Looks like my last blog on this subject got some attention in dzone. It was pleasing to see those up votes. There were some down votes as well. I am trying to figure out why there were so many down votes. Probably they did not like the idea that a private field which have getter/setter can be treated just like a public field. Although essentially it is public but idea that you could directly access and change the field without going to through the getter/setters is not palatable to lot of people. If it walks like duck, quacks like duck, sometimes it is really not a duck! Some people pointed out getter/setters could be quite different from [return field;] and [this.field = field;] kind of code. In that case, one could provide explicit getter/setters. The annotation model will only apply to the most common case. In the lombok project also, this is the case the annotation will cover. Even then, I do not think java community, in general, will like the idea to treat private fields as public fields.
This was the idea my last blog that I was trying to push. Most of the other ideas presented have already been featured in the lombok project. Although it is not fashionable now, it might become in future.
What is not yet implemented in the lombok project is the Constructor annotation. This will really save lot of code clutter. This constructor annotation could have optional parameters to call super(), or some other method. e.g. init(), etc. If anyone has any comments or suggestions please post below.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Recently lombok project has created
quite a buzz. It is a very nice project which lets one put short and concise annotations in place of getter setters. There are other projects also which takes this approach which has similar annotations in place. With the annotations no explicit getter setters are not necessary and still other classes can call the getter setters as if they are there. The lombok project also fits into eclipse ide which makes the getter setters appear as code completion even though they are not there.
Could there be a better alternative? How about having annotation similar to lombok project and let's say they called @Getter & @Setter which will create the getter and setter implicitly so other classes can call the methods and not get compilation error. What if @Getter annotation makes the field public for reading purpose and @Setter annotation makes it public for writing purpose. So if a field is annotated with @Getter then one should able to do
- something = instance.field,
- instance.field= something.
In addition to not having the getter/setters, this will also make it apparent which fields are really private and which are modifiable and accessible. One does not need to scroll down hundred lines to see if there are getters setters for it. An optional body could be supplied to the annotations as well. But in most cases, simple return field (for getters) and this.field = field(for setters) will do.
The two annotations can be combined to one annotation called @GetterSetter. A @Data annotation can be created as well just like lombok project does which will make all private fields having @GetterSetter annotation. To be complete, a negative annotation @NotGetter @NotSetter can be applied to few fields which are not supposed to be accessible and modifiable.
Another useful annotation to cut code clutter can be to introduce @Constructor annotation which can be attached to a class. This can take optional parameters @Constructor(field1, field2, field3,..). There can be multiple Constructos with varying numbers of fields. This could be extended to equals, hashCode, and toString methods as well. For these methods, a template could be defined which will present in the classpath. I am not providing further details for simplicity.
Posted by My Story at 10:16 PM