Timeline for Better way to add fields to superclass in Java
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 17, 2018 at 14:49 | comment | added | Imus | I would say that if a field is obligated and shouldn't change after construction of the instance, you should not provide a setter. Immutability is a nice thing to have. | |
| Jan 17, 2018 at 12:19 | comment | added | Sharon Ben Asher | I would argue that in this scenario, the case for calling the setter in the ctor overrides the above-mentioned best practice principle. at the very least, it is worth considering which is more likely to occur: the setter doing some logic that would be missed if not called in the ctor, ot the subclass overriding the setter for a property that is in the super. | |
| Jan 17, 2018 at 12:12 | comment | added | gervais.b | Note that calling overridable method in a constructor is considered a bad practice. stackoverflow.com/questions/18348797/… | |
| Jan 17, 2018 at 10:15 | history | answered | Sharon Ben Asher | CC BY-SA 3.0 |