仅设置属性是不好的做法吗？

发布于 2024-10-09 22:31:40 字数 193 浏览 1 评论 0原文

我有一些 C# 代码，喜欢创建具有 setter 但没有 getter 的属性。对我来说，这似乎是一种反模式，但我错过了什么吗？

public List<SiteVisitSummary> DataSource {
    set {
        // crazy logic here 
    }
}

原文

I have some C# code that loves to create properties that have setters but no getters. To me this seems like an anti-pattern, but am I missing something?

public List<SiteVisitSummary> DataSource {
    set {
        // crazy logic here 
    }
}

分享到QQ

分享到微博

如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。

发布评论

需要登录才能够评论，你可以免费注册一个本站的账号。

夏了南城 2024-10-16 22:31:40

我不知道是否可以将其称为反模式。我认为要认识到的重要一点是，示例中的属性本质上是一种伪装成属性的方法。由于这个原因，它是不直观的，我通常会避免它。对我来说，这看起来更自然：

public void SetDataSource(IEnumerable<SiteVisitSummary> dataSource)
{
    // crazy logic here
}

我见过的仅设置属性的一个相当合理的情况是，当有多个属性组合在一起时，将所有属性设置为单个值是合理的事情（但显然，将所有内容作为一个值来获取是没有意义的）。例如：

class Polyhedron
{
    public int Height { get; set; }
    public int Width { get; set; }
    public int Depth { get; set; }

    public int AllDimensions
    {
        set { Height = Width = Depth = value; }
    }
}

I don't know if I'd call it an anti-pattern or not. I think the important thing to realize is that the property in your example is essentially a method, disguised as a property. For this reason it's unintuitive, and I'd generally avoid it. To me this looks a lot more natural:

public void SetDataSource(IEnumerable<SiteVisitSummary> dataSource)
{
    // crazy logic here
}

One fairly reasonable case I have seen made for set-only properties is when there are several properties grouped together such that setting all to a single value is a reasonable thing to do (but obviously, getting all as one value doesn't make sense). For example:

class Polyhedron
{
    public int Height { get; set; }
    public int Width { get; set; }
    public int Depth { get; set; }

    public int AllDimensions
    {
        set { Height = Width = Depth = value; }
    }
}

回复收藏 0 原文