Java 'Getters' - How to re-utilize them?

[Benjamin Scabbia]

Hey guys! I am working on this project and I wanted to know if it was possible to re-use a getter, instead of having to create one for each return value (they are all of the type JPanel.

public class GamePanels {		
		JPanel begin, middle, end;
	public void begin(){
		
		begin = new JPanel();
    	begin.setBackground(Color.MAGENTA);
    	JLabel beginLabel = new JLabel("Do you want to avoid using much of your brain?");
    	JButton beginYes = new JButton("Yes");
    	JButton beginNo = new JButton("No");
    	begin.add(beginLabel);
    	begin.add(beginYes);
    	begin.add(beginNo);    	    	    	
	}
	public void middle(){
		//code here
	}
	public void end(){
		//code here
	}
		
	    	
	public JPanel getPanel(){
		return begin;
	}
	public JPanel getPanel1(){
		return middle;
	}
	public JPanel getPanel2(){
		return end;
	}
}

And this is a snippet from the class which is using this class:

newButton.addActionListener(new ActionListener(){
        	public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e){       		
        		GamePanels g = new GamePanels(); 
        		g.begin();        		       		
        		container.add("Begin", g.getPanel());
        		cl.show(container, "Begin");
        	}
        });

My question is, instead of creating a huge number of getters and then remembering which getter I need, is there a way to re-use the same one? Like maybe I can add a parameter? Thanks!

[Brett Spell]

Benjamin Scabbia wrote:Hey guys! I am working on this project and I wanted to know if it was possible to re-use a getter, instead of having to create one for each return value (they are all of the type JPanel.

Yes, you could accomplish that by passing a parameter (an enumerated type would work best) to the method and using a switch statement to return the panel associated with the enum value. From an object-oriented design perspective, though, the approach in code you already posted (where there's one accessor defined per panel) is preferable.

[Benjamin Scabbia]

Brett Spell wrote:

Benjamin Scabbia wrote:Hey guys! I am working on this project and I wanted to know if it was possible to re-use a getter, instead of having to create one for each return value (they are all of the type JPanel.

Yes, you could accomplish that by passing a parameter (an enumerated type would work best) to the method and using a switch statement to return the panel associated with the enum value. From an object-oriented design perspective, though, the approach in code you already posted (where there's one accessor defined per panel) is preferable.

Thanks Brett, after further research I think it will be the most effective way... although I could map my JPanels in a map with Strings as keys and they get them by name which provide the getter methods as arguments.

[Joanne Neal]

Benjamin Scabbia wrote:although I could map my JPanels in a map with Strings as keys and they get them by name which provide the getter methods as arguments.

If you do go this route, then as Brett said, you should use an enumerated type instead of Strings as keys - it reduces the chance of errors due to invalid strings being used as the parameter

[Bear Bibeault]

What's wrong with the individual getters?

[Campbell Ritchie]

Brett Spell wrote: . . .
Yes, you could accomplish that by passing a parameter (an enumerated type would work best) to the method and using a switch statement . . .

And calling your class Calendar? Look at its get() method.

That was one of the reasons everybody complained about the pre‑Java8 date‑time classes.

[Bear Bibeault]

Campbell Ritchie wrote:Look at its get() method.

Exactly why I asked by question. I think the OP is being led into the reeds.

[Brett Spell]

Campbell Ritchie wrote:

Brett Spell wrote: . . .
Yes, you could accomplish that by passing a parameter (an enumerated type would work best) to the method and using a switch statement . . .

And calling your class Calendar? Look at its get() method.

That was one of the reasons everybody complained about the pre‑Java8 date‑time classes.

Huh?

[Brett Spell]

Bear Bibeault wrote:

Campbell Ritchie wrote:Look at its get() method.

Exactly why I asked by question. I think the OP is being led into the reeds.

Being led into which reeds and by who? Are we all talking about the same thread?

[Bear Bibeault]

I don't think that doing things like:

get(THIS);
get(THAT);
get(OTHER);

is an improvement over:

getThis();
getThat();
getOther();

Also, of course, violating the bean conventions.

[Brett Spell]

Bear Bibeault wrote:I don't think that doing things like . . . is an improvement . . .

Neither do I, which is why I (and at least one other person) recommended against it, so I'm not sure why you suggested that someone (me?) was "leading him into the weeds".

[Bear Bibeault]

Perhaps worded too strongly, but this is not a direction that the OP should go.

[Brett Spell]

Bear Bibeault wrote:Perhaps worded too strongly, but this is not a direction that the OP should go.

Again, preaching to the choir, since nobody has suggested otherwise and in fact just the opposite.