100

C# properties (I mean get and set methods) are a very useful feature. Does java have something similar to C# properties too? I mean how we can implement something like the following C# code in java:

public string Name
{
    get
    {
        return name;
    }

    set
    {
        name = value;
    }
}
Federico klez Culloca
  • 26,308
  • 17
  • 56
  • 95
  • 2
    See [getters/setters in java](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/875033/getters-setters-in-java) – Matthew Flaschen Jun 03 '10 at 04:02
  • Also see CodePorting C#2Java Cloud-App http://codeporting.com/blog/csharp-to-java-conversion/archive/2012/05/09/migrating-c-properties-to-java-using-codeporting-c2java.html that translates C# properties to java automatically while C# code is ported to java. –  May 10 '12 at 02:13
  • Actually, you may omit the get and set prefixes and and use like for example public String name() {...} for the getter and public void name(String val) {...} for the setter. "set" and "get" are conventional but its very obvious that you are setting when you write name("Lem") and getting String n = name(); – LEMUEL ADANE Jan 28 '15 at 03:27
  • @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 02:57
  • 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 02:57

5 Answers5

117

No, Java does not have the equivalence. It only has accessor and mutator methods, fancy names for getter and setter methods. For example:

public class User {
    private String name;

    public String getName() { return this.name; }
    public void setName(String name) { this.name = name; }
}
Kevin Le - Khnle
  • 10,579
  • 11
  • 54
  • 80
  • 79
    It should be clear that these getter/setter methods are not separate constructs with flashy syntax like properties are in C#. Instead, they are just ordinary methods that we happen to name getName() and setName() and task them with acting as properties by convention rather than through dedicated language constructs. – filip-fku Jun 03 '10 at 04:08
  • 3
    True, getName() are setName() are so-named purely by convention. One could just decide to name these methods as, for example, retrieveUserName() and assignUserName(), and that would be just OK. This kind of convention is idiomatic in Java and tools like Eclipse IDE follow. – Kevin Le - Khnle Jun 03 '10 at 04:14
  • 26
    It's not **just** a convention. There is a specification to go along with Java Beans and an API that makes them useful. http://java.sun.com/javase/technologies/desktop/javabeans/docs/spec.html – Chris Nava Jun 03 '10 at 05:01
  • 5
    @ChrisNava your link has rotted. – Ky - Aug 05 '15 at 20:54
  • Also worth noting when we talk about naming: in C# "A property is a member that provides a flexible mechanism to read, write, or compute the value of a private field." In Java or JS this term has a different meaning. – DanteTheSmith Apr 18 '17 at 06:32
29

You could have a look at Project Lombok as it tries to take the pain out of writing boiler plate Java code. It allows you to either use @Getter and @Setter annotations, which will provide getBlah() and setBlah() methods:

public class GetterSetterExample {
  @Getter @Setter private int age = 10;
}

Or you can just use @Data and it will automatically implement your hashCode(), equals(), toString() and getter methods, along with setters on non-final fields:

@Data public class DataExample {
  private String name;
}

Problems I have found with the project, however, are that it's all a bit voodoo, which can be off-putting, and that you have to install an Eclipse (or what ever) plugin to get auto compilation to work.

Richard
  • 25,390
  • 3
  • 25
  • 38
Ben Smith
  • 1,554
  • 1
  • 15
  • 26
  • 16
    And a further problem is that if you use Lombok, then you're no longer writing portable Java code. – Neal Gafter Jul 07 '10 at 18:05
  • 1
    can you explain **portable** here? – Lei Yang Nov 28 '19 at 02:42
  • @NealGafter what do you mean that the Java code is no longer portable? – smac89 May 15 '20 at 12:41
  • 1
    I think @NealGafter is referring to the fact that Lombok must be supported by your editor and build tools, so your code might not work on all development platforms/environments. – David Rochin Jul 08 '20 at 21:55
  • 1
    As a point of reference for anyone looking for C# behavior this isn't quite it you would still call to `GetterSetterExample.getAge` C# setters that allow setting the properties with = would fail here `GetterSetterExample.setAge = 10 ` would not work using the Lombok syntax – Dataminion Nov 23 '21 at 05:43
17

Properties are not only convenient in terms of writing getters and setters encapsulated in a unit , but also they provide a good syntax at the point of call.

Window.Title =  "New"; //which looks natural

while with getters and setters it is usually

Window.setTitle("New");
Prasad Jadhav
  • 5,090
  • 16
  • 62
  • 80
Renjith
  • 211
  • 2
  • 2
  • 36
    It's even worse to do something like an increment: C#: Thing.Number += 1 Java: Thing.setNumber(Thing.getNumber() + 1) – Paul Etherton Sep 12 '13 at 06:18
  • 14
    This does not answer the question, but instead just describes differences in syntax. – Ky - Aug 05 '15 at 20:56
  • 1
    Well if you just used public fields in java then you would be able to do Window.Title = "New" just like in C# - without the need for properties. I never quite understood the point of them in C# but I use them anyway because they are convenient. – Andy Dec 16 '16 at 00:02
  • 3
    @ozzy432836 well here is the case.. u can assign Window.Title = "New" and for you it is a variable. But in C# u can add a constraint to it telling if Window.Title = "@some invalid value" then reject it. Its that beauty of C# I like. Wish java world understood it! its like we can write code in assembly language, then why higher level languages evolved! For me I feel java world got an ego on this! – digitally_inspired May 05 '18 at 18:22
6

There has been a proposal to add C#-like support for properties (and events) to Java, but it looks like this is rejected for the next version of Java (Java 7).

See:

Community
  • 1
  • 1
Jesper
  • 202,709
  • 46
  • 318
  • 350
0

You can just declare a private variable, and write the methods by hand. However, if you are using Eclipse, you can click on a variable, select "Source" and "Generate getters and setters." This is about as convenient as C# properties.

Larry Watanabe
  • 10,126
  • 9
  • 43
  • 46
  • NetBeans also offers such automated method generation – Ky - Aug 05 '15 at 20:59
  • 10
    I wouldnt say it is as convenient as c#, because I tend to rename properties and instead of updating the name of a property, I have to updating two methods and one variable; – redsolo Sep 03 '15 at 09:11
  • 4
    It's not "as convenient". C# properties offer many more conveniences over standard getters/setters. – Josh M. Mar 26 '18 at 19:53