Re:Getter-Setter Pattern Considered Harmful
by jayd16 on Sunday February 16, 2025 @12:38PM
(#43069896)
They're saying multiple things can synchronize on the same public field. Same reason you don't want to use this.
Although I suppose they could mean the concept and not the keyword. A field might not be thread safe and there's no way for an object to guarantee thread safe access of to a field.
Re:Getter-Setter Pattern Considered Harmful
by mrkeen on Sunday February 16, 2025 @01:33PM
(#43070341)
Deadlocking was raised as the objection to using public instead of getter. But in regard to deadlocking, using public is strictly better than a getter.
You have to take a lock in order to deadlock in the public version. In the getter version, you can take a lock without realising it and then deadlock.
I was unable to put a synchronized onto the field directly:
But when I locked it in code: I was still able to access the synchronized field directly without triggering a deadlock - whereas a getter() could be synchronized and trigger a deadlock.In any case, the article already made a strong points for immutability so you don't need to mess around with deadlocking crap.