I am having a doubt with method creations in a class for setting information.
creating separate methods for setting each attribute
class Address{
private String name;
private String city;
public setName(String name) { ... }
public setCity(String name) { ... }
}
creating single method for setting all attributes
class Address{
private String name;
private String city;
public setAddress(String name,String city) { ... }
}
from above two ways which is preferable in memory point of view?
Common practice is to use JavaBean style
class Address {
private String name;
private String city;
public setName(String name){
this.name = name;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public setCity(String city){
this.city = city;
}
public getCity() {
return city;
}
}
Another common practise, which is quite similar to you second approach is to create immutable object. Parameters are passed to constructor instead of big setter method.
class Address {
private final String name;
private final String city;
public Address(String name, String city) {
this.name = name;
this.city = city;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public getCity() {
return city;
}
}
From memory point of view, difference would be that second example is setting all attributes in constructor and all those attributes are immutable. In general, object constructed this way are safer when used by multiple threads.
In second example, there is no need for synchronization. You'd need to handle synchronization/memory issues when multiple threads using standard JavaBean object.
Why not to use method #2
Your second example is not recommended because if you added a new field to the Address class, then do you add it into the existing setter method or do you create a new setter method? If you add it into the existing setter method, then any classes that called that method would be broken. And if you created a new setter method, then it is confusing for anyone who wants to use that class why certain fields are grouped together that way while others are not.
Using a separate setter method for each field that you wish to expose
The common practice is to have a single setter method for each field in your class that you wish to expose (i.e. your first example). Whether or not this is a good practice is debatable because it forces a class to be mutable. It is best to make an object immutable, if possible, for a number of reasons.
Initializing your fields using a constructor
One way to make a class immutable is by getting rid of the setter methods and instead making your fields settable via your class constructor, as below. The downside to implementing it this way is that if your class has a lot of fields, it may potentially lead to large, unreadable constructor calls.
public class Address {
public String name;
public String city;
private Address(String name, String city) {
this.name = name;
this.city = city;
}
}
Initializing your fields using the Builder pattern
Below is a completely alternative implementation (inspired by this article) that is a variation of the Builder pattern. It simulates object mutability without sacrificing readability.
public class Address {
public String name;
public String city;
private Address() {}
private void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
private void setCity(String city) {
this.city = city;
}
static class Builder {
private Address address = new Address();
public Builder name(String name) {
address.setName(name);
return this;
}
public Builder city(String city) {
address.setCity(city);
return this;
}
public Address build() {
return address;
}
}
}
With the above class, you could create an immutable instance of the Address class as follows:
Address address = new Address.Builder()
.name("Mansoor's address")
.city("Toronto")
.build();
Which approach uses more memory?
From a memory point of view, there shouldn't be any difference since the size of a class in memory is dependent on the fields in the class. Since all three implementations have the same fields, they should take the same amount of space in memory, regardless of which approach you use.
I can't see how the two approaches would be any different memory-wise.
Choose the approach that makes most sense to have in the interface of the class.
I would recommend to go with approach 2 only if both properties are logically strongly related, or if there is some class invariant that you don't want to temporarily break (even temporarily).
In your Address example, I would definitely go with two setter methods, since when talking about addresses, the name and city are quite unrelated.
For methods in general I'd say that whether or not you split a method up in two has little effect on memory consumption. Each object doesn't get its own set of methods allocated. The memory containing the methods is shared between all instances of a class.
Rule of thumb: Strive to make the interface of your class clean and logical.
This is not a clear question. Do you mean, would you rather have two methods like setFoo(String) and setBar(int), or one method like setFooBar(String, int)? It really depends on whether these are logically different properties, in which case you want individual methods, or whether it often (or only) makes sense to set them together. You could provide both.
Neither has any impact on memory, no.
The JavaBean standard is to have getters and setters for each property: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Java_Programming/Java_Beans. If you don't want to follow that standard convention, its what makes the most sense for your shop. As per other answers on this thread, there probably is a minimal memory delta, if any.
Nb.1 without a doubt.
And you don't write that code by hand, only declare your fields.
Then you let Eclipse do the rest for you.
In Eclipse use Source --> generate getters and setters.
A very similar construct as #2 is done in the objects constructor.
The updated question with regards to memory. Don't worry one second in production code for the memory difference between those two ways.
You generally write a setter and a getter method for each attribute.
I don't really see the case when one method is enough for setting all the attributes. In this case, all attributes should have the same value? Or you always would have to pass parameters for all attributes. Both cases are not really what you want. So you should clearly prefer your first approach.