balance;
}
}

Then only in your controller you would request the ViewableBankAccount instead of BankAccount, but only when you need the data.

If you’re not using dependency injection, this will be a pain, but your app wouldn’t be very well designed any way, if that’s the case.

SELECT ARRAY_TO_STRING(ARRAY_AGG(SUBSTR(A.chars, (RANDOM()*1000)::int%(LENGTH(A.chars))+1, 1)), ”)
FROM (SELECT ‘ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789!@#$%*’::varchar AS chars) A,
(SELECT generate_series(1, 6, 1) AS line) B

I think it also solves the problem.

Tested in postgresql 8.4.

`withdraw` and `deposit` it’s setters. All this code can be successfully done in `setBalance` method, almost nothing will be changed. All these checks, comparison – it’s usual work of setters.

Why public fields are evil? Because object can’t control their changing and because they can’t be declared in interfaces. Getters and setters can do it, so it’s perfect tool of OOP.

Accessors can be written silly, of course, but it doesn’t mean that they are evil. Any method in the class can be written silly.

[...] on this front that Berry Langerak puts forward a good case, and where I want to add my two cents worth. Berry attempts to stress that [...]

Great post! Any chance you are doing more on this topic? or should I say style of development?

[...] Excelente artículo sobre si usar o no usar getters y setters para nuestros objetos, y sobre cuando es práctico hacerlo. [...]

> If you fail to see how adding an accessor only when the need becomes
> clear will break an existing API then imagine a situation where your
> team uses a public varible 1000+ times and then you need to alter the
> value they receive based on some dynamic environment.

Agreed: if your team uses a public variable 1000+ times, and they use it and apply logic to it, the brown substance has hit the fan.

> The example is simple because I just wanted to say – nobody(!) ever
> uses accessor methods to move business logic outside an object but
> to achieve different kinds of polymorphism or make it achievable.

I hate to break it to you, but you’re contradicting yourself somewhat. You’re telling me that nobody(!) will ever use accessor methods to move business logic outside of an object, but you’re also telling me your team uses a public parameter to move business logic outside of an object?

> I hope you really meant you are against public properties and not
> against accessor methods. Otherwise the point is senseless, a usual
> programmer does not do what you have explained (and we don’t count
> newbies).

Perhaps not your colleagues, but I see it happening a lot in PHP projects. I’ll try to find some real life examples for you to enjoy.

The example is simple because I just wanted to say – nobody(!) ever uses accessor methods to move business logic outside an object but to achieve different kinds of polymorphism or make it achievable.

I hope you really meant you are against public properties and not against accessor methods. Otherwise the point is senseless, a usual programmer does not do what you have explained (and we don’t count newbies).