Just catching up on some old threads because I've been crazy busy lately...
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 6:44 AM, John Whish <[email protected]> wrote: > Would you create and use a private getter and setter for mutating > "foo"? No. I avoid getters/setters as much as possible since they essentially break encapsulation and I never use private getters/setters at all - I see no point. http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-09-2003/jw-0905-toolbox.html Yes, there are times where you need to just 'get' data in order to merge objects into procedural code (such as views) - but there are other ways to do that too - so if you can avoid getters and setters, your code will do less of this: something = obj.getFoo() + obj.getBar(); obj.setFooBar( something ); That's horribly non-OO since you're performing the operation outside the object rather than inside it. *dons flame-retardant suit* -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN Railo Technologies US -- http://getrailo.com/ An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CFCDev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfcdev?hl=en.
