **the** correct answer and*unfotunately* the common idiom for Java. I would've like much better something like: `int b = o.x(); o.x(10)` :P but much of the reflection code relies on the method name startWith "set.." and "get.." – OscarRyz Apr 23 '10 at 19:15
  • 1
    @Oscar A breaking change is something that would break any code calling yours. If you had a public field that changed to a public Property, the assembly calling your code would need to be re-compiled to continue working. – Justin Niessner Apr 23 '10 at 19:19
  • I somehow don't like this answer because at first glance it seems like the amount of lines is similar in C# and Java (even more in C#) - in fact, you've shown two alternate versions of C# code and you should split it into two block of code, then it's more clear what is the difference. Or even remove old-way. – Line Dec 10 '18 at 12:42
  • With properties in C# you can shove `{ get; set; }` and call it a day in most stuff because very often encapsulation is not that much important; If you ever need to add e11n, then you just go and add, no refactoring needed. Reflection works perfectly fine with Properties and you can shove properties into interfaces. It is the supreme way of doing "properties". Java Beans is horrible and should be considered crime against humanity. – Felype Jun 09 '19 at 00:55
7

There's the Java platform, and there's the Java language.

The Java language does not support properties (and probably never will), but you are not forced to use the Java language to work with the Java platform (just as you don't need to stick to C# in order to work with .NET platform).

Check:

And many others.

Fábio Batista
  • 25,002
  • 3
  • 56
  • 68
4

Nope, you would use getter and setter methods instead. This is a Java convention.

public class newInt {

    public newInt() {...}

    private int _x = 0;

    public int getX() {
        return this._x;
    }

    public void setX(int x) {
        this._x = isValid(x);
    }
}
Greg
  • 23,155
  • 11
  • 57
  • 79
2

No. Java doesn't have properties. The Java idiom is to use mutator/accessor (getter/setter). Even though a lot of people are in favor of adding them, it is unlikely they will be included in the next version (Java 7).

Curiously, JavaFX has properties.

Keep in mind that when Java was born it borrowed a lot of ideas from C++. Thus some of the syntax and idioms are very similar to that language.

dustmachine
  • 10,622
  • 5
  • 26
  • 28
1

No, it hasn't.

I really have a bit of a problem to understand this C# properties, because, I think one of the rules is to perform as less code as possible in them and since they are already public, why don't use public attributes instead?

So, your Java equivalent ( and probably ugly ) would be:

public class NewInt { // In Java class names start with uppercase by convention 
     public int x; 
}

And you use it like:

 NewInt ni = new NewInt();
 ni.x = 50;
 int b = ni.x;

There is something I'm missing that's for sure, but, most of the times this would do ( BTW I never code like this :P )

BTW

I don't really like getters and setters, but I accept them as part of the Java conventions.

I just would like they have used this instead:

 public class NewInt {
     private int x;
     public int x(){ 
         return this.x;
     }
     public void x(int value ) {
         this.x=value;
     }
  }

So the usage would've been:

  NewInt a = new NewInt();
  a.x(10);
  int b = a.x();

Probably in the next Java life.

OscarRyz
  • 196,001
  • 113
  • 385
  • 569
  • properties are not quite equivalent to public fields as accessing or mutating a property value in c# can be done as a method call. You can include other code whilst getting or setting a property value. – serg10 Apr 26 '10 at 19:18
  • An advantage of using C# properties or getters and setters (even if you don't put any code in them) is that: you have the option to add code to them without changing any code that depends on your API. – Rn222 Dec 13 '13 at 21:48