Declaring members as published has advantages over public:
Ability to read/write the member in the Object Insepoctor of the IDE
RTTI and its uses
So is there ever a benefit to declaring members public instead of published? Does published have any downsides? Or should I always declare members published, as a rule?
PS: Not a duplicate; I read that question and all its answers prior to posting my question. The "possible duplicate" question explains the difference between the two keywords, but doesn't gives guidance when either should be used, or the advantages/disadvantages of using either.
Declaring as published imposes a storage cost because the size of your executable is swollen to contain the RTTI. Declaring as public avoids that cost. It's unlikely that would ever matter, especially given the immense size of modern Delphi executables, containing as they do huge amounts of code that never even executes.
For components that can be edited in the Object Inspector, the difference between public and published is more significant. As you say, this is how a component determines which properties are visible in the Object Inspector. Some properties should be visible there, others not. User "TLama" gives fine examples of properties that need to be public, but should not be editable in the Object Inspector: Parent, Handle and so on.
Beyond that it comes down to opinion. It's entirely up to you to decide what to do.
Related
I just want to ask, we are having one class, in which we have two private data members say:
class Employee{
private int empid;
private String empname;
}
I am declaring them private that means I can use them in Employee class only. So what is the need to create getter setter for both the data members and making them public.
Hope you got my problem.
This is an excellent question. Often you see code examples that make members private but exposing them via a getter/setter pair, without the getter/setter doing anything else than setting the corresponding member.
In my book this is not encapsulation at all. You are no better of than just making the members public. Although a lot of people are uneasy to do that, they would happily provide accessors automatically for all their members.
One reason to do provide accessors is the ability to do input validation. E.g. if you empIds have a checksum, you could enforce it in the setter. Something that is not possible with direct access to the member.
In my opinion it would be better to think about the role this object will play and see how it can achieve that role with a minimum of accessors. Otherwise your code will probably violate the Law of Demeter.
You are absolutely right, that creating a setter/getter or making the fields public both violate encapsulation in the same way, therefore if you do want to encapsulate your private fields, presumably because you are working in an Object-Oriented environment, you do not want to use either of those things.
To your question why there is a need to have create setter/getters: Most projects (consciously or unconsciously) do not base their designs on Object-Orientation. There are other paradigms, where data and function are separated, thus encapsulation plays a minor role if any.
In the Java world it is common to have pure (or very close to pure) data structures (Beans), and Services/Components/EJBs/etc that work on these Beans (have access to all fields basically). Often these architectures split the function part further into topics like Presentation, Business, Persistence (3-tier architectures), or create explicit control procedures that has access to all the relevant fields (like how MVC is often done).
Whether one approach is better than the other would be a subjective discussion probably, but the short answer is: It's a different paradigm usually (not OO), that is why setters/getters get created.
I have searched many sites and also there are questions on stackoverflow regarding my question but none answers them perfectly,so i decided to frame it as a new question.
According to me we use 'virtual' keyword when we need to define the function with same name and argument-list in both base and derived class.But in case of the destructos why we need virtual as the names would be different and there should be no confusion for the compiler as in case o constructor.
I am really confused with this.
In an object hierarchy, you can store your objects in a collection of your base object. In order to make sure your derived types' destructor is also executed during cleanup, you should make your dtors virtual.
However, you might not always want that, and hence c++ (I suppose yours is a c++ question), or the language gives you the chance to control this behaviour.
This question is specifically focused around static libraries / frameworks; in other words, code that other people will eventually touch.
I'm fairly well versed in properties, since I started iOS development when iOS 6 was released. I have used hidden properties declared in interface extensions to do all of my "private" property work, including using readonly on public facing properties I don't want others to modify and readwrite within interface extensions.
The important thing is that I do not want other people who are using these static libraries / frameworks to be accessing these properties if I don't allow it, nor writing these properties if I let them read it.
I've known for a while that they could theoretically create their own interface extension and make my readonly properties readwrite themselves, or guess the names of hidden properties.
If I want to prevent this, should I be using ivars with the #private tag with directly declared ivars? Are there potential downfalls to doing it this way? Does it actually get me an additional measure of security, or is it a red herring?
Under ARC the only mode supported by properties and not instance variables is copy - so if you need copy use a property.
If you declare your private instance variables in the #implementation section:
#implementation MyClass
{
// private instance vars
}
then it takes serious effort to access them from outside the class. As you say accessing a "private" property just takes guessing its name - or using the library calls which tell you.
Is it worth it for security? YMMV. But its a good coding practice regardless.
Addendum
As the comment trail shows there has been much discussion over my use of serious effort.
First let's be clear: Objective-C is in the C family of languages, they all allow the programmer to just about anything they choose while staying within the language[*] - these are not the languages of choice if you want strong typing, access restrictions, etc., etc. within your code.
Second, "effort" is not an absolute measure! So maybe I should have chosen the word "obvious" to qualify it rather than "serious". To access a private property just requires the use of a standard method call where the object has type id - there is little clue in the code that the method being called is hidden. To access a private variable requires either an API call (a runtime function or KVC call) or some pointer manipulation - the resultant code looks nothing like a standard variable assignment. So its more obvious.
That said, apart from uses requiring copy, under ARC there is no good reason to use a private property when a private instance variable will do. For a private variable fred compare:
self.fred = 42; // property access, may involve a call (if not optimised out)
_fred = 42; // common way to bypass the accessors and get at the underlying var
fred = 42; // direct access
Take your pick, there is no right answer, but there isn't a wrong one either - this is the realm of opinion (and that is of course an opinion ;-)). I would often pick the last one, private variable - clean & simple. However #RobNapier in his answer prefers the use of properties.
[*] Note: once you consider linking to external code, say written in assembler, all bets are of in any language. At that point you have to look at the "hardware" (real or virtual) and/or "OS" to provide protection.
You should use private ("hidden") properties here. There is no "security" risk. The "attacker" in this scenario is the caller. The caller has complete access to all memory in the process. She can access anything in your framework she wants and there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop that (nor should you). This is true in any language. You can bypass "private:" designations in C++ as well if you know what you're doing. It's all just memory at the end of the day.
It is not your job to protect yourself or your framework from the caller. You both have the same goal: correct program behavior. Your goal is to protect callers from themselves. Make it difficult for them to use your framework incorrectly and easy to use it correctly.
So, you should use the tool that leads to the most correct code. And that tool is properties, and avoiding directly ivar access except in init and dealloc.
I noticed this Windows-added code in a legacy *.cs file (prior to the advent of partial classes which evicted suchlike from the code files; specifically, this is in an old Windows CE project):
private System.Windows.Forms.Label lblDescription;
public System.Windows.Forms.TextBox txtItemDollar;
Why would some controls be private and others public? It's not the type of control that's the difference, because I see both TextBoxes and Labels that are in some cases private and in others public.
That's kind of academic, I guess; the more pertinent question is: what impact or import do these controls have by having one visibility specifier or the other?
I can understand a private control on what's effectively a compound component.
That's just you want to display something in label, but you don't want to provide the facility to mess with it, change the font, move it etc.
The public member, well that's just wrong.
Someoojah.txtItemDollar.Dispose;
or = null;
If it didn't fall over in a big heap after that I'd be very surprised. It violates so many fundamental design principals, its not true.
Can't say I'm surprised though. Early .net suffered from a number of very poor implementations, probably had a sales deadline to meet.
Just recently, probably because I've been maintaining some old code, I've started to look at how / why I do things. As you do.
Most of my Delphi programming has been picked up in house, or from examples scattered across the web or manuals. And in some things are done just because "that's how I do it"
What I'm currently wondering about is Declaration, of variables, procedures, functions, etc.
When I am working with a form, I will place all my procedures and functions under public or private. Whilst I will try to avoid global vars and constants will generally go under var or const, either in the interface or implementation, depending on where they need to be called (occasionally though they will go in public / private)
Otherwise, if its just a unit I will declare the procedure in the interface and use in the implementation. Some of the code I've been maintaining recently has no interface declaration but instead has everything properly ordered with calls after procedures...
Is there a correct way to do this? Are there rules of what should / should not go in the class? Or is it a style / when you started thing?
Edit to add
My question is not about whether a declaration of a procedure goes in private/public but whether all declarations in a TForm Unit should go in one of these. Similarly should var / const be in one or the other?
Further clarification
I understand that not declaring in interface, or declaring in public/private/etc affects the visibility of procedures/functions to other units in my applicaiton.
The core of my question is why would i not want to declare? - especially when working in a form/unit when placing in private is much more explicit that the thing declared is not available to other units...
Cheers
Dan
Everything that can have a different value depending on the concrete instance belongs to the class, i.e.
TDog = class
strict private
FColor : TColor;
FName : String;
public
property Color : TColor read FColor write FColor;
property Name : String read FName write FName;
end;
Color and name are clearly attributes of each dog (and each dog will have other values here).
General rules:
Fields belong in private (visible in this class and in this unit) or strict private (visible only in this class)
If you need access to fields from other classes, create a public property. This gives you the freedom to change the simple field access to a more sophisticated getter / setter method lateron without changing the interface of your class.
Everything should be as local as possible. If private is enough, there's no need to make it protected (visible in subclasses too). And only make those things public that you really need from the outside.
Forms: only those things that you want to be stored in the DFM file should be published.
Put as much as you can in the implementation section and as little as you can in the interface section. This is also true for uses clauses.
You might be confusing the term global variable. If it's declared in a class it's not a global variable (even if declared public). Global variables (which you correctly consider good to avoid) always go in a var section either in the interface or the implementation section (which is preferrable following the general rules above)
The question seems to deal with scope. In other words, how easily accessible things can or should be.
As a general guideline, you want to reduce the scope of things as much as possible but still keep them accessible enough to be reused. The reason for this is:
that as your system grows and becomes more complex, the things that have are larger scope are more easily accessible.
as a result, they are more likely to be reused in an uncontrolled fashion.
(sounds great) but the problem comes when you want to make changes, and many things use that which you want to change...
it becomes far more difficult to make your changes without breaking something else.
Having said that, there is also a distinction between data (variables, constants, class fields, record attributes) and routines (functions, procedures, methods on classes). You'll want to apply the guidelines far more strictly to data because 'strange use' of data could interfere with some of your routines in highly unexpected and hard to debug ways.
Another thing to bear in mind is the special distinction between global variables and class fields or record attributes:
using global variables there is only one 'value' (term used loosely) for the entire application.
using class fields or record attributes, each new instance of the class or record has its own values independent of other instances.
This does seem to imply that you could use some form of global whenever your application only needs one thing. However, as alluded to earlier: this is not the only reason to avoid globals.
Personally I even tend to avoid global routines.
I'm frequently discovering that things that seemed okay declared global are not as universal as first thought. (E.g. Delphi VCL declares a global Screen object, I work on 2 screens; and many of our clients use 4 to 6.)
I also find it useful to associate routines that could have been global with specific classes as class methods. It generally makes it easier to understand the code.
So listing these 'locations' from largest scope to smallest, you would generally strive to pick locations lower down in the list (especially for data).
interface global
implementation global
interface threadvar
implementation threadvar
published (Note I don't really consider this to be a scope identifier; it's really public scope; "and includes RTTI information" - theoretically, it would be useful to also mark some private attributes as "include RTTI".)
public
protected
private
strict private
local variable
I must confess: what I have presented here is most certainly an over-simplification. It is one thing to know the goals, another to actually implement them. There is a balancing act between encapsulation (hiding things away) and exposing controlled interfaces to achieve high levels of re-usability.
The techniques to successfully balance these needs fall into a category of far more complicated (and sometimes even contentious) questions on system design. A poor design is likely to induce one to expose 'too much' with 'too large' a scope, and (perhaps paradoxically) also reduce re-usability.