Using setter methods in constructor: bad practice? [closed]

Answer 1

It's probably not a good idea. If you don't make that class final and don't make the setName( ... ) method private or final someone else is able to extend your class and overrid the setName( ... ) method. Your constructor (in your base class) will call that method in the extending class instead of your implementation. Nobody knows what that method can do. As a rule of thumb: a constructor shouldn't call methods that can be overriden.

Answer 2

I think you should chose carefully and be aware of the downsides of each.

If the class you are defining is likely to be sub-classed then take particular care to avoid being uninitialised at a time when the subclass needs you to be complete.

This may be a useful mechanism but it is, in my opinion, unpleasant.

public class A {

   private int b;

   public A(int b) {
      _setB(b);
   }

   private void _setB(int b) {
      this.b = b;
   }

   public void setB(int b) {
      _setB(b);
   }
}

I personally would prefer that to something like this though:

public class A {

   private int b;

   public A(int b) {
      this.b = b;
   }

   public void setB(int b) {
      this.b = b;
   }
}