Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- java:access_specifiers_accessors_and_mutators [2020/09/12 01:27] – created mithat
+++ java:access_specifiers_accessors_and_mutators [2020/09/12 01:33] – [Access modifiers] mithat
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-======  Access Specifiers, Accessors, and Mutators ======
+======  Access Modifiers, Accessors, and Mutators ======
-===== Access specifiers =====
+===== Access modifiers =====
-The ''ClickerCounter'' class definition we used previously encapsulates the state and behavior of a clicker counter as an object should. But the definition has issues. For example, if we change our example as follows:
+The ''ClickerCounter'' class definition we used previously encapsulates the state and behavior of a clicker counter as an object should.
+<file java ClickerCounter.java>
+public class ClickerCounter {
+    int count;
+    void click(){
+        count++;
+    }
+    void reset(){
+        count = 0;
+    }
+}
+</file>
+But the definition has issues. For example, if we change our ''main'' code as follows:
 <file java ClickerExample.java>
@@ Line 20: / Line 37: @@
 </file>
-the object will happily oblige the user's wish to set the count to some arbitrary value. That's not something you can typically do with a clicker counter. In other words, the object offers no **protection** of its state. This is easy enough to solve with Java's access modifiers. Let's look at a modified version of our class definition that gives us some protection using access modifiers:
+the object will happily oblige the user's wish to set the count to some arbitrary value. That's not something you can typically do with a clicker counter and probably not what you want out from your ''ClickerCounter'' object. In other words, the object offers no **protection** of its state.
+This is easy to solve with Java's access modifiers. Let's look at a modified version of our class definition that gives us some protection using access modifiers:
 <file java ClickerCounter.java>