OK so I understand that ion VB6, encapsulated properties in a class can belong to one of three categories:
Public Property
Friend
Public Variable
What is the difference between these and how do these compare to public and private properties in a more modern language like C#?
The scope qualifiers Public and Friend determine whether clients in different projects can see the item.
Public items will be accessible to client code in other projects1 and code in the same project.
Friend items are accessible only to code in the same project, not to code in other projects.
Private items are accessible only to code in the same class.
Properties are different from public variables, because with properties you can execute your own code when the client gets or sets the value2. EDIT following Deanna's comment: Also note that variables can be passed ByRef to a function and changes will work as expected. This is NOT the case for properties.
NB C# may be more modern, but IMHO the VB6 treatment of properties and public variables is significantly better than the .Net treatment.
In VB6 you can change a public variable into a property without breaking the clients. You don't even have to recompile them. Not true in .Net.
In VB6 public variables can be used with data binding. Not true in .Net.
In VB6 public variables could be used with interfaces. Not true in .Net.
IMHO Microsoft made a real design mistake in creating these differences between properties and public fields in .Net. Not convinced? After the first releases of .Net, the C# and VB compilers were modified to support automatically implemented properties. These allow you to create properties in just one line of code, so that it's later possible to add logic on get/set without causing problems. IMHO this proves that public variables should have been made indistinguishable from properties.
1 Assuming your project type actually allows your classes to be used by other projects (i.e. ActiveX DLL, OCX, or ActiveX exe).
2 In the Property Get, Property Let and Property Set procedures.
Public means that it is accessible by any other classes that
references your project/dll.
Friend means that it is accessible by
any other classes within your assembly (so only the exe you made the
class in)
variable and property are almost the same. Property is preferred since you can set if other classes can set or get the variable (Property encapsulates the variable)
In C# it is the same, only you use Internal instead of Friend
private property are those property that are used by ourselves and other family member. But, public property are those property which are used by all the people of our community, society or the country.
Related
Swift offers 5 access modifiers: open, public, internal, fileprivate and private.
Of what I know about these specifiers, (mainly from link & link_2)
open means classes and class members can be subclassed and overridden both within and outside the defining module (target).
fileprivate restricts the use of an entity to its defining source file. Basically accessible by multiple classes within a single file.
private restricts the use of an entity to its enclosing declaration.
Now, public and internal seems pretty much the same to me :-
public means classes and class members can only be subclassed and overridden within the defining module (target).
internal enables an entity to be used within the defining module (target). Also, this happens to be the default specifier if nothing else is mentioned. We would typically use internal access when defining an app’s or a framework’s internal structure.
So basically how do public and internal differ?
This is my first Question here, so if I have missed out any details, please let me know. Thanks in advance.
Whatever you marked as public can be use within your app and outside of you app(module). If you marked something as internal that can only be used within your app(module). This is very helpful when your developing a library (framework) , you can use internal to hide library structure.
And Public members of A.swift and B.swift are available to C.swift and D.swift. The only restriction is that classes can't be subclassed (they would need to be open.)
- My answer base on #Keaz & #Alexander.
From Access Control manual:
Open access and public access enable entities to be used within any
source file from their defining module, and also in a source file from
another module that imports the defining module. You typically use
open or public access when specifying the public interface to a
framework. The difference between open and public access is described
below.
Internal access enables entities to be used within any source
file from their defining module, but not in any source file outside of
that module. You typically use internal access when defining an app’s
or a framework’s internal structure.
Difference is in visibility to other modules.
EDIT to answer #iCode comment:
You don't need all of them.
For simplest small single-dev application just using default internal will be enough.
If you will need to do it right you may add fileprivate/private accessors to hide some implementation.
If you're developing large app and want to separate code into modules, or if you're developing library you will need to use public/open to create inter-module interface.
How can I make protected (like in ruby) variable or function in Swift? I know Swift has only 3 levels but nonetheless is it possible?
Access Levels
Swift provides three different access levels for entities within your
code. These access levels are relative to the source file in which an
entity is defined, and also relative to the module that source file
belongs to.
Public access enables entities to be used within any source file from
their defining module, and also in a source file from another module
that imports the defining module. You typically use public access when
specifying the public interface to a framework.
Internal access
enables entities to be used within any source file from their defining
module, but not in any source file outside of that module. You
typically use internal access when defining an app’s or a framework’s
internal structure.
Private access restricts the use of an entity to
its own defining source file. Use private access to hide the
implementation details of a specific piece of functionality.
Public
access is the highest (least restrictive) access level and private
access is the lowest (or most restrictive) access level
Currently I see only one solution - write parent class with private modifier and children class in single file but it's kind of painful.
Swift prefers to not use protected. You can read the reasons here Access Control and protected
In contrast, protected conflates access with inheritance, adding an entirely new control axis to reason about. It doesn’t actually offer any real protection, since a subclass can always expose “protected” API through a new public method or property. It doesn’t offer additional optimization opportunities either, since new overrides can come from anywhere. And it’s unnecessarily restrictive — it allows subclasses, but not any of the subclass’s helpers, to access something.
In Ruby's point of view, it may be important. However in Swift, neither it is useless, nor it is a matter of the language.
Swift language is primarily based on modules when it comes to access levels. It even has public private(set) variables, which is much needed in Objective-C (causes boilerplate).
There's no equivalent to protected in Swift where only subclasses have access to the method. Personally, I don't miss it.
In Swift (as Objective-C) there is far less emphasis on subclassing than other languages. If you find you have a set of methods that you want to be protected, it is probably better to factor them out as a delegate.
Swift 3.0 not cantains protected modifier. In our sdk we use internal(set) modifier that approve set operation only in sdk project.
private var _authorized : Bool = false
public internal(set) var authorized : Bool
{
get
{
return _authorized;
}
set
{
_authorized = newValue
}
}
I'm sure there's something I'm missing here, but a lot of Googling hasn't uncovered it for me. The situation is like this:
We created a custom workflow designer that allows end users to build workflow definitions from various custom activities we define (Review, Submit, Notify, etc). These definitions (Xaml) get saved off to a Db and used to create workflow instances for long running processes in our system. The users can set properties on each of them (e.g. Review has a property argument: AllowedRoles). The problem is, I'm not able to pass those properties on to nested activities.
For example:
Review has an internal activity 'WriteStatus' that needs access to the 'AllowedRoles' property on Review. If 'AllowedRoles' is defined as a Property, WriteStatus can't "see" it to assign it's value. I can change it from a Property to an InArgument, but then I'm not able to map values to and from the property in the designer (these properties should be part of the definition, and not associated with any specific context).
Has anyone faced this issue or have advice on how I could approach the problem differently?
Thanks in advance!
Royce
I was able to get around the property vs InOurArgument problem by converting the XAML activities to code. This allowed me to set the properties on activities in code, and then pass them to inner activities inline. There may be a better way, but it's working out well so far.
public sealed class Test : Activity
{
public string Stuff { get; set; } // CLR Property
public Test()
{
Implementation = () => new WriteLine {Text = Stuff};
}
}
I just started using the Netbeans 7.1 beta and it is calling out errors of a type which I have never seen before. Specifically:
A managed bean with a public field should not declare any scope other than #Dependent.
The fields it is complaining about are public static final. I can understand the restriction on non-static fields, but I can't think of a good reason this would not be allowed for a static field. Unfortunately I use a lot of them since I don't like having constants in my code.
I note that even though I get the red dot in the margin in the editor, the maven-driven build still works and GlassFish still runs my application the way I would expect.
So what is my denoument on this issue? Am I going to have to move my static fields elsewhere or is there another way of handling this?
Quoting the javax.enterprise.inject package javadocs:
If a managed bean has a public field, it must have scope #Dependent.
But I do agree wih #BalusC that if this compiles, Netbeans should report it as Warning (does it?).
Anyway, are those constants really part of the API? I mean, do you access they anywhere else but within their own classes? If not, reduce visibility to private. (If you just need to access the constants from the view you can also create accessors for the private constant). If yes, I would suggest you to move them somewhere else anyway.
Public fields (static or not) aren't proxyable - that's why they can only be dependent scoped. To work around this you obviously can access them through getter methods.
Do you always create these two abstract base classes as the basis of any new project in DDD?
I've read that Entity should have two things. First, an identity property, probably of a generic type. Second, an Equals() method that determines whether it's the same as another Entity. Anything else? Any other natural methods or rules of thumb?
I like to have a common abstract ancestor for all my Domain objects but that is a matter of preference and overall infrastructure requirements.
After that, yes I have abstract classes for Entity and Value objects.
Don't forget that also overriding Equals for Value objects to return equality based on equal property state can be important.
Also people frequently overlook the value of packages. Put all these core base classes in their own "kernel" library and don't be reluctant to split your domain model into multiple assemblies instead of winding up with a single large "Domain Library".
If you're using .NET/C#, I've published a set of DDD interfaces and classes for public use. Take a look to see what typically goes inside them. The embedded code comments should hint towards their usage.
You can [download it here][1]. Project is dead now.
I've never needed the Equals() method in my applications thus far. Your mileage may vary though.
However, I create empty interfaces and use them as descriptors:
public interface IAggregateRoot {}
public interface IEntity {}
public interface IValueObject {}
public class Order : IAggregateRoot
{
...
}
public class State : IValueObject
{
...
}