I was wondering what is the best way to transfer an instanced object into another class for local usage. I am also curious if this makes a differences with regards to memory usage.
I figured, there are mainly two ways:
1.) Transfer instanced objects via referencing to $GLOBALS:
class UserLogHandler {
public function __construct() {
$this->DB = $GLOBALS['DB'];
$this->Security = $GLOBALS['Security'];
}
public function doSomeWork() {
$this->DB->someMethod;
}
}
or
2.) Transfer via handover:
class UserLogHandler($DB,$Security) {
public function doSomeWork() {
$DB->someMethod;
}
}
It seems to me, that option 2 might be better suited for a complicated environment, although I find option 1 more appealing. Anyhow I would prefer a technical and/or logical explanation why to use one option over the other. If there is another, better option please let me know as well.
Thanks in advance and best wishes,
Thomas
This is indeed a good question. I will say it depends upon your need. Lets analyze both your options one by one.
Before starting, keep in mind that your object should always a complete object. It should not have a incomplete state. You can refer to this article for more understanding https://matthiasnoback.nl/2018/07/objects-should-be-constructed-in-one-go/
1.) Transfer instanced objects via referencing to $GLOBALS:
You must never use such methods as they are confusing. $GLOBALS lacks to tell you where and how a particular variable was created so You can't never be sure if this variable exist or what it holds. I will suggest you to use dependency injection for it
use DB;
use Security;
class UserLogHandler
{
public function __construct(DB $DB, Security $Security)
{
$this->DB = $DB;
$this->Security = $Security;
}
public function doSomeWork()
{
$this->DB->someMethod;
}
}
See how you can now be sure that from where $DB and $Security where injected and what they hold. You can even enforce type of variable using type indication like Security $Security.
This method comes handy when your class is heavy dependent on a particular variable. e.g. A model class will always need DB adapter or a PDF generator library will need PDF class essentially.
2.) Transfer via handover
This works as you expected but I think you made mistake while defining it. You need to write it like following.
class UserLogHandler
{
public function doSomeWork($DB, $Security)
{
$DB->someMethod;
}
}
This method comes handy when you need a particular variable in a particular function only. Example for it, will be like we need to get records from a model for some particular condition. So we can pass value in function and get results according to value.
use DB;
use Security;
class UserLogHandler
{
public function __construct(DB $DB, $Security)
{
$this->DB = $DB;
$this->Security = $Security;
}
public function doSomeWork($value)
{
if ($value = 'something') {
$this->DB->someMethod;
}
}
}
As you can see that both methods can be used in conjugation. It only depends what is your requirement
Related
Through my multiple studies I have come across the factory method of setting session and database objects which I have been using while in development. What I am wondering is, putting aside personal preference (although I will soak in any opinions anyone has), does this general method work, and is it efficient (meaning, am I using it correctly)? If it is not, do you have suggestions for how to improve it?
Background
I created the code this way so as to pass a database and session object to the class upon calling the class. I wanted to be able to pass along the relevant objects/references so that they could be used.
The Call Class
This class is meant to call static functions, like so:
class CALL {
public static $_db, $_session;
public status function class1() {
$function = new class1();
$function->set_session(self::$_session);
$function->set_database(self::$_db);
return $function;
}
public status function class2() {
...
}
...
}
The _set class
class _set {
public $_db, $_session;
public function __construct() { ... }
public function set_database($_db) {
$this->_db = $_db;
}
public function set_session($_session) {
$this->_session = $_session;
}
}
Now the classes referenced.
class class1 extends _set {
function __construct() { ... }
function function1() { return "foo"; }
...
}
So, moving forward, the classes would be called using CALL::class1 or CALL::class2. After that, they can be accessed as per usual, aka:
CALL::$_db = $database->_dbObject;
CALL::$_session = $_SESSION;
$class1 = CALL::class1;
echo $class1->function1(); //prints "foo".
Read about Dependency Injection . Small suggestion from my point of view, you should never create objects like $db or $session inside other objects. You should rather inject them through constructor or setter method. It will make your code less dependant on a specific classes and it will be easier to replace all dependencies almost without refactoring (actually without one if you know hot to use interfaces).
If anyone stumbles on this, I will share with you what my solution was.
Although this exercise helped me to learn a lot, and I am sure I could take the time to create a VERY highly functional factory/Container, because this is not integral to my program and not even unique, I finally bowed to the age old wisdom of not repeating something that has already been done.
I utilized Pimple, a lightweight library that uses PHP closures to create function calls. Now, I can haave the flexibility of determining which dependency injections I want, but I also only need to inject them once. Future calls, even when they create new instances, will replicate them. While I think that, in theory, my project was workable as it was, it did indeed have the unfortunate issue of requiring you to go into the container to make changes. With Pimple I do not need to do that. So I've tossed by Container class and picked up a lightweight program from the maker of Symfony. While this may not be the best answer for everyone, it was for me. Cheers!
Lately I have been trying to create my own PHP framework, just to learn from it (As we may look into some bigger and more robust framework for production). One design concept I currently have, is that most core classes mainly work on static functions within classes.
Now a few days ago, I've seen a few articles about "Static methods are death to testability". This concerned me as.. yeah.. my classes contain mostly static methods.. The main reason I was using static methods is that a lot of classes would never need more than one instance, and static methods are easy to approach in the global scope. Now I'm aware that static methods aren't actually the best way to do things, I'm looking for a better alternative.
Imagine the following code to get a config item:
$testcfg = Config::get("test"); // Gets config from "test"
echo $testcfg->foo; // Would output what "foo" contains ofcourse.
/*
* We cache the newly created instance of the "test" config,
* so if we need to use it again anywhere in the application,
* the Config::get() method simply returns that instance.
*/
This is an example of what I currently have. But according to some articles, this is bad.
Now, I could do this the way how, for example, CodeIgniter does this, using:
$testcfg = $this->config->get("test");
echo $testcfg->foo;
Personally, I find this harder to read. That's why I would prefer another way.
So in short, I guess I need a better approach to my classes. I would not want more than one instance to the config class, maintain readability and have easy access to the class. Any ideas?
Note that I'm looking for some best practice or something including a code sample, not some random ideas. Also, if I'm bound to a $this->class->method style pattern, then would I implement this efficiently?
In response to Sébastien Renauld's comments: here's an article on Dependency Injection (DI) and Inversion of Control (IoC) with some examples, and a few extra words on the Hollywood principle (quite important when working on a framework).
Saying your classes won't ever need more than a single instance doesn't mean that statics are a must. Far from it, actually. If you browse this site, and read through PHP questions that deal with the singleton "pattern", you'll soon find out why singletons are a bit of a no-no.
I won't go into the details, but testing and singletons don't mix. Dependency injection is definitely worth a closer look. I'll leave it at that for now.
To answer your question:
Your exaple (Config::get('test')) implies you have a static property in the Config class somewhere. Now if you've done this, as you say, to facilitate access to given data, imagine what a nightmare it would be to debug your code, if that value were to change somewhere... It's a static, so change it once, and it's changed everywhere. Finding out where it was changed might be harder than you anticipated. Even so, that's nothing compared to the issues someone who uses your code will have in the same situation.
And yet, the real problems will only start when that person using your code wants to test whatever it is he/she made: If you want to have access to an instance in a given object, that has been instantiated in some class, there are plenty of ways to do so (especially in a framework):
class Application
{//base class of your framework
private $defaulDB = null;
public $env = null;
public function __construct($env = 'test')
{
$this->env = $env;
}
private function connectDB(PDO $connection = null)
{
if ($connection === null)
{
$connection = new PDO();//you know the deal...
}
$this->defaultDB = $connection;
}
public function getDB(PDO $conn = null)
{//get connection
if ($this->defaultDB === null)
{
$this->connectDB($conn);
}
return $this->defaultDB;
}
public function registerController(MyConstroller $controller)
{//<== magic!
$controller->registerApplication($this);
return $this;
}
}
As you can see, the Application class has a method that passes the Application instance to your controller, or whatever part of your framework you want to grant access to scope of the Application class.
Note that I've declared the defaultDB property as a private property, so I'm using a getter. I can, if I wanted to, pass a connection to that getter. There's a lot more you can do with that connection, of course, but I can't be bothered writing a full framework to show you everything you can do here :).
Basically, all your controllers will extend the MyController class, which could be an abstract class that looks like this:
abstract class MyController
{
private $app = null;
protected $db = null;
public function __construct(Application $app = null)
{
if ($app !== null)
{
return $this->registerApplication($app);
}
}
public function registerApplication(Application $app)
{
$this->app = $app;
return $this;
}
public function getApplication()
{
return $this->app;
}
}
So in your code, you can easily do something along the lines of:
$controller = new MyController($this);//assuming the instance is created in the Application class
$controller = new MyController();
$controller->registerApplication($appInstance);
In both cases, you can get that single DB instance like so:
$controller->getApplication()->getDB();
You can test your framework with easily by passing a different DB connection to the getDB method, if the defaultDB property hasn't been set in this case. With some extra work you can register multiple DB connections at the same time and access those at will, too:
$controller->getApplication->getDB(new PDO());//pass test connection here...
This is, by no means, the full explanation, but I wanted to get this answer in quite quickly before you end up with a huge static (and thus useless) codebase.
In response to comments from OP:
On how I'd tackle the Config class. Honestly, I'd pretty much do the same thing as I'd do with the defaultDB property as shown above. But I'd probably allow for more targeted control on what class gets access to what part of the config:
class Application
{
private $config = null;
public function __construct($env = 'test', $config = null)
{//get default config path or use path passed as argument
$this->config = new Config(parse_ini_file($config));
}
public function registerController(MyController $controller)
{
$controller->setApplication($this);
}
public function registerDB(MyDB $wrapper, $connect = true)
{//assume MyDB is a wrapper class, that gets the connection data from the config
$wrapper->setConfig(new Config($this->config->getSection('DB')));
$this->defaultDB = $wrapper;
return $this;
}
}
class MyController
{
private $app = null;
public function getApplication()
{
return $this->app;
}
public function setApplication(Application $app)
{
$this->app = $app;
return $this;
}
//Optional:
public function getConfig()
{
return $this->app->getConfig();
}
public function getDB()
{
return $this->app->getDB();
}
}
Those last two methods aren't really required, you could just as well write something like:
$controller->getApplication()->getConfig();
Again, this snippet is all a bit messy and incomplete, but it does go to show you that you can "expose" certain properties of one class, by passing a reference to that class to another. Even if the properties are private, you can use getters to access them all the same. You can also use various register-methods to control what it is the registered object is allowed to see, as I've done with the DB-wrapper in my snippet. A DB class shouldn't deal with viewscripts and namespaces, or autoloaders. That's why I'm only registering the DB section of the config.
Basically, a lot of your main components will end up sharing a number of methods. In other words, they'll end up implementing a given interface. For each main component (assuming the classic MVC pattern), you'll have one abstract base-class, and an inheritance chain of 1 or 2 levels of child classes: Abstract Controller > DefaultController > ProjectSpecificController.
At the same time, all of these classes will probably expect another instance to be passed to them when constructed. Just look at the index.php of any ZendFW project:
$application = new Zend_Application(APPLICATION_ENV);
$application->bootstrap()->run();
That's all you can see, but inside the application, all other classes are being instantiated. That's why you can access neigh on everything from anywhere: all classes have been instantiated inside another class along these lines:
public function initController(Request $request)
{
$this->currentController = $request->getController();
$this->currentController = new $this->currentController($this);
return $this->currentController->init($request)
->{$request->getAction().'Action'}();
}
By passing $this to the constructor of a controller class, that class can use various getters and setters to get to whatever it needs... Look at the examples above, it could use getDB, or getConfig and use that data if that's what it needs.
That's how most frameworks I've tinkered or worked with function: The application is kicks into action and determines what needs to be done. That's the Hollywood-principle, or Inversion of Control: the Application is started, and the application determines what classes it needs when. In the link I provided I believe this is compared to a store creating its own customers: the store is built, and decides what it wants to sell. In order to sell it, it will create the clients it wants, and provide them with the means they need to purchase the goods...
And, before I forget: Yes, all this can be done without a single static variable, let alone function, coming into play. I've built my own framework, and I've never felt there was no other way than to "go static". I did use the Factory pattern at first, but ditched it pretty quickly.
IMHO, a good framework is modular: you should be able to use bits of it (like Symfony's components), without issues. Using the Factory pattern makes you assume too much. You assume class X will be available, which isn't a given.
Registering those classes that are available makes for far more portable components. Consider this:
class AssumeFactory
{
private $db = null;
public function getDB(PDO $db = null)
{
if ($db === null)
{
$config = Factory::getConfig();//assumes Config class
$db = new PDO($config->getDBString());
}
$this->db = $db;
return $this->db;
}
}
As opposed to:
class RegisteredApplication
{//assume this is registered to current Application
public function getDB(PDO $fallback = null, $setToApplication = false)
{
if ($this->getApplication()->getDB() === null)
{//defensive
if ($setToApplication === true && $fallback !== null)
{
$this->getApplication()->setDB($fallback);
return $fallback;//this is current connection
}
if ($fallback === null && $this->getApplication()->getConfig() !== null)
{//if DB is not set #app, check config:
$fallback = $this->getApplication()->getConfig()->getSection('DB');
$fallback = new PDO($fallback->connString, $fallback->user, $fallback->pass);
return $fallback;
}
throw new RuntimeException('No DB connection set #app, no fallback');
}
if ($setToApplication === true && $fallback !== null)
{
$this->getApplication()->setDB($fallback);
}
return $this->getApplication()->getDB();
}
}
Though the latter version is slightly more work to write, it's quite clear which of the two is the better bet. The first version just assumes too much, and doesn't allow for safety-nets. It's also quite dictatorial: suppose I've written a test, and I need the results to go to another DB. I therefore need to change the DB connection, for the entire application (user input, errors, stats... they're all likely to be stored in a DB).
For those two reasons alone, the second snippet is the better candidate: I can pass another DB connection, that overwrites the application default, or, if I don't want to do that, I can either use the default connection, or attempt to create the default connection. Store the connection I just made, or not... the choice is entirely mine. If nothing works, I just get a RuntimeException thrown at me, but that's not the point.
Magic methods would help you: see the examples about __get() and __set()
You should also take a look at namespaces: it may help you to get rid of some classes with static methods only.
I want to set initial values of fields in an object, using $config. Which approach is better in terms of cleaner and more maintainable code?
Also, I would like to add that object will be initialized in a factory and not directly by client.
1. I pass $config to the object
<?php
class UserGreeting {
private $config;
public function __construct($config){
$this->config=$config;
}
public function greetings(){
echo 'Hello, '.$this->config->get('username');
}
}
?>
Pros:
Easy to pass multiple parameters
Cons:
The class is coupled with $config ( is it?). What I mean is that
apart from particular $config interface and parameters naming
conventions, I can't just plug this class into another program
without introducing $config
Client code doesn't have to know which parameters are used by the
object, but that is more general thought
2. I set fields manually outside the object
<?php
class UserGreetingFactory{
public function __construct($config){
$this->config=$config;
}
public function getUserGreeting(){
$userGreeting=new UserGreeting();
$userGreeting->setUserName='John Doe';
return $userGreeing;
}
}
class UserGreeting {
private userName;
public function setUserName($userName){
$this->userName=$userName;
}
public function greetings(){
echo "Hello, {$this->userName}";
}
}
?>
Pros:
The class doesn't care where his parameters are coming from
Can reuse easily
Easier to test(is it?). I mean that I don't have to deal with setting
up $config
Cons:
Factory\Builder has to know which parameers to pass
Lots of extra code for setters and passing parameters
First solution with ctor injection. But instead of a special config i would just pass the actual objects. In your case an User object.
<?php
class UserGreeting
{
private $user;
public function __construct(User $user)
{
$this->user = $user;
}
public function greet()
{
printf('Hello, %s!', $this->user->getName());
}
}
Considering your idea's, I'd stick to a single variable. If you want to pass the variables per-method you'll have a lot of excessive code.
From an OOP point of view, you shouldn't put it in a single variable. An object has properties. An username is in fact a property so you should use it as property. That means that in PHP classes you'd need to make it a public variable and set the variables when you create the object.
The first way is better because of dependency injection. This code will be easier to test and to maintain.
The third way is to use Visitor pattern to inject dependencies.
You could use a static class with static methods. In effect they are like CONSTS, but you can enforce all kinds of rules within the static config class - that they conform to an interface for example.
Config::getUserName();
That way if you are going to be faced with a family of config objects, you can be assured they all have at least an entry for each expected value - otherwise a warning is chucked.
Might depend on your situation of course, and I expect there are many situations where you would not want to do this - but I will offer it up all the same.
I have some code that often looks like this:
private $user;
public function __construct()
{
$this->user = User::getInstance(); //singleton
}
public function methodOne()
{
return $this->user->foo();
}
public function methodTwo()
{
return $this->user->foo2();
}
public function methodThree()
{
return $this->user->foo3();
}
I figure if I set user property to the instance I can reuse a shorter name in my methods (well in this case it's not that much shorter). I also thought doing it this way might save a little resources (beginning to doubt it), but when I look at other people's code I rarely see people do this. They would usually just call:
User::getInstance()->foo();
User::getInstance()->foo2();
User::getInstance()->foo3();
Is there any sort of best practice for this? Maybe if it's not a singleton class you might do it this way? Or maybe you should never do it this way? Hope to get some clarification, thanks.
Edit:
Incase there is any misunderstanding I'm just wondering if I should the first example with creating a property to store the instance vs this:
public function methodOne()
{
return User::getInstance()->foo();
}
public function methodTwo()
{
return User::getInstance()->foo2();
}
public function methodThree()
{
return User::getInstance()->foo3();
}
Actually now that I think about it this may be less code as I don't need the constructor...
There are indeed some problems with your approach.
It is not clear that your class depends on the User class. You can solve this with adding User as a constructor parameter.
Singletons are often bad practice. Your code demonstrates why: it is globally accessible and hence difficult to track dependencies using it (this points to the above problem).
Static methods are too often used as global access points (in response to what you see people usually do User::method()). Global access points give the same problem as singletons. They are also a tad more difficult to test.
I also don't see the point in repeating the User object with your new object, unless you would use eg the adapter pattern. Maybe if you could clarify this I would be able to come up with a better alternative than the generic:
class Foo {
public function __construct(User $user) {
$this->user = $user;
}
public function doXsimplified() {
$this->user->doXbutMoreComplex($arg1,$arg2, $arg20);
}
}
My personal preference in PHP is to use classes with just static methods for singletons, so you have
User::foo();
User::bar();
I would not create a new class just to wrap around a singleton like that. But if your new class adds some extra logic then your example makes sense. Remember, if you're worried that you're too verbose you can always use a temporary variable for successive function calls.
$user = User::getInstance();
$user->foo();
$user->bar();
But personally, I don't use Singletons anymore. Instead, I use Dependency Injection. I like the sfServiceContainer, but there are others. Have a look at this series of articles: http://fabien.potencier.org/article/11/what-is-dependency-injection
UPDATE
Based on the additional comments, this is how I would do it:
class UserWrapper
{
private $user = null;
public function __construct($user)
{
$this->user = $user;
}
public function foo()
{
return $this->user->foo();
}
...
}
Then use it like this:
$user = new UserWrapper(User::getInstance());
Why? So I can pass in a fake User object if I want to test the UserWrapper class. E.g:
class UserMock { ... } // A fake object that looks like a User
$userTest = new UserWrapper(new UserMock());
I usually go like this, if you have already included the class in a bootstrap of some sort or a config file. I would usually declear the $user variable in a bootstrap that will get called on every page load, then just reference it as a global variable on other php files, this is what I would have in the bootstrap file.
$user = new User();
Then this is what I would have in the calling php file
global $user;
$user->foo();
How is it done?
I have a Model class that is the parent to many sub-classes, and that Model depends on a database connection and a caching mechanism.
Now, this is where it starts getting troublesome: I have no control over how each object gets instantiated or used, but I have control over methods that get used by the sub-classes.
Currently I have resorted to using static methods and properties for dependency injection, as such:
class Model
{
private static $database_adapter;
private static $cache_adapter;
public static function setDatabaseAdapter(IDatabaseAdapter $databaseAdapter)
{
self::$databaseAdapter = $databaseAdapter;
}
public static function setCacheAdapter(ICacheAdapter $cacheAdapter)
{
self::$cacheAdapter = $cacheAdapter;
}
}
Which has worked out well, but it feels dirty (it creates a global state for all Models).
I have considered the factory pattern, but that removes the control of the instantiation from the sub-classes (how do I instantiate an object with a variable number of parameters in it's constructor?).
Now I am at a loss. Any help would be appreciated.
As far as I know this is a perfectly acceptable alternative. Another possibility suggested by Sebastian Bergmann, the creator of PHPUnit, is to have a $testing static property. You can read his recent article regarding the Testing of Singletons. It sounds like you have similar issues.
You're solution would be fine for setting default adapters, but I'd add a way for the individual models to have a different adapter. Consider this:
abstract class Model {
protected $_database_adapter;
protected $_default_database_adapter;
public function getDatabaseAdapter() {
if(!$this->_database_adapter) {
if(self::$_default_database_adapter) {
$this->_database_adapter = self::$_default_database_adapter;
} else {
throw new Exception("No adapter set yet");
}
}
return $this->_database_adapter;
}
public function setDatabaseAdapter(IDatabaseAdapter $databaseAdapter) {
$this->_database_adapter = $databaseAdapter;
}
public static function setDefaultDatabaseAdapter(IDatabaseAdapter $databaseAdapter) {
self::$_default_database_adapter = $databaseAdapter;
}
}
Of course you could extract all static methods/properties into a Registry, Container or anything else as central.
For example, perhaps you don't want to collect data from the same database host over your whole application. Then your original script would look like the following:
Model::setDatabaseAdapter($default);
$my_model->query('....');
Model::setDatabaseAdapter($another_adapter);
$my_other_model->query('....');
Model::setDatabaseAdapter($default);
which is awfully alike:
mysql_select_db('default_db');
mysql_query('...');
mysql_select_db('other_db');
mysql_query('...');
mysql_select_db('default_db');