CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c#variablesmemberprotected
Martijn
Martijn

Reputation: 24809

c# using setters or getters from base class

Is it recommended to set member variables of a base class to protected, so that subclasses can access these variables? Or is it more recommended to set the member variables to private and let the subclasses get or set the varible by getters and setters?

And if it is recommended to use the getters and setters method, when are protected variables used?

Upvotes: 4

Views: 4293

Answers (4)

Tamas Czinege
Tamas Czinege

Reputation: 121394

This is a trade-off here. Setters and getters are somewhat slower than accessing fields directly, so if you are doing heavy maths and read/write these fields a lot in your subclasses, you should go for accessing the fields directly. But this is more like an exception.

Normally, you should mark them as private and go for getters/setters.

So my answer is: direct access for heavily used fields, getters/setters otherwise. Use common sense.

EDIT: I did some profiling and apparently even in Release mode, there can be up the 20% speed difference between fields and properties. See my test case here: http://pastebin.com/m5a4d1597

Upvotes: 0

Patrick Desjardins
Patrick Desjardins

Reputation: 140943

I have to agree with Jon.

But, I use protected variable for "top most" inheritance class sometime in some condition. Example, if you have an object that is readonly and you cannot set it back BUT that you can use it in a child class, I do not see why I should have a protected Get to have access to that variable. A simple protected variable do the same encapsulation because you cannot set this variable and you can access this variable only from the child class.

But set/get is the way to do for other situation.

Upvotes: 0

Daniel Earwicker
Daniel Earwicker

Reputation: 116714

Classes in other assemblies can derive from your unsealed classes and can access protected fields. If you one day decide to make those fields into properties, those classes in other assemblies will need to be recompiled to work with the new version of your assembly. That's called "breaking binary compatibility", and is perhaps the one solid reason why you shouldn't ever expose fields outside of an assembly.

Upvotes: 2

Jon Skeet
Jon Skeet

Reputation: 1502686

This is very similar to this question, about whether to access information within the same class via properties or direct access. It's probably worth reading all those answers too.

Personally, I don't like any fields to be non-private with the occasional exception of static readonly fields with immutable values (whether const or not). To me, properties just give a better degree of encapsulation. How data is stored is an implementation decision, not an API decision (unlike properties). Why should class Foo deriving from class Bar care about the implementation of class Bar?

In short, I'd always go for properties, and I don't use protected variables for anything other than throwaway test code.

With automatically implemented properties in C# 3.0, it's easier than ever before to turn fields into properties. There's precious little reason not to do it.

Upvotes: 14

Related Questions