Java Type Conversion, Getter and Setter Tutorial – from Basics to Best Practices

Type Conversion, is a way to move an object from one form of data to another. It is used in computer programming to ensure a function handles the variables correctly. An example of typecasting would be to convert an integer into a string.

Numeric primitive casting

Numeric primitives can be cast in two ways. Implicit casting happens when the source type has a smaller range than the target type. 

//Implicit casting
byte byteVar = 42;
short shortVar = byteVar;
int intVar = shortVar;
long longVar = intvar;
float floatVar = longVar;
double doubleVar = floatVar;

Explicit casting has to be done when the source type has larger range than the target type. 

//Explicit casting
double doubleVar = 42.0d;
float floatVar = (float) doubleVar;
long longVar = (long) floatVar;
int intVar = (int) longVar;
short shortVar = (short) intVar;
byte byteVar = (byte) shortVar;

When casting floating point primitives (float, double) to whole number primitives, the number is rounded down.

Basic Numeric Promotion 

static void testNumericPromotion() {
       char char1 = 1, char2 = 2;
       short short1 = 1, short2 = 2;
       int int1 = 1, int2 = 2;
       float float1 = 1.0f, float2 = 2.0f;
       // char1 = char1 + char2;            // Error: Cannot convert from int to char;
      // short1 = short1 + short2;          // Error: Cannot convert from int to short;
      int1 = char1 + char2;                 // char is promoted to int.
     int1 = short1 + short2;                // short is promoted to int.
      int1 = char1 + short2;                // both char and short promoted to int.
     float1 = short1 + float2;              // short is promoted to float.
      int1 = int1 + int2;                   // int is unchanged.

Non-numeric primitive casting

The boolean type cannot be cast to/from any other primitive type.

A char can be cast to/from any numeric type by using the code-point mappings specified by Unicode. A char is represented in memory as an unsigned 16-bit integer value (2 bytes), so casting to byte (1 byte) will drop 8 of those bits (this is safe for ASCII characters). The utility methods of the Character class use int (4 bytes) to transfer to/from code-point values, but a short (2 bytes) would also suffice for storing a Unicode code-point.

int badInt = (int) true;    // Compiler error: incompatible types
char char1 = (char) 65;     // A
byte byte1 = (byte) 'A';    // 65
short short1 = (short) 'A'; // 65
int int1 = (int) 'A';       // 65
char char2 = (char) 8253;   // ‽
byte byte2 = (byte) '‽';    // 61 (truncated code-point into the ASCII range)
short short2 = (short) '‽'; // 8253
int int2 = (int) '‽';       // 8253

Object casting

As with primitives, objects can be cast both explicitly and implicitly.

Implicit casting happens when the source type extends or implements the target type (casting to a superclass or interface).

Explicit casting has to be done when the source type is extended or implemented by the target type (casting to a subtype). This can produce a runtime exception (ClassCastException) when the object being cast is not of the target type (or the target’s subtype).

Float floatVar = new Float(42.0f);
Number n = floatVar;            //Implicit (Float implements Number)
Float floatVar2 = (Float) n;    //Explicit
Double doubleVar = (Double) n;  //Throws exception (the object is not Double)

Testing if an object can be cast using instance of

Java provides the instanceof operator to test if an object is of a certain type, or a subclass of that type. The program can then choose to cast or not cast that object accordingly.

Object obj = Calendar.getInstance();
long time = 0;
if(obj instanceof Calendar)
            time = ((Calendar)obj).getTime();
if(obj instanceof Date)
         time = ((Date)obj).getTime(); // This line will never be reached, obj is not a Date type.

Using a setter or getter to implement a constraint

Setters and Getters allow for an object to contain private variables that can be accessed and changed with restrictions. For example,

public class Person {
     private String name;
     public String getName() {
         return name;
     public void setName(String name) {
     if(name!=null && name.length()>2) = name;

In this Person class, there is a single variable: name. This variable can be accessed using the getName() method and changed using the setName(String) method, however, setting a name requires the new name to have a length greater than 2 characters and to not be null. Using a setter method rather than making the variable name public allows others to set the value of name with certain restrictions. The same can be applied to the getter method:

public String getName(){
      return "Name is too large!";
      return name;

In the modified getName() method above, the name is returned only if its length is less than or equal to 16. Otherwise, “Name is too large” is returned. This allows the programmer to create variables that are reachable and modifiable however they wish, preventing client classes from editing the variables unwantedly.

Why Use Getters and Setters?

Consider a basic class containing an object with getters and setters in Java:

public class CountHolder {
     private int count = 0;
     public int getCount() { return count; }
     public void setCount(int c) { count = c; }

We can’t access the count variable because it’s private. But we can access the getCount() and the setCount(int) methods because they are public. To some, this might raise the question; why introduce the middleman? Why not just simply make they count public?

public class CountHolder {
    public int count = 0;

For all intents and purposes, these two are exactly the same, functionality-wise. The difference between them is the extensibility. Consider what each class says:

  • First: “I have a method that will give you an int value, and a method that will set that value to another int”.
  • Second: “I have an int that you can set and get as you please.”

These might sound similar, but the first is actually much more guarded in its nature; it only lets you interact with its internal nature as it dictates. This leaves the ball in its court; it gets to choose how the internal interactions occur. The second has exposed its internal implementation externally, and is now not only prone to external users, but, in the case of an API, committed to maintaining that implementation (or otherwise releasing a non-backwardcompatible API).

Lets consider if we want to synchronize access to modifying and accessing the count. In the first, this is simple:

public class CountHolder {
     private int count = 0;
     public synchronized int getCount() { return count; }
     public synchronized void setCount(int c) { count = c; }

but in the second example, this is now nearly impossible without going through and modifying each place where the count variable is referenced. Worse still, if this is an item that you’re providing in a library to be consumed by others, you do not have a way of performing that modification, and are forced to make the hard choice mentioned above.

So it begs the question; are public variables ever a good thing (or, at least, not evil)?

I’m unsure. On one hand, you can see examples of public variables that have stood the test of time (IE: the out variable referenced in System.out). On the other, providing a public variable gives no benefit outside of extremely minimal overhead and potential reduction in wordiness. My guideline here would be that, if you’re planning on making a variable public, you should judge it against these criteria with extreme prejudice:

  1. The variable should have no conceivable reason to ever change in its implementation. This is something that’s extremely easy to screw up (and, even if you do get it right, requirements can change), which is why getters/setters are the common approach. If you’re going to have a public variable, this really needs to be thought through, especially if released in a library/framework/API.
  2. The variable needs to be referenced frequently enough that the minimal gains from reducing verbosity warrants it. I don’t even think the overhead for using a method versus directly referencing should be
    considered here. It’s far too negligible for what I’d conservatively estimate to be 99.9% of applications.

There’s probably more than I haven’t considered off the top of my head. If you’re ever in doubt, always use getters/setters.

Adding Getters and Setters

Encapsulation is a basic concept in OOP. It is about wrapping data and code as a single unit. In this case, it is a good practice to declare the variables as private and then access them through Getters and Setters to view and/or modify them.

public class Sample {
   private String name;
   private int age;
   public int getAge() {
       return age;
   public void setAge(int age) {
       this.age = age;
   public String getName() {
       return name;
   public void setName(String name) { = name;

These private variables cannot be accessed directly from outside the class. Hence they are protected from unauthorized access. But if you want to view or modify them, you can use Getters and Setters.

getXxx() method will return the current value of the variable xxx, while you can set the value of the variable xxx using setXxx().

The naming convention of the methods are (in example variable is called variableName):

  • All non boolean variables
getVariableName()     //Getter, The variable name should start with uppercase
setVariableName(..) //Setter, The variable name should start with uppercase
  • boolean variables
isVariableName()          //Getter, The variable name should start with uppercase
setVariableName(…) //Setter, The variable name should start with uppercase

Public Getters and Setters are part of the Property definition of a Java Bean.

Leave a Comment