<p>So, I have willfully kept myself a Java n00b until recently, and my first real exposure brought about a minor shock: Java does not have C# style properties!</p>

<p>Ok, I can live with that. However, I can also swear that I have seen property getter/setter code in Java in one codebase, but I cannot remember where. How was that achieved? Is there a language extension for that? Is it related to NetBeans or something?</p>

[{'answer_id': 70519, 'author': 'Mark Embling', 'author_id': 6844, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/6844', 'pm_score': 2, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>My Java experience is not that high either, so anyone feel free to correct me. But AFAIK, the general convention is to write two methods like so:</p>\n\n<pre><code>public string getMyString() {\n    // return it here\n}\n\npublic void setMyString(string myString) {\n    // set it here\n}\n</code></pre>\n'}, {'answer_id': 70527, 'author': 'TK.', 'author_id': 1816, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1816', 'pm_score': 1, 'selected': False, 'text': "<p>If you're using eclipse then it has the capabilities to auto generate the getter and setter method for the internal attributes, it can be a usefull and timesaving tool.</p>\n"}, {'answer_id': 70530, 'author': 'Hank Gay', 'author_id': 4203, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4203', 'pm_score': 3, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>The bean convention is to write code like this:</p>\n\n<pre><code>private int foo;\npublic int getFoo() {\n    return foo;\n}\npublic void setFoo(int newFoo) {\n    foo = newFoo;\n}\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>In some of the other languages on the JVM, e.g., Groovy, you get overridable properties similar to C#, e.g.,</p>\n\n<pre><code>int foo\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>which is accessed with a simple <code>.foo</code> and leverages default <code>getFoo</code> and <code>setFoo</code> implementations that you can override as necessary.</p>\n'}, {'answer_id': 70535, 'author': 'Calum', 'author_id': 8434, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/8434', 'pm_score': 7, 'selected': True, 'text': '<p>There is a &quot;standard&quot; pattern for getters and setters in Java, called <a href="http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/javabeans/writing/properties.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bean properties</a>. Basically any method starting with <code>get</code>, taking no arguments and returning a value, is a property getter for a property named as the rest of the method name (with a lowercased start letter). Likewise <code>set</code> creates a setter of a void method with a single argument.</p>\n<p>For example:</p>\n<pre><code>// Getter for &quot;awesomeString&quot;\npublic String getAwesomeString() {\n  return awesomeString;\n}\n\n// Setter for &quot;awesomeString&quot;\npublic void setAwesomeString( String awesomeString ) {\n  this.awesomeString = awesomeString;\n}\n</code></pre>\n<p>Most Java IDEs will generate these methods for you if you ask them (in Eclipse it\'s as simple as moving the cursor to a field and hitting <kbd>Ctrl</kbd>-<kbd>1</kbd>, then selecting the option from the list).</p>\n<p>For what it\'s worth, for readability you can actually use <code>is</code> and <code>has</code> in place of <code>get</code> for boolean-type properties too, as in:</p>\n<pre><code>public boolean isAwesome();\n\npublic boolean hasAwesomeStuff();\n</code></pre>\n'}, {'answer_id': 70548, 'author': 'Bill Michell', 'author_id': 7938, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/7938', 'pm_score': 2, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>Most IDEs for Java will automatically generate getter and setter code for you if you want them to. There are a number of different conventions, and an IDE like Eclipse will allow you to choose which one you want to use, and even let you define your own.</p>\n\n<p>Eclipse even includes automated refactoring that will allow you to wrap a property up in a getter and setter and it will modify all the code that accesses the property directly, to make it use the getter and/or setter.</p>\n\n<p>Of course, Eclipse can only modify code that it knows about - any external dependencies you have could be broken by such a refactoring.</p>\n'}, {'answer_id': 70987, 'author': 'Cheekysoft', 'author_id': 1820, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1820', 'pm_score': 4, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>"Java Property Support" was proposed for Java 7, but did not make it into the language.</p>\n\n<p>See <a href="http://tech.puredanger.com/java7#property" rel="noreferrer">http://tech.puredanger.com/java7#property</a> for more links and info, if interested.</p>\n'}, {'answer_id': 72826, 'author': 'Scott Stanchfield', 'author_id': 12541, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/12541', 'pm_score': 1, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>I\'m just releasing Java 5/6 annotations and an annotation processor to help this.</p>\n\n<p>Check out <a href="http://code.google.com/p/javadude/wiki/Annotations" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://code.google.com/p/javadude/wiki/Annotations</a></p>\n\n<p>The documentation is a bit light right now, but the quickref should get the idea across.</p>\n\n<p>Basically it generates a superclass with the getters/setters (and many other code generation options).</p>\n\n<p>A sample class might look like</p>\n\n<pre><code>@Bean(properties = {\n    @Property(name="name", bound=true),\n    @Property(name="age,type=int.class)\n})\npublic class Person extends PersonGen {\n}\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>There are many more samples available, and there are no runtime dependencies in the generated code.</p>\n\n<p>Send me an email if you try it out and find it useful!\n-- Scott</p>\n'}, {'answer_id': 18496921, 'author': 'dantuch', 'author_id': 575659, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/575659', 'pm_score': 3, 'selected': False, 'text': '<pre><code>public class Animal {\n\n    @Getter @Setter private String name;\n    @Getter @Setter private String gender;\n    @Getter @Setter private String species;\n}\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>This is something like C# properties. It\'s <a href="http://projectlombok.org/">http://projectlombok.org/</a></p>\n'}, {'answer_id': 18496962, 'author': 'Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-A.', 'author_id': 2698019, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2698019', 'pm_score': 5, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>I am surprised that no one mentioned <a href="http://projectlombok.org/" rel="noreferrer">project lombok</a></p>\n\n<p>Yes, currently there are no properties in java. There are some other missing features as well.<br>\nBut luckily we have <a href="http://projectlombok.org/" rel="noreferrer">project lombok</a> that is trying to improve the situation. It is also getting more and more popular every day.</p>\n\n<p>So, if you\'re using lombok:</p>\n\n<pre><code>@Getter @Setter int awesomeInteger = 5;\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>This code is going to generate <code>getAwesomeInteger</code> and <code>setAwesomeInteger</code> as well. So it is quite similar to <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb384054.aspx" rel="noreferrer">C# auto-implemented properties</a>.</p>\n\n<p>You can get more info about lombok getters and setters <a href="http://projectlombok.org/features/GetterSetter.html" rel="noreferrer">here</a>.<br>\nYou should definitely check out <a href="http://projectlombok.org/features/index.html" rel="noreferrer">other features</a> as well.\nMy favorites are:  </p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><a href="http://projectlombok.org/features/val.html" rel="noreferrer">val</a></li>\n<li><a href="http://projectlombok.org/features/Constructor.html" rel="noreferrer">NoArgsConstructor, RequiredArgsConstructor, AllArgsConstructor</a></li>\n<li><a href="http://projectlombok.org/features/Log.html" rel="noreferrer">Logs!</a></li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>Lombok is well-integrated with IDEs, so it is going to show generated methods like if they existed (suggestions, class contents, go to declaration and refactoring).<br>\nThe only problem with lombok is that other programmers might not know about it. You can always <a href="http://projectlombok.org/features/delombok.html" rel="noreferrer">delombok</a> the code but that is rather a workaround than a solution.</p>\n'}, {'answer_id': 20781926, 'author': 'th1rdey3', 'author_id': 1682148, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1682148', 'pm_score': 2, 'selected': False, 'text': "<p>From <strong>Jeffrey Richter's</strong>  book <strong>CLR via C#</strong>: (I think these might be the reasons why properties are still not added in JAVA)</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>A property method may throw an exception; field access never throws an exception.</li>\n<li>A property cannot be passed as an <code>out</code> or <code>ref</code> parameter to a method; a field can. </li>\n<li>A property method can take a long time to execute; field access always completes\nimmediately. A common reason to use properties is to perform thread synchronization,\nwhich can stop the thread forever, and therefore, a property should not be\nused if thread synchronization is required. In that situation, a method is preferred.\nAlso, if your class can be accessed remotely (for example, your class is derived from\n<code>System.MarshalByRefObject</code>), calling the property method will be very slow, and\ntherefore, a method is preferred to a property. In my opinion, classes derived from\n<code>MarshalByRefObject</code> should never use properties.</li>\n<li>If called multiple times in a row, a property method may return a different value each\ntime; a field returns the same value each time. The <code>System.DateTime</code> class has a readonly\n<code>Now</code> property that returns the current date and time. Each time you query this\nproperty, it will return a different value. This is a mistake, and Microsoft wishes that\nthey could fix the class by making Now a method instead of a property. <code>Environment</code>’s\n<code>TickCount</code> property is another example of this mistake.</li>\n<li>A property method may cause observable side effects; field access never does. In other\nwords, a user of a type should be able to set various properties defined by a type in\nany order he or she chooses without noticing any different behavior in the type.</li>\n<li>A property method may require additional memory or return a reference to something\nthat is not actually part of the object’s state, so modifying the returned object has no\neffect on the original object; querying a field always returns a reference to an object\nthat is guaranteed to be part of the original object’s state. Working with a property\nthat returns a copy can be very confusing to developers, and this characteristic is frequently\nnot documented.</li>\n</ul>\n"}, {'answer_id': 28183669, 'author': 'LEMUEL  ADANE', 'author_id': 1347816, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1347816', 'pm_score': 2, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>You may not need for "get" and "set" prefixes, to make it look more like properties, you may do it like this:</p>\n\n<pre><code>public class Person {\n    private String firstName = "";\n    private Integer age = 0;\n\n    public String firstName() { return firstName; } // getter\n    public void firstName(String val) { firstName = val; } // setter\n\n    public Integer age() { return age; } // getter\n    public void age(Integer val) { age = val; } //setter\n\n    public static void main(String[] args) {\n        Person p = new Person();\n\n        //set\n        p.firstName("Lemuel");\n        p.age(40);\n\n        //get\n        System.out.println(String.format("I\'m %s, %d yearsold",\n            p.firstName(),\n            p.age());\n    }\n}\n</code></pre>\n'}, {'answer_id': 48844944, 'author': 'Patrick PIGNOL', 'author_id': 9254419, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/9254419', 'pm_score': 1, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>There is no property keyword in java (like you could find it in C#) the nearest way to have 1 word getter/setter is to do like in C++:</p>\n\n<pre><code>public class MyClass\n{\n    private int aMyAttribute;\n    public MyClass()\n    {\n        this.aMyAttribute = 0;\n    }\n    public void mMyAttribute(int pMyAttributeParameter)\n    {\n        this.aMyAttribute = pMyAttributeParameter;\n    }\n    public int mMyAttribute()\n    {\n        return this.aMyAttribute;\n    }\n}\n//usage :\nint vIndex = 1;\nMyClass vClass = new MyClass();\nvClass.mMyAttribute(vIndex);\nvIndex = 0;\nvIndex = vClass.mMyAttribute();\n// vIndex == 1\n</code></pre>\n'}, {'answer_id': 54066621, 'author': 'Mario Levesque', 'author_id': 543584, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/543584', 'pm_score': 0, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>As previously mentioned for eclipse, integrated development environment (IDE) often can create accessor methods automatically.</p>\n\n<p>You can also do it using NetBeans. </p>\n\n<p>To create accessor methods for your class, open a class file, then Right-click anywhere in the source code editor and choose the menu command Refactor, Encapsulate Fields. \nA dialog opens. Click Select All, then click Refactor.\nVoilà,</p>\n\n<p>Good luck,</p>\n'}, {'answer_id': 59087540, 'author': 'Bradley Willcott', 'author_id': 12349591, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/12349591', 'pm_score': 0, 'selected': False, 'text': "<p>For me the problem is two fold:<br></p>\n<ol>\n<li>All these extra methods {get*/set*} cluttering up the class code.<br></li>\n<li>NOT being able to treat them like properties:</li>\n</ol>\n<pre><code>    public class Test {\n      private String _testField;\n\n      public String testProperty {\n       get {\n        return _testField;\n       }\n       set {\n        _testField = value;\n       }\n      }\n    }\n\n    public class TestUser {\n      private Test test;\n\n      public TestUser() {\n        test = new Test();\n\n        test.testProperty = &quot;Just something to store&quot;;\n        System.out.printLn(test.testProperty);\n      }\n    }\n</code></pre>\n<p>This is the sort of easy assignment I would like to get back to using.  NOT having to use 'method' calling syntax.  Can anyone provide some answers as to what happened to Java?</p>\n<p>I think that the issue is also about the unnecessary clutter in the code, and not the 'difficulty' of creating the setters/getters.  I consider them as ugly-code.  I like what C# has.  I don't understand the resistance to adding that capability to Java.</p>\n<p>My current solution is to use 'public' members when protection is not required:</p>\n<pre><code>public class IntReturn {\n    public int val;\n}\n\npublic class StringReturn {\n    public String val;\n}\n</code></pre>\n<p>These would be used to return value from say a Lambda:</p>\n<pre><code>StringReturn sRtn = new StringReturn()\n\nif(add(2, 3, sRtn)){\n    System.out.println(&quot;Value greater than zero&quot;);\n}\n\npublic boolean add(final int a, final int b, final StringReturn sRtn){\n    int rtn = a + b;\n    sRtn.val = &quot;&quot; + rtn;\n    return rtn &gt; 0; // Just something to use the return for.\n}\n</code></pre>\n<p>I also really don't like using a method call to set or get an internal value from a class.</p>\n<p>If your information is being transferred as 'immutable', then the new Java <strong>record</strong> could be a solution.  However, it still uses the setter/getter methodology, just without the set/get prefixes.</p>\n"}]
['https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/70471', 'https://Stackoverflow.com', 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/227/']