TL;DR

Picture this: you create a class with a public List<string> Items field. Seems harmless, right? It’s like giving someone the keys to your house and saying “just grab what you need from the fridge.” The problem is, they might rearrange your entire kitchen while they’re at it.

The Problem with Direct Access

When you expose fields or mutable collections directly, you lose control over how your object’s state changes. Here’s a common example:

public class OrderProcessor
{
    public List<string> ProcessedOrders = new(); // Danger zone!
    
    public void ProcessOrder(string orderId)
    {
        // Do some processing...
        ProcessedOrders.Add(orderId);
    }
}

This seems fine until someone does this:

var processor = new OrderProcessor();
processor.ProcessedOrders.Clear(); // Oops! All history gone
processor.ProcessedOrders.Add("fake-order-123"); // Invalid data sneaks in

Now your OrderProcessor has no idea its state was corrupted. When debugging issues later, you’ll be scratching your head wondering how fake orders got in there.

The Hidden Costs

No validation: Anyone can add invalid data directly to your collections.

Broken invariants: Your class might expect certain conditions to always be true, but external code can break those assumptions.

Debugging nightmares: When state changes unexpectedly, you can’t set breakpoints or add logging to catch who’s modifying what.

The Better Approach

Encapsulate your collections and expose them safely:

public class OrderProcessor
{
    private readonly List<string> _processedOrders = new();
    
    // Read-only access to the collection
    public IReadOnlyList<string> ProcessedOrders => _processedOrders;
    
    public void ProcessOrder(string orderId)
    {
        if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(orderId)) 
            throw new ArgumentException("Order ID cannot be empty");
            
        _processedOrders.Add(orderId);
    }
    
    // Controlled way to clear if needed
    public void Reset() => _processedOrders.Clear();
}

Now consumers can read the data but can’t accidentally break your object’s internal state.

When You Might Get Away With It

Data transfer objects (DTOs) or simple value containers sometimes use public fields for performance or simplicity. That’s usually fine if the object’s job is just to carry data around.

But avoid it when:

  • Your class has business logic
  • You need to validate changes
  • Multiple threads might access the object
  • You’re building a library others will use

Remember: making fields private and exposing them through methods or properties gives you flexibility to add validation, logging, or other logic later without breaking existing code. Your future self will thank you.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the risks of exposing public fields in C# classes?

Exposing public fields allows external code to modify your object’s state directly, bypassing validation and business rules. This can lead to invalid or inconsistent data, making debugging and maintenance much harder. Always use private fields with controlled access through methods or properties.

Why is exposing public collections dangerous in C#?

Public collections can be cleared, modified, or replaced by any consumer, breaking class invariants and leading to unpredictable bugs. For example:

processor.ProcessedOrders.Clear(); // All history gone
processor.ProcessedOrders.Add("fake-order-123"); // Invalid data sneaks in

Encapsulate collections and expose them as IReadOnlyList<T> for safety.

How can you safely expose a collection in C#?

Use a private field to store the collection and expose a read-only interface, such as IReadOnlyList<T>. For example:

private readonly List<string> _items = new();
public IReadOnlyList<string> Items => _items;

This allows consumers to read but not modify the collection directly.

When is it acceptable to use public fields or collections?

Public fields or collections are sometimes acceptable in simple data transfer objects (DTOs) or value containers, where the object is only used for carrying data and has no business logic. Avoid public fields in business logic classes, libraries, or when validation is required.

What are the hidden costs of exposing public fields or collections?

The hidden costs include loss of validation, broken invariants, and debugging nightmares. When state changes unexpectedly, you can’t easily track or control who modified what, making bugs harder to find and fix.

How does encapsulation help with debugging and maintenance?

Encapsulation allows you to add validation, logging, or breakpoints in your methods or properties. This makes it easier to track state changes and enforce business rules, leading to more maintainable and robust code.

What is the best practice for exposing data in C# classes?

Make fields private and expose data through public methods or properties. This gives you flexibility to add validation or change the internal implementation later without breaking external code.

How can you allow controlled modification of a collection?

Provide methods for controlled modification, such as AddItem, RemoveItem, or Reset. For example:

public void AddOrder(string orderId)
{
    if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(orderId)) throw new ArgumentException();
    _processedOrders.Add(orderId);
}

This ensures all changes go through validation.

What problems can arise in multi-threaded scenarios with public collections?

Public collections can be modified by multiple threads simultaneously, leading to race conditions, data corruption, or crashes. Encapsulating collections allows you to add thread-safety mechanisms if needed.

Why is it important to avoid public fields in library code?

Library code is used by many consumers, and exposing public fields limits your ability to change or improve the implementation later. Encapsulation provides a stable interface and protects your code from misuse.
See other c-sharp posts