I'm kind of new in PHP. For some reason in other types of programming languages like JAVA I have no problem with using setters and getters for every single variable, but when I'm programming in PHP probably because it is so flexible it feels kind of like a waste of time. It feels simpler to just set the class attributes as public most of the time and manipulating them like that. The thing is that when I do it like this I feel like I'm doing something wrong and going against OO principles.
Is it really that wrong not using setters and getters? Why or why not? How do you guys do it most of the time?
The main problem with not using property accessors is that if you find out you ever need to change a field to a property later on – to make it a computed property in a subclass, for instance – you’ll break clients of your API. For a published library, this would be unacceptable; for an internal one, just quite a lot of work fixing things.
For private code or small apps, it could be feasible to just wing it. An IDE (or text editor) will let you generate accessor boilerplate and hide it using code folding. This arguably makes using getters and setters mechanically fairly easy.
Note that some programming languages have features to synthesise the default field+getter+setter – Ruby does it via metaprogramming, C# has auto-implemented properties. And Python sidesteps the issue completely by letting you override attribute access, letting you encapsulate the attribute in the subclass that needs it instead of having to bother with it up front. (This is the approach I like best.)
The point of getters or setters is that you can still add logic to your modifications of the field in one place instead of everyplace you want to modify or retrieve the field. You also gain control at class level what happens with the field.
If we're talking strictly about PHP here and not about C#, Java, etc (where the compiler will optimise these things), I find getters and setters to be a waste of resources where you simply need to proxy the value of a private field and do nothing else.
On my setup, I made two crappy classes, one with five private fields encapsulated by five getter/setter pairs proxying the field (which looked almost exactly like java code, funnily enough) and another with five public fields, and called memory_get_usage() at the end after creating an instance. The script with the getter/setters used 59708 bytes of memory and the script with the public fields used 49244 bytes.
In the context of a class library of any significant size, such as a web site framework, these useless getters and setters can add up to a HUGE black hole for memory. I have been developing a framework for my employer in PHP (their choice, not mine. i wouldn't use it for this if i had the choice but having said that, PHP is not imposing any insurmountable restrictions on us) and when I refactored the class library to use public fields instead of getters/setters, the whole shebang ended up using 25% less memory per request at least.
The __get(), __set() and __call() 'magic' methods really shine for handling interface changes. When you need to migrate a field to a getter/setter (or a getter/setter to a field) they can make the process transparent to any dependent code. With an interpreted language it's a bit harder to find all usages of a field or method even with the reasonably good support for code sensitivity provided by Eclipse PDT or Netbeans, so the magic methods are useful for ensuring that the old interface still delegates to the new functionality.
Say we have an object which was developed using fields instead of getters/setters, and we want to rename a field called 'field' to 'fieldWithBetterName', because 'field' was inappropriate, or no longer described the use accurately, or was just plain wrong. And say we wanted to change a field called 'field2' to lazy load its value from the database because it isn't known initially using a getter...
class Test extends Object {
public $field;
public $field2;
}
becomes
class Test extends Object {
public $fieldWithBetterName = "LA DI DA";
private $_field2;
public function getField2() {
if ($this->_field2 == null) {
$this->_field2 = CrapDbLayer::getSomething($this->fieldWithBetterName);
}
return $this->_field2;
}
public function __get($name) {
if ($name == 'field')) {
Logger::log("use of deprecated property... blah blah blah\n".DebugUtils::printBacktrace());
return $this->fieldWithBetterName;
}
elseif ($name == 'field2') {
Logger::log("use of deprecated property... blah blah blah\n".DebugUtils::printBacktrace());
return $this->getField2();
}
else return parent::__get($name);
}
}
$t = new Test;
echo $t->field;
echo $t->field2;
(As a side note, that 'extends Object' bit is just a base class I use for practically everything which has a __get() and a __set() declaration which throws an exception when undeclared fields are accessed)
You can go backwards with __call(). This example is quite brittle, but it's not hard to clean up:
class Test extends Object {
public $field2;
public function __call($name, $args) {
if (strpos($name, 'get')===0) {
$field = lcfirst($name); // cheating, i know. php 5.3 or greater. not hard to do without it though.
return $this->$field;
}
parent::__call($name, $args);
}
}
Getter and setter methods in PHP are good if the setter has to do something, or if the getter has to lazy load something, or ensure something has been created, or whatever, but they're unnecessary and wasteful if they do nothing other than proxy the field, especially with a few techniques like the ones above to manage interface changes.
I am probably not going to get many upvotes on this one, but personally getters and even more so setters feel like a code smell to me. Designs should be behavior driven, not data driven. Of course, this is just an opinion. If you have an object that depends on a particular data field of another object this is very tight coupling. Instead it should depend on the behavior of that object which is far less brittle than its data.
But yes, property like getters and setters are a step up from a dependency on a field directly for this very reason. It is less brittle and loosens up the coupling between the objects.
Did you consider to use magic functions __set/__get? Using them you can easily merge all getter/setter function in only 2 functions!
There is a way to emulate get/set without actually using get/set function class, so your code remains tidy:
$person->name = 'bob';
echo $person->name;
Take a look at this class I have coded.
Typically, when using this class, you would declare all your properties protected (or private). In the event where you'd want to add a behaviour on a property, say strtolower() + ucfirst() on the "name" property, all you'd need to do is declare a protected set_name() function in your class and the behavior should get picked up automatically. Same can be accomplished with get_name().
// Somewhere in your class (that extends my class).
protected function set_name($value) { $this->name = ucfirst(strtolower($value)); }
//
// Now it would store ucfirst(strtolower('bob')) automatically.
$person->name = 'bob';
P.S.
Another cool thing is you can make up non-existing fields such as
echo $person->full_name;
without having such fields (as long as there is a get_full_name() function).
If you access these variable in your script lots of time and if you update yoru class often you should use setters and getter because but if you dont this , when you improve your class you have to update all files which uses this variable .
Secondly main reason why you do this is you should not access variable directly because class structure may change and this data can be providen differently.While you are getting data from class you should not care about how this data is generated .Class have to care about this data proccessing so you only should care what will you get.
Related
I have some pattern that works great for me, but that I have some difficulty explaining to fellow programmers. I am looking for some justification or literature reference.
I personally work with PHP, but this would also be applicable to Java, Javascript, C++, and similar languages. Examples will be in PHP or Pseudocode, I hope you can live with this.
The idea is to use a lazy evaluation container for intermediate results, to avoid multiple computation of the same intermediate value.
"Dynamic programming":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_programming
The dynamic programming approach seeks to solve each subproblem only once, thus reducing the number of computations: once the solution to a given subproblem has been computed, it is stored or "memo-ized": the next time the same solution is needed, it is simply looked up
Lazy evaluation container:
class LazyEvaluationContainer {
protected $values = array();
function get($key) {
if (isset($this->values[$key])) {
return $this->values[$key];
}
if (method_exists($this, $key)) {
return $this->values[$key] = $this->$key();
}
throw new Exception("Key $key not supported.");
}
protected function foo() {
// Make sure that bar() runs only once.
return $this->get('bar') + $this->get('bar');
}
protected function bar() {
.. // expensive computation.
}
}
Similar containers are used e.g. as dependency injection containers (DIC).
Details
I usually use some variation of this.
It is possible to have the actual data methods in a different object than the data computation methods?
It is possible to have computation methods with parameters, using a cache with a nested array?
In PHP it is possible to use magic methods (__get() or __call()) for the main retrieval method. In combination with "#property" in the class docblock, this allows type hints for each "virtual" property.
I often use method names like "get_someValue()", where "someValue" is the actual key, to distinguish from regular methods.
It is possible to distribute the data computation to more than one object, to get some kind of separation of concerns?
It is possible to pre-initialize some values?
EDIT: Questions
There is already a nice answer talking about a cute mechanic in Spring #Configuration classes.
To make this more useful and interesting, I extend/clarify the question a bit:
Is storing intermediate values from dynamic programming a legitimate use case for this?
What are the best practices to implement this in PHP? Is some of the stuff in "Details" bad and ugly?
If I understand you correctly, this is quite a standard procedure, although, as you rightly admit, associated with DI (or bootstrapping applications).
A concrete, canonical example would be any Spring #Configuration class with lazy bean definitions; I think it displays exactly the same behavior as you describe, although the actual code that accomplishes it is hidden from view (and generated behind the scenes). Actual Java code could be like this:
#Configuration
public class Whatever {
#Bean #Lazy
public OneThing createOneThing() {
return new OneThing();
}
#Bean #Lazy
public SomeOtherThing createSomeOtherThing() {
return new SomeOtherThing();
}
// here the magic begins:
#Bean #Lazy
public SomeThirdThing getSomeThirdThing() {
return new SomeThirdThing(this.createOneThing(), this.createOneThing(), this.createOneThing(), createSomeOtherThing());
}
}
Each method marked with #Bean #Lazy represents one "resource" that will be created once it is needed (and the method is called) and - no matter how many times it seems that the method is called - the object will only be created once (due to some magic that changes the actual code during loading). So even though it seems that in createOneThing() is called two times in createOneThing(), only one call will occur (and that's only after someone tries to call createSomeThirdThing() or calls getBean(SomeThirdThing.class) on ApplicationContext).
I think you cannot have a universal lazy evaluation container for everything.
Let's first discuss what you really have there. I don't think it's lazy evaluation. Lazy evaluation is defined as delaying an evaluation to the point where the value is really needed, and sharing an already evaluated value with further requests for that value.
The typical example that comes to my mind is a database connection. You'd prepare everything to be able to use that connection when it is needed, but only when there really is a database query needed, the connection is created, and then shared with subsequent queries.
The typical implementation would be to pass the connection string to the constructor, store it internally, and when there is a call to the query method, first the method to return the connection handle is called, which will create and save that handle with the connection string if it does not exist. Later calls to that object will reuse the existing connection.
Such a database object would qualify for lazy evaluating the database connection: It is only created when really needed, and it is then shared for every other query.
When I look at your implementation, it would not qualify for "evaluate only if really needed", it will only store the value that was once created. So it really is only some sort of cache.
It also does not really solve the problem of universally only evaluating the expensive computation once globally. If you have two instances, you will run the expensive function twice. But on the other hand, NOT evaluating it twice will introduce global state - which should be considered a bad thing unless explicitly declared. Usually it would make code very hard to test properly. Personally I'd avoid that.
It is possible to have the actual data methods in a different object than the data computation methods?
If you have a look at how the Zend Framework offers the cache pattern (\Zend\Cache\Pattern\{Callback,Class,Object}Cache), you'd see that the real working class is getting a decorator wrapped around it. All the internal stuff of getting the values stored and read them back is handled internally, from the outside you'd call your methods just like before.
The downside is that you do not have an object of the type of the original class. So if you use type hinting, you cannot pass a decorated caching object instead of the original object. The solution is to implement an interface. The original class implements it with the real functions, and then you create another class that extends the cache decorator and implements the interface as well. This object will pass the type hinting checks, but you are forced to manually implement all interface methods, which do nothing more than pass the call to the internal magic function that would otherwise intercept them.
interface Foo
{
public function foo();
}
class FooExpensive implements Foo
{
public function foo()
{
sleep(100);
return "bar";
}
}
class FooCached extends \Zend\Cache\Pattern\ObjectPattern implements Foo
{
public function foo()
{
//internally uses instance of FooExpensive to calculate once
$args = func_get_args();
return $this->call(__FUNCTION__, $args);
}
}
I have found it impossible in PHP to implement a cache without at least these two classes and one interface (but on the other hand, implementing against an interface is a good thing, it shouldn't bother you). You cannot simply use the native cache object directly.
It is possible to have computation methods with parameters, using a cache with a nested array?
Parameters are working in the above implementation, and they are used in the internal generation of a cache key. You should probably have a look at the \Zend\Cache\Pattern\CallbackCache::generateCallbackKey method.
In PHP it is possible to use magic methods (__get() or __call()) for the main retrieval method. In combination with "#property" in the class docblock, this allows type hints for each "virtual" property.
Magic methods are evil. A documentation block should be considered outdated, as it is no real working code. While I found it acceptable to use magic getter and setter in a really easy-to-understand value object code, which would allow to store any value in any property just like stdClass, I do recommend to be very careful with __call.
I often use method names like "get_someValue()", where "someValue" is the actual key, to distinguish from regular methods.
I would consider this a violation of PSR-1: "4.3. Methods: Method names MUST be declared in camelCase()." And is there a reason to mark these methods as something special? Are they special at all? The do return the value, don't they?
It is possible to distribute the data computation to more than one object, to get some kind of separation of concerns?
If you cache a complex construction of objects, this is completely possible.
It is possible to pre-initialize some values?
This should not be the concern of a cache, but of the implementation itself. What is the point in NOT executing an expensive computation, but to return a preset value? If that is a real use case (like instantly return NULL if a parameter is outside of the defined range), it must be part of the implementation itself. You should not rely on an additional layer around the object to return a value in such cases.
Is storing intermediate values from dynamic programming a legitimate use case for this?
Do you have a dynamic programming problem? There is this sentence on the Wikipedia page you linked:
There are two key attributes that a problem must have in order for dynamic programming to be applicable: optimal substructure and overlapping subproblems. If a problem can be solved by combining optimal solutions to non-overlapping subproblems, the strategy is called "divide and conquer" instead.
I think that there are already existing patterns that seem to solve the lazy evaluation part of your example: Singleton, ServiceLocator, Factory. (I'm not promoting singletons here!)
There also is the concept of "promises": Objects are returned that promise to return the real value later if asked, but as long as the value isn't needed right now, would act as the values replacement that could be passed along instead. You might want to read this blog posting: http://blog.ircmaxell.com/2013/01/promise-for-clean-code.html
What are the best practices to implement this in PHP? Is some of the stuff in "Details" bad and ugly?
You used an example that probably comes close to the Fibonacci example. The aspect I don't like about that example is that you use a single instance to collect all values. In a way, you are aggregating global state here - which probably is what this whole concept is about. But global state is evil, and I don't like that extra layer. And you haven't really solved the problem of parameters enough.
I wonder why there are really two calls to bar() inside foo()? The more obvious method would be to duplicate the result directly in foo(), and then "add" it.
All in all, I'm not too impressed until now. I cannot anticipate a real use case for such a general purpose solution on this simple level. I do like IDE auto suggest support, and I do not like duck-typing (passing an object that only simulates being compatible, but without being able to ensure the instance).
I understand the code flow but I never use them because I don't know what is it for.. can you show me a practical way of using it?
the purpose of setter and getter method ?
<?php
class person {
var $name;
function set_name($new_name) {
$this->name = $new_name;
}
function get_name() {
return $this->name;
}
}
?>
For trivial cases like this one, the getter and setters are frankly useless except for a strict interpretation of the Encapsulation Principle (which I endorse anyway).
They become useful when accessing a variable has side effects to be tracked or a variable that shouldn't be handled directly by the user but only through a strict, defined procedure: for example a global counter in a multithread environment.
Another useful aspect of a setter method is a validation of the data: let's say that the variable can hold only odd numbers greater than 100 and smaller than 200. Without a setter i can place any value I want, with the setter i can sanitize the input inside the object itself rather than outside.
All said, you should always use getters and setters. They might get handy in the future.
Thue purpose of getter setter methods are mainly in Data Tranfer Objects(DTO) , beans etc where we want to transport objects with values from one layer to another
The purposes are different in both languages:
in Java, setters and getters are part of the "Java Bean" standard, and serve to define public properties (properties are - by definition - things exposed as getters and setters); a lot of IDEs, wizards and libraries expect such methods (which, by the way, is a widely useful and equally misunderstood abstraction).
in PHP they are less useful, but they do make it easier to control the type of an attribute (you can have type hints on methods and you can't have them on attributes)
in PHP and Java they let you make certain things "write only"
in PHP and Java they help people using IDEs in guessing "how to configure this object" - usually you can just type set, press ctrl+space and browse the configurable stuff.
in both languages they add a bit of encapsulation and help in guarding your code against change (which is - arguably - less important in PHP, where you could use a magic __get method anyway).
Mostly, they are just question of style and uniformity.
One advantage is you can use getters and setters to control values as they come in:
<?php
class car{
var $engineSize;
function setEngineSize($size) {
if($size > 0){
$this->engineSize = $size;
}
}
?>
The getter and setter methods gives you centralized control on how a particular field is initialized, accessed and provided to client which makes validation and debugging much easier. You can simply put a breakpoints or print statement to see which threads are accessing and what values are going out.
I'm trying to design some class hierarchy and I got "stuck" at this part.
Lets say that I have following classes
abstract class Video
{
const TYPE_MOVIE = 1;
const TYPE_SHOW = 2;
abstract public function getTitle();
abstract public function getType();
}
class Movie extends Video
{
// ...
public function getType()
{
return self::TYPE_MOVIE;
}
}
class Show extends Video
{
// ...
public function getType()
{
return self::TYPE_SHOW;
}
}
In the diffrent part of the system I have (Parser) class that encapsulates creation of
movie and show objects and returns obj. to the client.
Question: What is the best way to get a type of a obj. returned from parser/factory class, so that client can do something like
$video = $parser->getVideo('Dumb and Dumber');
echo $video->getTitle();
// Way 1
if($video->getType == 'show') {
echo $video->getNbOfSeasons();
}
// Way 2
if($video instanceof Show) {
echo $video->getNbOfSeasons();
}
// Current way
if($video->getType == Video::TYPE_SHOW) {
echo $video->getNbOfSeasons();
}
Is there a better way than my solution (read as: does my solution suck?)?
Is there a better way than my solution (read as: does my solution suck?)?
Your solution does not suck, per se. However, whenever someone is trying to determine the subtype to perform some actions, I tend to wonder; why? This answer might be a little theoretical and perhaps even a little pedantic, but here goes.
You shouldn't care. The relationship between a parent and a child class is that the child class overwrites the behaviour of the parent. A parent class should always be substitutable by it's children, regardless which one. If you find yourself asking: how do I determine the subtype, you're usually doing one of two things "wrong":
You're attempting to perform an action based upon subtype. Normally, one would opt for moving that action to the class itself, instead of "outside" of the class. This makes for more manageable code as well.
You're attempting to fix a problem you've introduced yourself by using inheritance, where inheritance isn't warranted. If there is a parent, and there are children, each of which are to be used differently, each of which have different methods, just stop using inheritance. They're not the same type. A film is not the same a tv-serie, not even close. Sure, you can see both on your television, but the resemblance stops there.
If you're running into issue number 2, you're probably using inheritance not because it makes sense, but simply to reduce code duplication. That, in and on itself, is a good thing, but the way you're attempting to do so might not be optimal. If you can, you could use composition instead, although I have my doubts where the duplicated behaviour would be, apart from some arbitrary getters and setters.
That said, if your code works, and you're happy with it: go for it. This answer is correct in how to approach OO, but I don't know anything about the rest of your application, so the answer is generic.
I'd go with way 2. It abstracts you the need to add another constant at Video in case you may want to add class SoapOpera extends Show (for instance).
With way #2, you are less dependent on constants. Whatever information you can gain without hardcoding it, means less problems to likely happen in the future in case you want to extend. Read about Tight an Loose Coupling.
I think the second option is better, using instanceof. This is in general common to all OOP design and not just PHP.
With your first option, you have specifics about derived classes in the base class, and thus must modify the base class for each new derived class you add, which should always be avoided.
Leaving the base class as-is when adding new derived classes promotes code reuse.
If there is a "right" way, and everything is subjective in coding of course (as long as it doesn't adversely impact performance/maintainability ;) ), then it's the second way as "Truth" and "Brady" have pointed out.
The upside of doing things the way you're doing them now (class constants in the abstract) is that when you're working with other developers it can provide hints as to how you expect the abstract class to be interacted with.
For instance:
$oKillerSharkFilm = Video::factory(Video::MOVIE, 'Jaws', 'Dundundundundundun');
$oKillerSharkDocumentary = Video::factory(Video::DOCUMENTARY, 'Jaws', 'A Discovery Shark Week Special');
Of course, the downside is that you have to maintain the "allowable extensions" in the abstract class.
You could still use the instanceof method as demonstrated in your question and maintain the list of allowable extension in the abstract predominantly for control/type fixing.
I remember reading that in Doctrine 2 models, I should not set properties/fields public. How then would you expose these fields? The sandbox used get*() & set*() methods. Is that the best idea? Its very cumbersome. Using magic methods __get() __set() will make things similar to setting fields public?
Whats your recommendation?
Here's why you can't use public properties: How can public fields “break lazy loading” in Doctrine 2?
You are correct that __get() and __set() can make accessing the protected/private fields easier.
Here's a simple example:
public function __get($name)
{
if(property_exists($this, $name)){
return $this->$name;
}
}
Of course that gives access to all the properties. You could put that in a class that all your entities extended, then define non-assessable fields as private. Or you could use an array to determine which properties should be accessible:$this->accessable = array('name', 'age')
There are plenty of ways to keep all properties protected and still have a reasonably easy way to get/set them.
Personally, I don't like boilerplate code with trivial purpose - it makes the code ugly and tiresome to read. Therefore, I strongly prefer __get/__set. That said, they do have a few drawbacks:
they are significantly slower than normal function calls, though not so much that it should make a difference in practice, as database access is several orders of magnitude slower
__get/__set only gets called when the field is not visible; if you access properties in the code of the entity class, they do not get called, and the proxy has no chance to load itself. (Doctrine tries to avoid this by instantly loading the proxy as soon as one of its public methods are called, but there are some exceptions such as __construct or __wake where that would not make sense, so you can get into trouble by e.g. reading a field in the constructor.)
PHP has some confusing behaviors related to magic methods - e. g. empty($entity->field) will not invoke __get (and thus it will break proxy behavior if used)
If some info should be made public, define a getter for it.
If it's modifiable, add a setter (even better, add a fluent setter!).
API's are cleaner this way, with no magic involved.
I don't like magic in my code.
Just my two cents :)
By "fluent setter" I meant one implementing the fluent interface pattern.
Yes getter and setter methods are the way to access your data. They are a little cumbersome which is why some people do not like doctrine2 or hibernate. But you only need to do it once for each entity and then they are very flexible to produce the output formatting you are hoping for. You can use the cli to do some of this for you. But when you get them rolling I don't find it to big a deal. Especially since you only do this to the properties you need.
Cheers
Rather than having seperate getter and setters, or even using the magic functions.. Is there problem with having something like this in the class
public function Set($attrib, $value)
{
$this->$attrib = $value;
}
public function Get($attrib)
{
return $this->$attrib;
}
It makes it much easy to access the attributes and means they be dynamically set from key-pair arrays.. any comments? or alternative suggestions?
Doctine 2 provides a [command line tool][1] to generate basic entity classes
use the following to get a basic Entity class definition from your mapping, complete with getter/setter functions for each property:
path/to/doctrine_cli orm:generate-entities --generate-methods=true path/to/entities/
You're still responsible for modifying each getter/setter to ensure that they are the proper datatype, as the getter/setter methods generated for the Entity don't do any type casting/converting.
I'm looking for advice/experience on using public variables vs private variables with accessor methods in php.
eg
$obj->foo = 'a';
echo $obj->foo;
vs
$obj->setFoo('a');
echo $obj->getFoo();
What I like about public variables is the shorter syntax - just seems less work to use. I understand that it could make refactoring more difficult later, but I've never experienced it (meaning, sometimes the design changes - but usually the accessor methods would need to be changed any.)
The other option is to store the variables in an array and use magic methods (__get/__set) to access them - then I have the ease of use of public variables with the ability to refactor or accessor methods.
Any experience or references of what people do in the php world.
And for anyone that hold the accessor method are the best way, is there a valid need/use for public variables?
Yes, accessor methods are an overhead, although the syntax for using setters/getters is just as clean as direct access of public properties... slightly more wordy, but just as clean.
Biggest benefit of accessor methods is that you can use your set method to validate values and reject inappropriate values (e.g. trying to set a property that should always be an integer to a string or an array)... but this verification only works if external code can't access the property directly.
Second benefit if your code has related properties, where a change to property A requires a change to property B as well... if the properties are public, you can't control (or enforce) this.
Using set methods allows you to implement fluent interface, or to cleaner code for instances like:
echo $obj->setFoo('a');
instead of
$obj->setFoo('a'); echo $obj->getFoo();
if you include a return in your set method
setters and getters are always the best option because they provide more stability for validation / sanitization.
public function __call($name,$params = array())
{
if(strstr('set',$name))
{
}//returns
if(strstr('get',$name))
{
}//Returns
if(strstr('run',$name))
{
}//Returns
}
Getters/Setters arose in Java. They have no place in scripting languages, hence they are frowned upon in e.g. Python and Javascript. They make the API more combersome.
As you already know, you can use __get to wrap variable access. This is advisable in scripting languages. It allows you to e.g. validate types in a central location, you don't have duplicated code in multiple setters/getters.
function __set($name, $value) {
if (gettype($value) == $this->_types[$name]) {
$this->_vars[$name] = $value;
}
} // instead of twenty methods checking the type
It's a code smell to implement hollow getters/setters to have enterprisey-looking code. And it's also inadvisable to have getters/setters with side-effects. Always use real methods / messages for complex object operations.
Setters and Getters are one kind of implementation for encapsulation, one of the OOP principles, which says an object must be a black box just exposing behaviors and its state to its clients, but preventing the exposure of its internal. This allows low coupling code as you can change the logic inside a Setter and / or Getter without affecting the client code using your API.
As many other have stated before, there are other implementations such as magic methods.