Are Java Beans as data storage classes bad design?

Question

Usually JavaPractices.com is a good site with good idea\'s, but this one troubles me: JavaBeans are bad.

The article cites several reasons, mainly that the term JavaBea

Answer 1

It seems that you are misreading the text.

Now I can agree with the last one, but in my eye's JavaBeans in a list makes alot more sense than nested Maps

The text never mentions nested maps as an alternative ( yiack )

...should call constructors, not set* methods, and the object should be immutable

This is a good practice, specially useful when dealing with threads.

But we can't say that using setters is baaad either, specially when a single thread is using the object. That's perfectly safe.

I don't want to create a new object every time new information is given, I want to add it to an existing one.

That's fine, as long as you control the object there is no problem with this, some other may find easier to just create a new object.

Is using JavaBeans for data storage a bad practice and should be avoided, or is it perfectly safe?

No, is not a bad practice. Is not perfectly safe either. Depends on the situation.

The problem with mutable objects ( not with JavaBeans per se ) is using different threads to access them.

You have to synchronize the access to avoid one thread modify the object while other is accessing it.

Immutable objects doesn't have this problem, because, .. well they can't change, and thus, you don't have to synchronize anything.

To make sure an object is immutable you have to declare your attributes as final.

class MyBean  {
    private final int i;
}

If you want to assign a reasonable value to MyBean.i you have to specify it in the constructor:

 public MyBean( int i ) {
     this.i = i;
 }

Since the variable is final, you can't use a setter. You can just provide a getter.

This is perfectly thread-safe and the best is, you don't have to synchronize the access, because if two threads try to get the value of i they both will always see the value that was assigned on instantiation, you don't have to synchronize anything.

Is not bad practice or good practice. Must of us have to work with a single thread, even in multithread environments like servlets.

If in the future you have to deal with multi thread applications, you may consider using an immutable JavaBean ;)

BTW, the alternative to create immutable beans, and still provide a bunch of setters is using Builders like:

 Employee e = new EmployeeBuilder()
                  .setName("Oscar")
                  .setLastName("Reyes")
                  .setAge(0x1F)
                  .setEmployeeId("123forme")
                  .build(); 

Which looks pretty similar to the regular setXyz used in regular beans with the benefit of using immutable data.

If you need to change one value, you can use a class method:

 Employee e = Employee.withName( e, "Mr. Oscar");

Which takes the existing object, and copy all the values, and set's a new one....

 public static EmployeeWithName( Employee e , String newName ){
      return new Employee( newName, e.lastName, e.age, e.employeeId );
  }

But again, in a single thread model is perfectly safe to use getters/setters.

PS I strongly encourage you to buy this book: Effective Java. You'll never regret about it, and you'll have information to judge better articles like one cited.