getter-setter

How setter works inside Spring Framework?

主宰稳场 提交于 2019-11-29 17:56:59
I'm new in spring Framework. And actually i was doing an experiment with spring actually. Look at this HelloWorld.java : public class HelloWorld { private String messageee; public void setMessage(String messageee){ this.messageee=messageee; } public void show(){ System.out.println("message: "+messageee); } } You see in this program, I've one variable which is outside declared as private named as messageee and next variable which is parametrized with setter named as messageee . You see both have same name. Okay.. Now look at this bean file: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <beans xmlns=

Is it a bad practice to add elements to List using getter method in java?

断了今生、忘了曾经 提交于 2019-11-29 16:57:09
问题 Suppose I have a private ArrayList or a LinkedList inside a class, that I will never assign new reference to it, or in other words this will never happen: myLinkedList = anotherLinkedList; So that I won't need to use setMyLinkedList(anotherLinkedList) . But! I need to add elements to it, or remove elements from it. Should I write a new kind of setter to only, do the task of adding instead of setting , like myLinkedList.add(someElement) ? Or it is OK to do this by using getter , without

Why am I allowed to set a read only property of a protocol using a struct that inherits said protocol?

我的未来我决定 提交于 2019-11-29 16:53:16
I'm following a tutorial on the protocol oriented programming paradigm in which I'm confused by something I thought was rather simple which is read only properties of protocols or getters and setters. My understanding is that a read only property is signified by using the keyword 'get' when declaring a variable within a protocol. I was excited so I quickly coded created a playground to see if my thinking was accurate however it appears that I can still change the property which I thought was read only. What am I doing wrong to make it a true read only property to where I can't set it? protocol

Unit testing accessors (getters and setters)

谁都会走 提交于 2019-11-29 10:51:03
问题 Given the following methods: public function setFoo($foo) { $this->_foo = $foo; return $this; } public function getFoo() { return $this->_foo; } Assuming, they may be changed to be more complex in the future: How would you write unit tests for those methods? Just one test method? Should I skip those tests? What about code coverage? How about @covers annotation? Maybe some universal test method to implement in the abstract test case? (I use Netbeans 7) This seems like a waste of time, but I

Private setter typescript?

二次信任 提交于 2019-11-29 10:30:34
问题 Is there a way to have a private setter for a property in TypeScript? class Test { private _prop: string; public get prop() : string { return this._prop; } private set prop(val: string) { //can put breakpoints here this._prop = val; } } Compiler complains that visibility for getter and setter don't match. I know I can just set the backing field, but but then I can't set breakpoints when the value is set. I though about using an interface to hide the setter, but interfaces can only define a

Using JSON.stringify in conjunction with TypeScript getter/setter

南楼画角 提交于 2019-11-29 09:26:54
I am using getter/setter accessors in TypeScript. As it is not possible to have the same name for a variable and method, I started to prefix the variable with a lower dash, as is done in many examples: private _major: number; get major(): number { return this._major; } set major(major: number) { this._major = major; } Now when I use the JSON.stringify() method to convert the object into a JSON string, it will use the variable name as the key: _major. As I don't want the JSON file to have all keys prefixed with a lower dash, is there any possibility to make TypeScript use the name of the getter

An unhandled exception of type 'System.StackOverflowException' occurred

萝らか妹 提交于 2019-11-29 06:55:41
Why this? This is my code : public class KPage { public KPage() { this.Titolo = "example"; } public string Titolo { get { return Titolo; } set { Titolo = value; } } } I set data by the constructor. So, I'd like to do somethings like KPage page = new KPage(); Response.Write(page.Titolo); but I get that error on : set { Titolo = value; } You have an infinite loop here: public string Titolo { get { return Titolo; } set { Titolo = value; } } The moment you refer to Titolo in your code, the getter or setter call the getter which calls the getter which calls the getter which calls the getter which

Shortcut for denoting or implying getters and setters in UML class diagrams

血红的双手。 提交于 2019-11-29 06:34:54
问题 In a UML class diagram, if a class has 5 private attributes that need to be mutable and readable, the UML gets pretty ugly with 10 get/set methods even without any of the class' interesting functionality: Ugliness aside, I feel like the UML should focus on the class' more interesting functionality. Am I correct? Is there some standard shortcut for denoting or implying getters and setters for private attributes? 回答1: You are correct: there is no need to include the (noise of) "boilerplate"

Why do people write private-field getters returning a non-const reference?

坚强是说给别人听的谎言 提交于 2019-11-29 06:00:55
We can all agree on public variables being bad for encapsulation and all that. However, I noticed a lot of code that does this type of stuff: class foo { private: int integer_; string someString_; // other variables public: int& integer() { return integer_; } string& someString() { return someString_; } // other "functions" } int main() { foo f; f.integer() = 10; f.someString() = "something"; return 0; } I have seen this being used in many places and I don't get why. Basically it returns a reference to the data and thus exposes it directly to the outside. So encapsulation is not really

How to write a getter and setter for a Dictionary?

不想你离开。 提交于 2019-11-29 05:33:44
How do you define a getter and setter for complex data types such as a dictionary? public Dictionary<string, string> Users { get { return m_Users; } set { m_Users = value; } } This returns the entire dictionary? Can you write the setter to look and see if a specific key-value pair exists and then if it doesn't, add it. Else update the current key value pair? For the get, can you return a specific key-value pair instead of the whole dictionary? It is not possible to do it in a way that would involve only properties. You theoretically could write a setter, but for a getter, you would need to