Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.dougwise.org!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.glorb.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:35:04 -0500
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:34:56 -0700
From: Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.2; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: A question about some long java code that has getters/setters
References: <d94f5902-8b2e-484f-8095-9ce034e916d4@t8g2000prm.googlegroups.com> <1672e2f1-a963-4fcf-b651-41b69432c9d7@p29g2000pre.googlegroups.com> <m21uxehzrj.fsf@softwarematters.org> <j0kvh1$1eq$1@dont-email.me> <Getters-and-Setters-20110726023724@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <hq5s27hjit5limeqt7eef01l8r9539p0ff@4ax.com> <setter-20110726111404@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <vcvt27l0b8c9vqdobhfqhudivq8i8mesjl@4ax.com> <setter-20110726201927@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <at2u2712qceiq70etcqa9ed4jjc8dftgvd@4ax.com> <setter-20110726211038@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
In-Reply-To: <setter-20110726211038@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <woOdnZ78R4FlubLTnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@earthlink.com>
Lines: 45
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.230.200.239
X-Trace: sv3-hM47SAMDQ0ACIeGY+Ef4VKg8LQilf9Rfp167g5idIVOsKs4P39yJsLI98MIMPlqZGZkpvRIKbGyfrAG!l4ExIYkGxoj9Z51RUAxcosHdLeL/ocqqnwC7caq3t9GxweRu34VihnBRkYkSLjP4OJV7UJiFrk3m!fkneJ93+GL4paoG4TrexYu+8i7gCk5TvQXcCfocJrvPNn1Y=
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3444
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:6594

On 7/26/2011 12:15 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko<genew@ocis.net>  writes:
>>> Since I do not know whether your methods
>
>    (insert »according to their contract«, here)
>
>>>                                          set the value of an
>>> instance variable, I do not know, whether they are »setters«
>>> in the sense of my definition. I would need to be able to
>>> read their contract (documentation) to learn about this.
>> Read my example contract above.  It does not mention an instance
>> variable, but any reasonable implementation that I am likely to do
>> would use one.
>
>    Ok, then - to me - it is not a »setter«.
>
>> They set something.  Whether it is an instance variable or not is
>> irrelevant to their use.
>
>    That is even another reason not to make references to instance
>    variables in the contract of a method.
>
>    A »Setter« to me is a method with a contract like:
>
>        »... sets the private field "alpha" to the argument value.«
>
>    Your method does not set a »field« but a »property« of the object.
>    Its contract does not allow a party to deduce with
>    certainity something about the private fields of the object.
>    Therefore, it does not break encapsulation.
>

We have two possible definitions of "setter", with corresponding
definitions for "getter".

1. A method whose contract specifies setting an instance variable.

2. A method whose contract specifies setting a logical property of the
object.

To me, it seems wasteful to use an nice, short, simple term for
something that should *never* exist, when it could equally well be used
for something that is actually useful, so I prefer the second definition.

Patricia