Skip to main content

Getters and Setters are Evil - Redux

Back in early 2011 I wrote one of my most viewed and commented posts at the time - Getters and Setters are Evil. Four years later it's time to review this.

The feedback within the team was generally positive. Production code was written in this style to great success. The core benefit was encapsulation was preserved as Business Objects were the sole source of domain logic. As an additional side effect testing was easier.

However not everyone within the team agreed that the benefits were worth the extra hassle or believed in the benefits of encapsulation. I always found the addition of an IRender interface or similar broke the SRP, even if you moved the logic to a separate class. The OCP suffered too, if view requirements changed, you need dig out your business object. The biggest failing is that legacy code and frameworks still require public getters/setters to function.

Overtime I found myself and others slipping back to the "old ways" of applying getters/setters without thought.


I now simply use two models, where the used to be one. Changes go to the domain model in the form of commands. Queries get returned as view models. The big change here is to simply split commands from queries and embrace the second model, everything else falls into place. This style works without a rich domain model also. The commands can be expressed as Transaction Scripts or similar if desired.

This is not new, I've applied this style in the past, but the big difference is the business object is never mapped or converted into a view model. There is no relationship between the two. They are two distinct paths in the code. This is the difference that CQRS brings - limited coupling.


Encapsulation is preserved as before, but the view model can be tailored to requirements. SOLID principles are not broken, while still having the huge benefit of playing nicely with frameworks due to exposing public getter/setters in order to facilitate model binding.

Getters and Setters are not evil as I've concluded before. It just turns out there are better ways of embracing the benefits of thinking they are evil.

The term Business Object is also known as Domain Object. The later being my preferred term now. I stuck with the original terminology to match the original post's code example.


Popular posts from this blog

Constant Object Anti Pattern

Most constants are used to remove magic numbers or variables that lack context. A classic example would be code littered with the number 7. What does this refer to exactly? If this was replaced with DaysInWeek or similar, much clarity is provided. You can determine that code performing offsets would be adding days, rather than a mysterious number seven.Sadly a common pattern which uses constants is the use of a single constant file or object. The beauty of constants is clarity, and the obvious fact such variables are fixed. When a constant container is used, constants are simply lumped together. These can grow in size and often become a dumping ground for all values within the application.A disadvantage of this pattern is the actual value is hidden. While a friendly variable name is great, there will come a time where you will want to know the actual value. This forces you to navigate, if only to peek at the value within the constant object. A solution is to simple perform a refactor …

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…