I have an abstract base class implements the laravel queueable trait:
abstract class BaseJob {
use Queueable;
}
Queueable defines $queue:
trait Queueable
{
public $queue;
}
In the actual job it is now possible to defined the classname as the queue name:
class SpecificJob extends BaseJob {
public $queue = self::class;
public function __construct($someParameter) {
// they all have custom constructors so they would overwrite the BaseJob constructor and I would also like to avoid calling parent::__construct;
}
}
Is there some way to do this in the baseclass so it is not required to do it in every class that extends from it?
I thought of something like this:
abstract class BaseJob {
use Queueable;
public $queue = static::class;
}
However this is not possible:
'static::' is not allowed in compile-time constants
You can use late static bindings in the Queueable trait to get the implementing class name if you use a getter rather than a public property.
trait Queueable
{
public function getQueue()
{
return static::class;
}
}
abstract class BaseJob {
use Queueable;
}
class SpecificJob extends BaseJob {
public function __construct($someParameter) {
// they all have custom constructors so they would overwrite the BaseJob constructor and I would also like to avoid calling parent::__construct;
}
}
$mySpecificJob = new SpecificJob('wombats');
assert($mySpecificJob->getQueue() == 'SpecificJob', 'We expect the trait to return the class name of the SpecificJob instance');
echo $mySpecificJob->getQueue().PHP_EOL;
The convention of relying on the implementing class name for the queue name give me hives, personally, I would want to be explicit when naming the queues. From your example, I don't see a reason to use a trait, you can do everything you need to do in the base class if you require sub classes to implement a method that returns the queue name. You could even use the class name by returning the value of static::class if you want.
abstract class BaseJob
{
public abstract function getQueue(): string;
}
class SpecificJob extends BaseJob
{
public function __construct($someParameter)
{
// they all have custom constructors so they would overwrite the BaseJob constructor and I would also like to avoid calling parent::__construct;
}
public function getQueue(): string
{
return self::class;
}
}
class CustomNameJob extends BaseJob
{
private const _queueName = 'custom_queue';
public function __construct($someParameter)
{
// they all have custom constructors so they would overwrite the BaseJob constructor and I would also like to avoid calling parent::__construct;
}
public function getQueue(): string
{
return self::_queueName;
}
}
$mySpecificJob = new SpecificJob('wombats');
assert($mySpecificJob->getQueue() == 'SpecificJob', 'We expect the the class name of the SpecificJob instance');
echo $mySpecificJob->getQueue().PHP_EOL;
$myCustomNameJob = new CustomNameJob('wombats');
assert($myCustomNameJob->getQueue() == 'custom_queue', 'We expect the queue name specified in the CustomNameJob class');
echo $myCustomNameJob->getQueue().PHP_EOL;
Related
I have a base class and I want to have one of its methods called after the extending class is constructed. Ideally this should happen without changing the extended class constructor:
class BaseClass {
protected function doSomethingAfterConstruct() {}
}
class ExtendedClass extends BaseClass {
public function __construct() {
// some custom constructor code
}
}
I could just call $this->doSomethingAfterConstruct() at the end of the ExtendedClass constructor or by calling parent::__construct, but I am looking for a solution where I can implement this behavior by only changing the baseclass.
If it would be not __constructor, but ordinary method, then you can use __call magic method to proxy calls to child class:
All child methods should be non-public visibility, to trigger magic method
class BaseClass {
public function __call($name, $arguments) {
$return = $this->{$name}(...$arguments);
$this->doSomethingAfterMethod();
return $return;
}
protected function doSomethingAfterMethod() {}
}
class ExtendedClass extends BaseClass {
private function randomMethod() {
// some custom method code
}
}
I have an abstract class, in which I want to call method, from a class that is declared in the child (extending) class. An example looks like this:
The abstract class:
abstract class NumberGenerator
{
protected function generate($input){
return MyClass::MyMethod($input);
}
}
My child/extending class:
use TomsFolder\MyClass;
use MyFolder\NumberGenerator;
class TomsNumberGenerator extends NumberGenerator
{
public function generate(string $applicantId): string
{
return $this->generate();
}
}
Another child/extending class:
use DavesFolder\MyClass;
use MyFolder\NumberGenerator;
class DavesNumberGenerator extends NumberGenerator
{
public function generate(string $applicantId): string
{
return $this->generate();
}
}
So I want to call MyClass::MyMethod in NumberGenerator. However it is only imported in TomsNumberGenerator.
The reason I want to do it like is because, I have classes like DavesNumberGenerator which calls a different MyClass.
When I try this, I get 'MyClass is not found in NumberGenerator'. Is there any way to make this work?
Try putting the namespace use statement before the actual class:
NumberGenerator.php
use MyFolder\MyClass;
abstract class NumberGenerator
{
protected function generate($input){
return MyClass::MyMethod($input);
}
}
EDIT
Try this:
NumberGenerator.php
abstract class NumberGenerator
{
protected function generate($class_name, $input){
return call_user_func($class_name . '::MyMethod', $input);
}
}
TomsNumberGenerator.php
use TomsFolder\MyClass;
use MyFolder\NumberGenerator;
class TomsNumberGenerator extends NumberGenerator
{
public function generate(string $applicantId): string
{
return $this->generate(get_class(new MyClass()), $applicantId);
}
}
You have to use interface for this.
You can do the following
Create MyClassInterface
interface MyClassInterface {
public function MyMethod();
}
Implement this interface in some classes
class MyClass1 implements MyClassInterface {
public function MyMethod() {
// implementation
}
}
class MyClass2 implements MyClassInterface {
public function MyMethod() {
// implementation 2
}
}
Add abstract method to NumberGenerator
abstract class NumberGenerator {
abstract protected function GetMyClass(): MyClassInterface;
protected function generate($input){
return $this->GetMyClass()->MyMethod($input);
}
}
Implement GetMyClass function inside child classes
class TomsNumberGenerator extends NumberGenerator
{
protected function GetMyClass(): MyClassInterface {
return new MyClass1();
}
}
class DavesNumberGenerator extends NumberGenerator
{
protected function GetMyClass(): MyClassInterface {
return new MyClass2();
}
}
PS If you want to use static, you can change abstract inside NumberGenerator class, to change string. In this case, your generate will look like this:
protected function generate($input){
return call_user_func($this->GetMyClass() . '::MyMethod', [$input]);
}
Have a look at the following trait:
trait PrimaryModelRest {
use RestController;
protected $primaryModel;
public function __construct() {
$mc = $this->getPrimaryModelClass();
try {
$this->primaryModel = new $mc();
if(!($this->primaryModel instanceof Model)) {
throw new ClassNotFoundException("Primary Model fatal exception: The given Class is not an instance of Illuminate\Database\Eloquent\Model");
}
} catch (Exception $e) {
throw new WrongImplementationException("Primary Model Exception: Class not found.");
}
}
/**
* #return string: Classname of the primary model.
*/
public abstract function getPrimaryModelClass();
// various functions here
}
As you can see the trait makes sure that the using class holds a certain model instance and it implements certain methods. This works as long as the implementing class does not override the constructor.
So here is my question: I want to make sure that either the constructor is called or a better solution, such that I can instantiate this model on initialization.
Please make in answer which respects Multiple inheritance as well es Multi-Level inheritance.
I think you are trying to make the trait do a job it is not designed for.
Traits are not a form of multiple inheritance, but rather "horizontal reuse" - they're often described as "compiler-assisted copy-and-paste". As such, the job of a trait is to provide some code, so that you don't have to copy it into the class manually. The only relationship it has is with the class where the use statement occurs, where the code is "pasted". To aid in this role, it can make some basic requirements of that target class, but after that, the trait takes no part in inheritance.
In your example, you are concerned that a sub-class might try to access $primaryModel without running the constructor code which initialises it, and you are trying to use the trait to enforce that; but this is not actually the trait's responsibility.
The following definitions of class Sub are completely equivalent:
trait Test {
public function foo() {
echo 'Hello, World!';
}
}
class ParentWithTrait {
use Test;
}
class Sub inherits ParentWithTrait {
}
vs:
class ParentWithMethodDefinition {
public function foo() {
echo 'Hello, World!';
}
}
class Sub inherits ParentWithMethodDefinition {
}
In either case, class Sub could have its own definition of foo(), and by-pass the logic you'd written in the parent class.
The only contract that can prevent that is the final keyword, which in your case would mean marking your constructor as final. You can then provide an extension point that can be overridden for sub-classes to add their own initialisation:
class Base {
final public function __construct() {
important_things(); // Always run this!
$this->onConstruct(); // Extension point
}
protected function onConstruct() {
// empty default definition
}
}
class Sub {
protected function onConstruct() {
stuff_for_sub(); // Runs after mandatory important_things()
}
}
A trait can also mark its constructor as final, but this is part of the code being pasted, not a requirement on the class using the trait. You could actually use a trait with a constructor, but then write a new constructor as well, and it would mask the trait's version completely:
trait Test {
final public function __construct() {
echo "Trait Constructor";
}
}
class Noisy {
use Test;
}
class Silent {
use Test;
public function __construct() {
// Nothing
}
}
As far as the trait is concerned, this is like buying a bottle of beer and pouring it down the sink: you asked for its code and didn't use it, but that's your problem.
Crucially, though, you can also alias the methods of the trait, creating a new method with the same code but a different name and/or a different visibility. This means you can mix in code from traits which declare constructors, and use that code in a more complex constructor, or somewhere else in the class altogether.
The target class might also use the "final + hook" pattern:
trait TestOne {
final public function __construct() {
echo "Trait TestOne Constructor\n";
}
}
trait TestTwo {
final public function __construct() {
echo "Trait TestTwo Constructor\n";
}
}
class Mixed {
final public function __construct() {
echo "Beginning\n";
$this->testOneConstructor();
echo "Middle\n";
$this->testTwoConstructor();
echo "After Traits\n";
$this->onConstruct();
echo "After Sub-Class Hook\n";
}
use TestOne { __construct as private testOneConstructor; }
use TestTwo { __construct as private testTwoConstructor; }
protected function onConstruct() {
echo "Default hook\n";
}
}
class ChildOfMixed extends Mixed {
protected function onConstruct() {
echo "Child hook\n";
}
}
The trait hasn't forced the Mixed class to implement this pattern, but it has enabled it, in keeping with its purpose of facilitating code reuse.
Interestingly, the below code doesn't work, because the as keyword adds an alias, rather than renaming the normal method, so this ends up trying to override the final constructor from Mixed:
class ChildOfMixed extends Mixed {
use TestTwo { __construct as private testTwoConstructor; }
protected function onConstruct() {
$this->testTwoConstructor();
echo "Child hook\n";
}
}
Use a base class, this will let you handle the trait as a parent.
<?php
trait StorageTrait
{
public function __construct()
{
echo "Storage Trait";
}
}
class StorageAttempt
{
use StorageTrait;
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct();
echo " - Storage Attempt";
}
}
abstract class StorageBase
{
use StorageTrait;
}
class MyStorage extends StorageBase
{
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct();
echo ' - My Storage';
}
}
new StorageAttempt(); // won't work - will trigger error
new MyStorage(); // will display "Storage Trait - My Storage"
Also if you are using traits you can also work with properties and getters & setters.
Example: A Storage trait involves that a Storage Engine will be used. You can add the storageEngine property and its getters and setters. (with or without Type Hinting)
interface StorageEngineInterface{}
trait StorageTrait
{
/**
* #var StorageEngineInterface
*/
protected $storageEngine;
/**
* #return StorageEngineInterface
*/
public function getStorageEngine(): StorageEngineInterface
{
return $this->storageEngine;
}
/**
* #param StorageEngineInterface $storageEngine
*/
public function setStorageEngine(StorageEngineInterface $storageEngine)
{
$this->storageEngine = $storageEngine;
return $this;
}
}
Note: this is just an explanation so you can better understand how Traits work
UPDATE
To avoid conflict you can use aliases for trait methods. This way you can use both constructors (from trait and from extended class) you can do the following
class DifferentStorage
{
public function __construct()
{
echo ' diff ';
}
}
class MyDifferentStorage extends DifferentStorage
{
use StorageTrait {
StorageTrait::__construct as otherConstructor;
}
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct();
self::otherConstructor();
}
}
You could use the interface injection pattern: implement an interface iPrimaryModelRest into the same class that uses the trait PrimaryModelRest:
interface iPrimaryModelRest {
public function init();
public abstract function getPrimaryModelClass();
}
The class that uses the trait woud look like this:
class cMyClass implements iPrimaryModelRest {
use PrimaryModelRest;
}
Then, whenever the class is instantiated (not only autoloaded) you could call a special factory-like initialisation function like this:
class cMyApp {
public function start() {
/** #var cMyClass $oClass */ // enlighten IDE
$oClass = $this->init(new cMyClass);
}
public function init($oClass) {
if ($oClass instanceof iPrimaryModelRest) {$oClass->init();}
if ($oClass instanceof whateverinterface) {
// pass optional stuff, like database connection
}
}
}
The interface is used to determine the capabilities of the class, and sets data/runs corresponding functions. If I'm not mistaken then this pattern is called a Service Locator.
I needed a trait for database connection. To avoid using the __construct in a trait, I've used a magic getter instead:
trait WithDatabaseConnection
{
public function __get(string $name)
{
if ($name === 'pdo') {
return App::make(\PDO::class);
}
trigger_error("Property $name does not exist.");
return null;
}
}
class Foo {
use WithDatabaseConnection;
public function save() {
$this->pdo->query('...');
}
}
I have an abstract class that declares the methods required to its children. It also has a construstor that its children inherits. How can I make the abstract class affect the children of the classes that extends it. To further clarify my question, here is my case:
The Abstract Class (abstract.php):
<?php
include_once 'database.php';
include_once 'validation.php';
abstract class DataOperations extends DatabaseConnection {
//The error string shared by all children of DataOperations
//This will be the message to be displayed in case validation failure
public $validator;
public $err_valid_string;
/**
* The DataOperations' constructor ensures that all of its children can perform database operation
* by automatically starting it for them. In case a child overrides this constructor, this child
* must explicitly start the connection to prevent fatal errors. Also, $validator must be re-instantiated
*/
public function __construct() {
$this->startDBConnection();
$this->validator = new InputValidator();
}
public function __destruct() {
}
abstract public function validateData();
abstract public function loadRecord($key, $cascade);
abstract public function saveRecord();
abstract public function updateRecord();
abstract public function deleteRecord();
}
?>
Now, here is the child object that extends the DataOperations abstract class
class Guest extends DataOperations {
//some properties here
public function validateData() {
//implementation
}
public function newRecord(implementation) {
//implementation
}
public function loadRecord($key, $cascade){
//implementation
}
public function saveRecord() {
//implementation
}
public function updateRecord() {
//implementation
}
public function deleteRecord() {
//implementation
}
}
?>
And here is another class, which is a child of Guest
class Booking extends Guest {
//some properties here
public function validateData() {
//implementation
}
public function newRecord(implementation) {
//implementation
}
public function loadRecord($key, $cascade){
//implementation
}
public function saveRecord() {
//implementation
}
public function updateRecord() {
//implementation
}
public function deleteRecord() {
//implementation
}
}
?>
The problem is, if I remove a method in Booking, say deleteRecord(), PHP won't throw an error because I think abstract class doesn't affect its 'grandchildren'. How can I fix this? I thought of using interfaces but my system already has 11 classes that depends to some methods of the abstract class. It will require intensive refactoring.
As you himself stated interface is best suited solution. Like
include_once 'database.php';
include_once 'validation.php';
interface DbInterface {
abstract public function validateData();
abstract public function loadRecord($key, $cascade);
abstract public function saveRecord();
abstract public function updateRecord();
abstract public function deleteRecord();
}
class DataOperations extends DatabaseConnection {
//The error string shared by all children of DataOperations
//This will be the message to be displayed in case validation failure
public $validator;
public $err_valid_string;
/**
* The DataOperations' constructor ensures that all of its children can perform database operation
* by automatically starting it for them. In case a child overrides this constructor, this child
* must explicitly start the connection to prevent fatal errors. Also, $validator must be re-instantiated
*/
public function __construct() {
$this->startDBConnection();
$this->validator = new InputValidator();
}
public function __destruct() {
}
}
class Guest extends DataOperations implements DbInterface {
- - -
}
class Booking extends Guest implements DbInterface {
- - -
}
First as you see I removed abstract from parent class as I assuming only those methods are abstract. Second as per your problem of 11 classes depend on Abstract class, I would say As you only remove abstract methods, Class implementing abstract methods now should implement interface. It is one time needed task. While classes using other normal methods of abstract class work like previous.
The best and cleanest way would be to have your "BOOKING" class extend the "DATAOPERATIONS" class, instead of GUEST, because looks like you don't have any extra methods in the BOOKING class. other wise make and interface and implement it. That is not the preferred way but you would have to give more info your situation.
To be clear, re-declaring a method in a child class will overwrite the parent class's implementation of that method when called from the child class, while not affecting any additional functionality provided by extending the parent class:
class a
{
function hello()
{
echo "Hello";
}
function goodbye()
{
echo "Goodbye";
}
}
/**
* class b overwrites class a's implementation of method goodbye but will retain
* it's definition for method hello
*/
class b extends a
{
function goodbye()
{
echo "See ya!";
}
}
$object = new b();
$object->hello(); // Hello
$object->goodbye();// See ya!
It appears that you want to implement a consistent interface across multiple class definitions. If this is the case, you will likely want to explore using PHP's interfaces.
These allow you to specify the methods that must exist in your class definition along with their set of arguments (collectively known as the signature). Your class definitions will implement an interface and if your definition does not meet the interface implementation specification, a fatal error will be thrown.
From the PHP manual:
// Declare the interface 'iTemplate'
interface iTemplate
{
public function setVariable($name, $var);
public function getHtml($template);
}
// Implement the interface
// This will work
class Template implements iTemplate
{
private $vars = array();
public function setVariable($name, $var)
{
$this->vars[$name] = $var;
}
public function getHtml($template)
{
foreach($this->vars as $name => $value) {
$template = str_replace('{' . $name . '}', $value, $template);
}
return $template;
}
// This will not work
// Fatal error: Class BadTemplate contains 1 abstract methods
// and must therefore be declared abstract (iTemplate::getHtml)
class BadTemplate implements iTemplate
{
private $vars = array();
public function setVariable($name, $var)
{
$this->vars[$name] = $var;
}
}
You can find more information about interface in the PHP manual:
http://us2.php.net/interface
Finally, it looks like you are hoping to define a common constructor for the child classes. Your child classes can both extend the DataOperations class while implementing a separate interface:
class Guest extends DataOperations implements DatabaseWriter
...
I have an abstract class that extends classes to provide a basic orm function. All the functions it provides are protected to the class so it can decide what fields are made publicly available to outside objects. But recently, I have started working with some smaller data classes that do not require such complexity, and would benefit from having the orm editing functions publicly available and no special functions.
As the naming convention for the functions is sufficient and compact, is there a way to change the existing functions to public (without needing the same class, or an interim extends), or would I have to use the new traits feature of php to add an existing class, which contains public versions of the functions that act as an abstraction layer for the internal protected functions?
EDIT:
For the traits method, I was thinking that it would help like this:
abstract class ORMClass {
public function __construct($pk) {}
protected function __get($k) {}
protected function __set($k,$v) {}
protected function save() {}
}
trait publicORM {
public function __get($k) { return parent::__get($k); }
public function __set($k,$v) { return parent::__set($k,$v); }
public function save() { return parent::save(); }
}
class myOrm extends ORMClass {
use publicORM;
protected static $table = 'myTable';
}
so then I could use myOrm like:
$myOrm = new myOrm(1);
$myOrm->foo = 'alice'
echo $myOrm->bar;
$myOrm->save();
without needing the:
public function __get($k) { return parent::__get($k); }
public function __set($k,$v) { return parent::__set($k,$v); }
public function save() { return parent::save(); }
to be listed in the class myOrm
Since this was never answered properly, I'm adding Charles answer.
This can be done using PHP's Reflection library, built in to PHP since version 5. This particular method is fairly hacky:
<?php
abstract class BaseClass {
protected function testMe() {
echo 'I WORK!';
}
}
class ConcreteClass extends BaseClass {
// Class Code
}
$method = new ReflectionMethod('BaseClass', 'testMe');
$method->setAccessible(true);
$method->invoke(new ConcreteClass()); // Prints 'I WORK!'
And here is the better method using an interim abstract class that extends the base class but uses public methods:
<?php
abstract class BaseClass {
protected function testMe() {
echo 'I WORK!';
}
}
abstract class PublicBaseClass extends BaseClass {
public function testMe() {
parent::testMe();
}
}
class ConcreteClass extends PublicBaseClass {
// Class Code
}
$obj = new ConcreteClass();
$obj->testMe();