Related
I have two classes: Action and MyAction. The latter is declared as:
class MyAction extends Action {/* some methods here */}
All I need is method in the Action class (only in it, because there will be a lot of inherited classes, and I don’t want to implement this method in all of them), which will return classname from a static call. Here is what I’m talking about:
Class Action {
function n(){/* something */}
}
And when I call it:
MyAction::n(); // it should return "MyAction"
But each declaration in the parent class has access only to the parent class __CLASS__ variable, which has the value “Action”.
Is there any possible way to do this?
__CLASS__ always returns the name of the class in which it was used, so it's not much help with a static method. If the method wasn't static you could simply use get_class($this). e.g.
class Action {
public function n(){
echo get_class($this);
}
}
class MyAction extends Action {
}
$foo=new MyAction;
$foo->n(); //displays 'MyAction'
Late static bindings, available in PHP 5.3+
Now that PHP 5.3 is released, you can use late static bindings, which let you resolve the target class for a static method call at runtime rather than when it is defined.
While the feature does not introduce a new magic constant to tell you the classname you were called through, it does provide a new function, get_called_class() which can tell you the name of the class a static method was called in. Here's an example:
Class Action {
public static function n() {
return get_called_class();
}
}
class MyAction extends Action {
}
echo MyAction::n(); //displays MyAction
Since 5.5 you can use class keyword for the class name resolution, which would be a lot faster than making function calls. Also works with interfaces.
// C extends B extends A
static::class // MyNamespace\ClassC when run in A
self::class // MyNamespace\ClassA when run in A
parent::class // MyNamespace\ClassB when run in C
MyClass::class // MyNamespace\MyClass
It's not the ideal solution, but it works on PHP < 5.3.0.
The code was copied from septuro.com
if(!function_exists('get_called_class')) {
class class_tools {
static $i = 0;
static $fl = null;
static function get_called_class() {
$bt = debug_backtrace();
if (self::$fl == $bt[2]['file'].$bt[2]['line']) {
self::$i++;
} else {
self::$i = 0;
self::$fl = $bt[2]['file'].$bt[2]['line'];
}
$lines = file($bt[2]['file']);
preg_match_all('/([a-zA-Z0-9\_]+)::'.$bt[2]['function'].'/',
$lines[$bt[2]['line']-1],
$matches);
return $matches[1][self::$i];
}
}
function get_called_class() {
return class_tools::get_called_class();
}
}
Now (when 5.3 has arrived) it's pretty simple:
http://php.net/manual/en/function.get-called-class.php
class MainSingleton {
private static $instances = array();
private static function get_called_class() {
$t = debug_backtrace();
return $t[count($t)-1]["class"];
}
public static function getInstance() {
$class = self::get_called_class();
if(!isset(self::$instances[$class]) ) {
self::$instances[$class] = new $class;
}
return self::$instances[$class];
}
}
class Singleton extends MainSingleton {
public static function getInstance()
{
return parent::getInstance();
}
protected function __construct() {
echo "A". PHP_EOL;
}
protected function __clone() {}
public function test() {
echo " * test called * ";
}
}
Singleton::getInstance()->test();
Singleton::getInstance()->test();
(PHP 5 >= 5.3.0, PHP 7)
get_called_class — The "Late Static Binding" class name
<?php
class Model
{
public static function find()
{
return get_called_class();
}
}
class User extends Model
{
}
echo User::find();
this link might be helpfull
There is no way, in the available PHP versions, to do what you want. Paul Dixon's solution is the only one. I mean, the code example, as the late static bindings feature he's talking about is available as of PHP 5.3, which is in beta.
Is there any way to define abstract class properties in PHP?
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public $tablename;
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' $property
public $tablename = 'users';
}
There is no such thing as defining a property.
You can only declare properties because they are containers of data reserved in memory on initialization.
A function on the other hand can be declared (types, name, parameters) without being defined (function body missing) and thus, can be made abstract.
"Abstract" only indicates that something was declared but not defined and therefore before using it, you need to define it or it becomes useless.
No, there is no way to enforce that with the compiler, you'd have to use run-time checks (say, in the constructor) for the $tablename variable, e.g.:
class Foo_Abstract {
public final function __construct(/*whatever*/) {
if(!isset($this->tablename))
throw new LogicException(get_class($this) . ' must have a $tablename');
}
}
To enforce this for all derived classes of Foo_Abstract you would have to make Foo_Abstract's constructor final, preventing overriding.
You could declare an abstract getter instead:
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public function get_tablename();
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
protected $tablename = 'tablename';
public function get_tablename() {
return $this->tablename;
}
}
Depending on the context of the property, if I want to force declaration of an abstract class property in an extended class, I like to use a constant with the static keyword for the property in the abstract object constructor or setter/getter methods. You can optionally use final to prevent the method from being overridden in extended classes.
Example: https://3v4l.org/WH5Xl
abstract class AbstractFoo
{
public $bar;
final public function __construct()
{
$this->bar = static::BAR;
}
}
class Foo extends AbstractFoo
{
//const BAR = 'foobar'; //uncomment to prevent exception
}
$foo = new Foo();
//Fatal Error: Undefined class constant 'BAR'
However, the extended class overrides the parent class properties and methods if redefined.
For example; if a property is declared as protected in the parent and redefined as public in the extended class, the resulting property is public. Otherwise, if the property is declared private in the parent it will remain private and not available to the extended class.
http://www.php.net//manual/en/language.oop5.static.php
As stated above, there is no such exact definition.
I, however, use this simple workaround to force the child class to define the "abstract" property:
abstract class Father
{
public $name;
abstract protected function setName(); // now every child class must declare this
// function and thus declare the property
public function __construct()
{
$this->setName();
}
}
class Son extends Father
{
protected function setName()
{
$this->name = "son";
}
function __construct(){
parent::__construct();
}
}
The need for abstract properties can indicate design problems. While many of answers implement kind of Template method pattern and it works, it always looks kind of strange.
Let's take a look at the original example:
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public $tablename;
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' $property
public $tablename = 'users';
}
To mark something abstract is to indicate it a must-have thing. Well, a must-have value (in this case) is a required dependency, so it should be passed to the constructor during instantiation:
class Table
{
private $name;
public function __construct(string $name)
{
$this->name = $name;
}
public function name(): string
{
return $this->name;
}
}
Then if you actually want a more concrete named class you can inherit like so:
final class UsersTable extends Table
{
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct('users');
}
}
This can be useful if you use DI container and have to pass different tables for different objects.
I've asked myself the same question today, and I'd like to add my two cents.
The reason we would like abstract properties is to make sure that subclasses define them and throw exceptions when they don't. In my specific case, I needed something that could work with statically.
Ideally I would like something like this:
abstract class A {
abstract protected static $prop;
}
class B extends A {
protected static $prop = 'B prop'; // $prop defined, B loads successfully
}
class C extends A {
// throws an exception when loading C for the first time because $prop
// is not defined.
}
I ended up with this implementation
abstract class A
{
// no $prop definition in A!
public static final function getProp()
{
return static::$prop;
}
}
class B extends A
{
protected static $prop = 'B prop';
}
class C extends A
{
}
As you can see, in A I don't define $prop, but I use it in a static getter. Therefore, the following code works
B::getProp();
// => 'B prop'
$b = new B();
$b->getProp();
// => 'B prop'
In C, on the other hand, I don't define $prop, so I get exceptions:
C::getProp();
// => Exception!
$c = new C();
$c->getProp();
// => Exception!
I must call the getProp() method to get the exception and I can't get it on class loading, but it is quite close to the desired behavior, at least in my case.
I define getProp() as final to avoid that some smart guy (aka myself in 6 months) is tempted to do
class D extends A {
public static function getProp() {
// really smart
}
}
D::getProp();
// => no exception...
As you could have found out by just testing your code:
Fatal error: Properties cannot be declared abstract in ... on line 3
No, there is not. Properties cannot be declared abstract in PHP.
However you can implement a getter/setter function abstract, this might be what you're looking for.
Properties aren't implemented (especially public properties), they just exist (or not):
$foo = new Foo;
$foo->publicProperty = 'Bar';
PHP 7 makes it quite a bit easier for making abstract "properties". Just as above, you will make them by creating abstract functions, but with PHP 7 you can define the return type for that function, which makes things a lot easier when you're building a base class that anyone can extend.
<?php
abstract class FooBase {
abstract public function FooProp(): string;
abstract public function BarProp(): BarClass;
public function foo() {
return $this->FooProp();
}
public function bar() {
return $this->BarProp()->name();
}
}
class BarClass {
public function name() {
return 'Bar!';
}
}
class FooClass extends FooBase {
public function FooProp(): string {
return 'Foo!';
}
public function BarProp(): BarClass {
// This would not work:
// return 'not working';
// But this will!
return new BarClass();
}
}
$test = new FooClass();
echo $test->foo() . PHP_EOL;
echo $test->bar() . PHP_EOL;
if tablename value will never change during the object's lifetime, following will be a simple yet safe implementation.
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract protected function getTablename();
public function showTableName()
{
echo 'my table name is '.$this->getTablename();
}
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' getTablename()
protected function getTablename()
{
return 'users';
}
}
the key here is that the string value 'users' is specified and returned directly in getTablename() in child class implementation. The function mimics a "readonly" property.
This is fairly similar to a solution posted earlier on which uses an additional variable. I also like Marco's solution though it can be a bit more complicated.
Just define the property in the base class without assigning it a (default) value.
Getting the property value without redefining it with a default value or assigning it a value will throw an Error.
<?php
class Base {
protected string $name;
public function i_am() : string {
return $this->name;
}
}
class Wrong extends Base {
...
}
class Good extends Base {
protected string $name = 'Somebody';
}
$test = new Good();
echo $test->i_am(), '<br>'; // Will show "Nobody"
$test = new Wrong();
echo $test->i_am(), '<br>'; // Will throw an Error:
// Error: Typed property Base::$name must not be accessed before initialization in ....
?>
You can define a static property in an abstract class.
<?php
abstract class Foo {
private static $bar = "1234";
public static function func() {
echo self::$bar;
}
}
Foo::func(); // It will be printed 1234
Too late to answer the question, but you may use the difference between self and static as follows
<?php
class A { // Base Class
protected static $name = 'ClassA';
public static function getSelfName() {
return self::$name;
}
public static function getStaticName() {
return static::$name;
}
}
class B extends A {
protected static $name = 'ClassB';
}
echo A::getSelfName(); // ClassA
echo A::getStaticName(); // ClassA
echo B::getSelfName(); // ClassA
echo B::getStaticName(); // ClassB
While reading this: http://propelorm.org/ I noticed that they are using -> sign on a static object and using several different methods of it as a "one-liner".
Or does the static object return an instance which from the methods are being called from?
What ever is the case I would like to read more about this. What is this called and does it really work with static objects?
I noticed that they are using -> sign on a static object
By static object you mean to say static method and that the code you are referring to is this:
classBookQuery::create()->findPK(123);
They are not using -> on a static method. They are using -> on the object returned by the static method.
You can try it yourself:
class AClass
{
public static function aMethod()
{
return new BClass();
}
}
class BClass
{
public function bMethod($int)
{
echo $int;
}
}
AClass::aMethod()->bMethod(123); // output: 123
As others have mentioned in the comments, the static function BookQuery::create() just returns another object.
The "arrow" operates on the returned object.
Example:
class Car {
public function beep() {
echo 'BEEP';
}
}
class CarProvider {
public static function get() {
return new Car();
}
}
// outputs 'BEEP';
CarProvider::get()->beep();
// the same as this
$car = CarProvider::get();
$car->beep();
This is oftentimes know as method chaining. The static method call is returning an instantiated object against which another method is called. This sort of construct is often achieve like this:
class myobject_factory {
public static function get_object () {
return new myobject;
}
}
class myobject {
protected $some_property;
public function set_some_property($value) {
$this->some_property = $value;
return $this;
}
public function get_some_propert() {
return $this->some_property;
}
}
$property = myobject_factory::get_object()->set_some_property('foobar')->get_some_property();
This is obviously a trivial example, but you can see how chaining is enabled because the setter on myobject returns $this.
Is there any way to define abstract class properties in PHP?
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public $tablename;
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' $property
public $tablename = 'users';
}
There is no such thing as defining a property.
You can only declare properties because they are containers of data reserved in memory on initialization.
A function on the other hand can be declared (types, name, parameters) without being defined (function body missing) and thus, can be made abstract.
"Abstract" only indicates that something was declared but not defined and therefore before using it, you need to define it or it becomes useless.
No, there is no way to enforce that with the compiler, you'd have to use run-time checks (say, in the constructor) for the $tablename variable, e.g.:
class Foo_Abstract {
public final function __construct(/*whatever*/) {
if(!isset($this->tablename))
throw new LogicException(get_class($this) . ' must have a $tablename');
}
}
To enforce this for all derived classes of Foo_Abstract you would have to make Foo_Abstract's constructor final, preventing overriding.
You could declare an abstract getter instead:
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public function get_tablename();
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
protected $tablename = 'tablename';
public function get_tablename() {
return $this->tablename;
}
}
Depending on the context of the property, if I want to force declaration of an abstract class property in an extended class, I like to use a constant with the static keyword for the property in the abstract object constructor or setter/getter methods. You can optionally use final to prevent the method from being overridden in extended classes.
Example: https://3v4l.org/WH5Xl
abstract class AbstractFoo
{
public $bar;
final public function __construct()
{
$this->bar = static::BAR;
}
}
class Foo extends AbstractFoo
{
//const BAR = 'foobar'; //uncomment to prevent exception
}
$foo = new Foo();
//Fatal Error: Undefined class constant 'BAR'
However, the extended class overrides the parent class properties and methods if redefined.
For example; if a property is declared as protected in the parent and redefined as public in the extended class, the resulting property is public. Otherwise, if the property is declared private in the parent it will remain private and not available to the extended class.
http://www.php.net//manual/en/language.oop5.static.php
As stated above, there is no such exact definition.
I, however, use this simple workaround to force the child class to define the "abstract" property:
abstract class Father
{
public $name;
abstract protected function setName(); // now every child class must declare this
// function and thus declare the property
public function __construct()
{
$this->setName();
}
}
class Son extends Father
{
protected function setName()
{
$this->name = "son";
}
function __construct(){
parent::__construct();
}
}
The need for abstract properties can indicate design problems. While many of answers implement kind of Template method pattern and it works, it always looks kind of strange.
Let's take a look at the original example:
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public $tablename;
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' $property
public $tablename = 'users';
}
To mark something abstract is to indicate it a must-have thing. Well, a must-have value (in this case) is a required dependency, so it should be passed to the constructor during instantiation:
class Table
{
private $name;
public function __construct(string $name)
{
$this->name = $name;
}
public function name(): string
{
return $this->name;
}
}
Then if you actually want a more concrete named class you can inherit like so:
final class UsersTable extends Table
{
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct('users');
}
}
This can be useful if you use DI container and have to pass different tables for different objects.
I've asked myself the same question today, and I'd like to add my two cents.
The reason we would like abstract properties is to make sure that subclasses define them and throw exceptions when they don't. In my specific case, I needed something that could work with statically.
Ideally I would like something like this:
abstract class A {
abstract protected static $prop;
}
class B extends A {
protected static $prop = 'B prop'; // $prop defined, B loads successfully
}
class C extends A {
// throws an exception when loading C for the first time because $prop
// is not defined.
}
I ended up with this implementation
abstract class A
{
// no $prop definition in A!
public static final function getProp()
{
return static::$prop;
}
}
class B extends A
{
protected static $prop = 'B prop';
}
class C extends A
{
}
As you can see, in A I don't define $prop, but I use it in a static getter. Therefore, the following code works
B::getProp();
// => 'B prop'
$b = new B();
$b->getProp();
// => 'B prop'
In C, on the other hand, I don't define $prop, so I get exceptions:
C::getProp();
// => Exception!
$c = new C();
$c->getProp();
// => Exception!
I must call the getProp() method to get the exception and I can't get it on class loading, but it is quite close to the desired behavior, at least in my case.
I define getProp() as final to avoid that some smart guy (aka myself in 6 months) is tempted to do
class D extends A {
public static function getProp() {
// really smart
}
}
D::getProp();
// => no exception...
As you could have found out by just testing your code:
Fatal error: Properties cannot be declared abstract in ... on line 3
No, there is not. Properties cannot be declared abstract in PHP.
However you can implement a getter/setter function abstract, this might be what you're looking for.
Properties aren't implemented (especially public properties), they just exist (or not):
$foo = new Foo;
$foo->publicProperty = 'Bar';
PHP 7 makes it quite a bit easier for making abstract "properties". Just as above, you will make them by creating abstract functions, but with PHP 7 you can define the return type for that function, which makes things a lot easier when you're building a base class that anyone can extend.
<?php
abstract class FooBase {
abstract public function FooProp(): string;
abstract public function BarProp(): BarClass;
public function foo() {
return $this->FooProp();
}
public function bar() {
return $this->BarProp()->name();
}
}
class BarClass {
public function name() {
return 'Bar!';
}
}
class FooClass extends FooBase {
public function FooProp(): string {
return 'Foo!';
}
public function BarProp(): BarClass {
// This would not work:
// return 'not working';
// But this will!
return new BarClass();
}
}
$test = new FooClass();
echo $test->foo() . PHP_EOL;
echo $test->bar() . PHP_EOL;
if tablename value will never change during the object's lifetime, following will be a simple yet safe implementation.
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract protected function getTablename();
public function showTableName()
{
echo 'my table name is '.$this->getTablename();
}
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' getTablename()
protected function getTablename()
{
return 'users';
}
}
the key here is that the string value 'users' is specified and returned directly in getTablename() in child class implementation. The function mimics a "readonly" property.
This is fairly similar to a solution posted earlier on which uses an additional variable. I also like Marco's solution though it can be a bit more complicated.
Just define the property in the base class without assigning it a (default) value.
Getting the property value without redefining it with a default value or assigning it a value will throw an Error.
<?php
class Base {
protected string $name;
public function i_am() : string {
return $this->name;
}
}
class Wrong extends Base {
...
}
class Good extends Base {
protected string $name = 'Somebody';
}
$test = new Good();
echo $test->i_am(), '<br>'; // Will show "Nobody"
$test = new Wrong();
echo $test->i_am(), '<br>'; // Will throw an Error:
// Error: Typed property Base::$name must not be accessed before initialization in ....
?>
You can define a static property in an abstract class.
<?php
abstract class Foo {
private static $bar = "1234";
public static function func() {
echo self::$bar;
}
}
Foo::func(); // It will be printed 1234
Too late to answer the question, but you may use the difference between self and static as follows
<?php
class A { // Base Class
protected static $name = 'ClassA';
public static function getSelfName() {
return self::$name;
}
public static function getStaticName() {
return static::$name;
}
}
class B extends A {
protected static $name = 'ClassB';
}
echo A::getSelfName(); // ClassA
echo A::getStaticName(); // ClassA
echo B::getSelfName(); // ClassA
echo B::getStaticName(); // ClassB
abstract class base {
abstract public function test();
public function run()
{
self::test();
}
}
class son extends base {
public function test()
{
echo 1;
}
}
son::run();
It reports:
Fatal error: Cannot call abstract
method base::test()
But son::test() works,why and is there a way to fix?
"self" is lexically scoped, that is, if you use "self" in a method of Base, "self" means "Base", no matter how you call this method at run time. php5.3 introduced a new kind of dynamic binding, which, ironically enough, is called "static". The following works as expected in php 5.3
abstract class base {
abstract public static function test();
static public function run()
{
static::test();
}
}
class son extends base {
static public function test()
{
echo 1;
}
}
son::run();
Of course:
Fatal error: Cannot call abstract method base::test()
It has no method body you could call. If run() is supposed to be a Template Method, you refer to the class scope with $this instead of self and then create an instance of $son to call run() on it, e.g.
abstract class BaseClass {
abstract public function test();
public function run()
{
$this->test();
}
}
class Son extends BaseClass {
public function test()
{
echo 1;
}
}
$son = new Son;
$son->run(); // 1
which is rather odd, because then you could have just as well called test() directly.
Also note that in your example
son::run();
is wrong, because the run() method is not declared static and while PHP will execute run() nonetheless, it is considered wrong usage and will raise an E_STRICT error. However, if you were to define run() static, you could no longer reference $this, because a static method is not invoked from instance scope, but class scope.
Edit I was about to add the PHP5.3 solution, but see that #erenon already did that, while I was typing, so I only add the appropriate reference in the PHP Manual on Late Static Binding.
Abstract methods do not have an implementation, and thus cannot be called. If the method is not defined as abstract, and actually has an implementation, then it can be executed by your code. For example:
public function test(){
echo "Hello from base!";
}
Factory/singleton pattern mix:
class Base
{
static private $instance;
static function getSon() {
if (null === self::$instance) {
self::$instance = new Son;();
}
return self::$instance;
}
}
class Son
{
public function test() {
echo 1;
}
}
Base::getSon()->test(); //1