Develop Reference

Python get and set methods versus #property decorator

I am exploring decorators in Python, and as a person who came to Python from other languages, I am a bit confused about the purpose of #property and its #xxx.setter brother. In Java and C++ get_xxx() and set_xxx() are usually the way to organize encapsulation. In Python we have these two decorators, which require specific syntax, and name matching in order to work. How is #property better than get-set methods?
I have checked this post and still, what are the advantages of #property besides the availability of the += operator?

The best part of using property for an attribute is that you don't need it.
The philosophy in Python is that classes attributes and methods are all public, but by convention - when you prefix their name with a single "_"
The mechanism behing "property", the descriptor protocol, allows one to change a previous dumb plain attribute into an instrumented attribute, guarded with code for the getter and setter, if the system evolves to a situation where it is needed.
But by default, a name attribute in a class, is just a plain attribute. You do person.name = "Name"- no guards needed, no setting method needed nor recommended. When and if it one needs a guard for that (say, to capitalize the name, or filter on improper words), whatever code uses that attribute needs no change: with the use of property, attribute assignment still takes place with the "=" operator.
Other than that, if using "=" does not look prettier than person.set_name("Name") for you, I think it does for most people. Of course, that is subjective.

Python/Django and services as classes

Are there any conventions on how to implement services in Django? Coming from a Java background, we create services for business logic and we "inject" them wherever we need them.
Not sure if I'm using python/django the wrong way, but I need to connect to a 3rd party API, so I'm using an api_service.py file to do that. The question is, I want to define this service as a class, and in Java, I can inject this class wherever I need it and it acts more or less like a singleton. Is there something like this I can use with Django or should I build the service as a singleton and get the instance somewhere or even have just separate functions and no classes?

TL;DR It's hard to tell without more details but chances are you only need a mere module with a couple plain functions or at most just a couple simple classes.
Longest answer:
Python is not Java. You can of course (technically I mean) use Java-ish designs, but this is usually not the best thing to do.
Your description of the problem to solve is a bit too vague to come with a concrete answer, but we can at least give you a few hints and pointers (no pun intended):
1/ Everything is an object
In python, everything (well, everything you can find on the RHS of an assignment that is) is an object, including modules, classes, functions and methods.
One of the consequences is that you don't need any complex framework for dependency injection - you just pass the desired object (module, class, function, method, whatever) as argument and you're done.
Another consequence is that you don't necessarily need classes for everything - a plain function or module can be just enough.
A typical use case is the strategy pattern, which, in Python, is most often implemented using a mere callback function (or any other callable FWIW).
2/ a python module is a singleton.
As stated above, at runtime a python module is an object (of type module) whose attributes are the names defined at the module's top-level.
Except for some (pathological) corner cases, a python module is only imported once for a given process and is garanteed to be unique. Combined with the fact that python's "global" scope is really only "module-level" global, this make modules proper singletons, so this design pattern is actually already builtin.
3/ a python class is (almost) a singleton
Python classes are objects too (instance of type type, directly or indirectly), and python has classmethods (methods that act on the class itself instead of acting on the current instance) and class-level attributes (attributes that belong to the class object itself, not to it's instances), so if you write a class that only has classmethods and class attributes, you technically have a singleton - and you can use this class either directly or thru instances without any difference since classmethods can be called on instances too.
The main difference here wrt/ "modules as singletons" is that with classes you can use inheritance...
4/ python has callables
Python has the concept of "callable" objects. A "callable" is an object whose class implements the __call__() operator), and each such object can be called as if it was a function.
This means that you can not only use functions as objects but also use objects as functions - IOW, the "functor" pattern is builtin. This makes it very easy to "capture" some context in one part of the code and use this context for computations in another part.
5/ a python class is a factory
Python has no new keyword. Pythonc classes are callables, and instanciation is done by just calling the class.
This means that you can actually use a class or function the same way to get an instance, so the "factory" pattern is also builtin.
6/ python has computed attributes
and beside the most obvious application (replacing a public attribute by a pair of getter/setter without breaking client code), this - combined with other features like callables etc - can prove to be very powerful. As a matter of fact, that's how functions defined in a class become methods
7/ Python is dynamic
Python's objects are (usually) dict-based (there are exceptions but those are few and mostly low-level C-coded classes), which means you can dynamically add / replace (and even remove) attributes and methods (since methods are attributes) on a per-instance or per-class basis.
While this is not a feature you want to use without reasons, it's still a very powerful one as it allows to dynamically customize an object (remember that classes are objects too), allowing for more complex objects and classes creation schemes than what you can do in a static language.
But Python's dynamic nature goes even further - you can use class decorators and/or metaclasses to taylor the creation of a class object (you may want to have a look at Django models source code for a concrete example), or even just dynamically create a new class using it's metaclass and a dict of functions and other class-level attributes.
Here again, this can really make seemingly complex issues a breeze to solve (and avoid a lot of boilerplate code).
Actually, Python exposes and lets you hook into most of it's inners (object model, attribute resolution rules, import mechanism etc), so once you understand the whole design and how everything fits together you really have the hand on most aspects of your code at runtime.
Python is not Java
Now I understand that all of this looks a bit like a vendor's catalog, but the point is highlight how Python differs from Java and why canonical Java solutions - or (at least) canonical Java implementations of those solutions - usually don't port well to the Python world. It's not that they don't work at all, just that Python usually has more straightforward (and much simpler IMHO) ways to implement common (and less common) design patterns.
wrt/ your concrete use case, you will have to post a much more detailed description, but "connecting to a 3rd part API" (I assume a REST api ?) from a Django project is so trivial that it really doesn't warrant much design considerations by itself.

In Python you can write the same as Java program structure. You don't need to be so strongly typed but you can. I'm using types when creating common classes and libraries that are used across multiple scripts.
Here you can read about Python typing
You can do the same here in Python. Define your class in package (folder) called services
Then if you want singleton you can do like that:
class Service(object):
instance = None
def __new__(cls):
if cls.instance is not None:
return cls.instance
else:
inst = cls.instance = super(Service, cls).__new__()
return inst
And now you import it wherever you want in the rest of the code
from services import Service
Service().do_action()

Adding to the answer given by bruno desthuilliers and TreantBG.
There are certain questions that you can ask about the requirements.
For example one question could be, does the api being called change with different type of objects ?
If the api doesn't change, you will probably be okay with keeping it as a method in some file or class.
If it does change, such that you are calling API 1 for some scenario, API 2 for some and so on and so forth, you will likely be better off with moving/abstracting this logic out to some class (from a better code organisation point of view).
PS: Python allows you to be as flexible as you want when it comes to code organisation. It's really upto you to decide on how you want to organise the code.

What's the closest implementation of scala's '#transient lazy val' in Python?

According to this post:
Python memoising/deferred lookup property decorator
A mnemonic decorator can be used to declare a lazy property in a class. There is even an 'official' package that can be used out of the box:
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/lazy
however, both of these implementation has a severe problem: any memorized values will be attempted to be pickled by python. If these values are unpicklable it will cause the program to break down.
My question is: is there an easy way to implement scala's "#transient lazy val" declaration without too much tinkering? This declaration should remember the property in case of multiple invocation, and drop it once the class/object is serialized.

Unaware of scala implementation details, but the easiest solution comes to my mind, if you're satisfied with other aspects of the 'lazy property' library you've found, would be implementing __getstate__ and __setstate__ object methods, as described in Pickling and unpickling normal class instances
These methods are called by pickle/unpickle handler during object instance (de)serialization.
This way you can have fine-grained control of how/which attributes of your object serialized.
You should read corresponding documentation on another two pickle-related methods as well (take care of __getinitargs__ specifically).
Python deserialized objects initialization differes from common __new__ & __init__ sequence

Should methods in a class be classmethod by default?

I was just working on a large class hierarchy and thought that probably all methods in a class should be classmethods by default.
I mean that it is very rare that one needs to change the actual method for an object, and whatever variables one needs can be passed in explicitly. Also, this way there would be lesser number of methods where people could change the object itself (more typing to do it the other way), and people would be more inclined to be "functional" by default.
But, I am a newb and would like to find out the flaws in my idea (if there are any :).

Having classmethods as a default is a well-known but outdated paradigm. It's called Modular Programming. Your classes become effectively modules this way.
The Object-Oriented Paradigm (OOP) is mostly considered superior to the Modular Paradigm (and it is younger). The main difference is exactly that parts of code are associated by default to a group of data (called an object) — and thus not classmethods.
It turns out in practice that this is much more useful. Combined with other OOP architectural ideas like inheritance this offers directer ways to represent the models in the heads of the developers.
Using object methods I can write abstract code which can be used for objects of various types; I don't have to know the type of the objects while writing my routine. E. g. I can write a max() routine which compares the elements of a list with each other to find the greatest. Comparing then is done using the > operator which is effectively an object method of the element (in Python this is __gt__(), in C++ it would be operator>() etc.). Now the object itself (maybe a number, maybe a date, etc.) can handle the comparison of itself with another of its type. In code this can be written as short as
a > b # in Python this calls a.__gt__(b)
while with only having classmethods you would have to write it as
type(a).__gt__(a, b)
which is much less readable.

If the method doesn't access any of an object's state, but is specific to that object's class, then it's a good candidate for being a classmethod.
Otherwise if it's more general, then just use a function defined at module level, no need to make it belong to a specific class.
I've found that classmethods are actually pretty rare in practice, and certainly not the default. There should be plenty of good code out there (on e.g. github) to get examples from.

Best practice - accessing object variables

I've been making a lot of classes an Python recently and I usually just access instance variables like this:
object.variable_name
But often I see that objects from other modules will make wrapper methods to access variables like this:
object.getVariable()
What are the advantages/disadvantages to these different approaches and is there a generally accepted best practice (even if there are exceptions)?

There should never be any need in Python to use a method call just to get an attribute. The people who have written this are probably ex-Java programmers, where that is idiomatic.
In Python, it's considered proper to access the attribute directly.
If it turns out that you need some code to run when accessing the attribute, for instance to calculate it dynamically, you should use the #property decorator.

The main advantages of "getters" (the getVariable form) in my modest opinion is that it's much easier to add functionality or evolve your objects without changing the signatures.
For instance, let's say that my object changes from implementing some functionality to encapsulating another object and providing the same functionality via Proxy Pattern (composition). If I'm using getters to access the properties, it doesn't matter where that property is being fetched from, and no change whatsoever is visible to the "clients" using your code.
I use getters and such methods especially when my code is being reused (as a library for instance), by others. I'm much less picky when my code is self-contained.
In Java this is almost a requirement, you should never access your object fields directly. In Python it's perfectly legitimate to do so, but you may take in consideration the possible benefits of encapsulation that I mentioned. Still keep in mind that direct access is not considered bad form in Python, on the contrary.

making getVariable() and setVariable() methods is called enncapsulation.
There are many advantages to this practice and it is the preffered style in object-oriented programming.
By accessing your variables through methods you can add another layer of "error checking/handling" by making sure the value you are trying to set/get is correct.
The setter method is also used for other tasks like notifying listeners that the variable have changed.
At least in java/c#/c++ and so on.