Declare a private property on a Parent class, and then redeclare that property as public or protected on a Child class.
When you create an instance of the Child class, and invoke a method that is inherited from the Parent class. The property on the Parent class is used, and not the property on the Child class.
This is not the case if the initial declaration of the property on the Parent class is public or protected.
Could someone explain to me why this is?
<?php
class P {
private $foo = 'bar';
public function e()
{
echo get_class($this);
echo "\n";
echo $this->foo;
echo "\n";
}
}
class C extends P
{
protected $foo = 'baz';
}
$parent = new P();
$child = new C();
$parent->e();
$child->e();
Output:
P
bar
C
bar
Expected Output:
P
bar
C
baz
Private properties are, as the name implies, private. This means they only be accessed from within the class. As others have mentioned in the comments, this question offers a very good in depth explanation of variable scope in PHP, so by all means go check it out, it's an interesting read.
In your specific however, you seem to be concerned about renaming/overloading variables in a child class. More specifically, we're looking at what happens when a parent and child class happen to both have a property of the same name, and the parent class has a function which return that property.
class A {
private $foo = 'bar';
public function getFoo() {
return $this->foo;
}
}
class B extends A {
protected $foo = 'something something';
}
$b = new B;
echo $b->getFoo();
In the example above, the output would be bar, and that's actually the expected behavior. Since the function getFoo is not overwritten in the child class, PHP executes the function in the parent class. When it gets there, $this refers to A and therefore prints the value of $foo as it is defined in A. It's interesting to note that in this specific example, the scope of B::foo does not matter. In fact, it could omitted entirely and the code would still run perfectly fine.
We can experiment with different function scopes and see what happens:
class A {
private $foo = 'bar';
public function getFoo() {
return $this->foo;
}
private function getCapitalizedFoo() {
return strtoupper($this->foo);
}
protected function getDoubleFoo() {
return $this->foo . $this->foo;
}
}
class B extends A {
protected $foo = 'something something';
public function getParentDoubleFoo() {
return parent::getDoubleFoo();
}
}
$b = new B;
echo $b->getFoo().PHP_EOL; // Output: bar
echo $b->getParentDoubleFoo(); // Output: barbar
echo $b->getDoubleFoo(); // Output: Uncaught Error: Call to protected method ...
echo $b->getCapitalizedFoo(); // Output: Uncaught Error: Call to private method ...
Now, the question remains: How can you access private members from a parent class?
If you have read on the subject, you probably know that, unless completely necessary, your object's properties should be private so as to encapsulate its logic and data as much as possible. Knowing that, the best to allow a child class to access and modify its parent's class properties is by creating accessors and mutators for them.
class A {
private $foo = 'foo';
private $bar = 'bar';
public function setFoo($foo) {
$this->foo = $foo;
}
public function getFoo() {
return $this->foo;
}
protected function setBar($bar) {
$this->bar = $bar;
}
protected function getBar() {
return $this->bar;
}
}
class B extends A {
public function __construct() {
parent::setFoo('more foo');
parent::setBar('more bar');
}
public function getCapitalizedFoo() {
return strtoupper(parent::getFoo());
}
public function getCapitalizedBar() {
return strtoupper(parent::getBar());
}
}
$b = new B;
echo $b->getCapitalizedFoo(); // Output: MORE FOO
echo strtoupper($b->getFoo()); // Output: MORE FOO
echo $b->getCapitalizedBar(); // Output: MORE BAR
echo strtoupper($b->getBar()); // Output: Uncaught Error: Call to protected method ...
By creating public functions to access and modify the parent class' properties you allow the child class to overwrite them and perform logic of its own without having to duplicate the variable. However this also means that any instance of B can potentially alter the values defined in A. In order to mitigate this, you can create protected function that will allow B to internally access and consume the parent class attributes, but the code that consumes B will not be able to do the same.
Related
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
Consider the following snippet:
Class A {
private $a = 'foo';
public function F() {
return $this->a;
}
}
Class B extends A {
private $a = 'bar';
}
echo (new B)->F();
The result is foo. Well, it's a fait accompli that php works this way. But I wonder why. If in parent's method F() declaration I use pseudo-variable $this, it refers to object context. So when I call child inherited method F() $this variable means current instance of B with private $a = 'bar', doesn't it?
Update
Thanks AbraCadaver for your reply.
One circumstance is still unclear for me: if $this variable is an object of B during call of F(), how can it access parent's private member?
Did I understand correctly that $this within parent's method implementation is something similar to:
public function F(B $obj) {
return $obj->a;
}
So interpreter checks property visibility from parent class and in case of private scope it subsitutes B $obj for A $obj
From PHP: Visibility:
Members declared
protected can be accessed only within the class itself and by
inherited and parent classes. Members declared as private may only be
accessed by the class that defines the member.
In your example, regardless of the object being of class B, class A cannot access a private property of another class.
Also, if B has a protected property, that cannot override the class A property because it is private.
Both your example and the following yield foo:
Class A {
private $a = 'foo';
public function F() {
return $this->a;
}
}
Class B extends A {
protected $a = 'bar';
public function F() {
return parent::F();
}
}
echo (new B)->F();
However, if class A is also protected then it can be overridden by class B and class A has access to the property in class B.
Yields bar:
Class A {
protected $a = 'foo';
public function F() {
return $this->a;
}
}
Class B extends A {
protected $a = 'bar';
public function F() {
return parent::F();
}
}
echo (new B)->F();
in php, is there any way to directly access any Base Class Property directly Via an object of a derived Class type.
For eg:
class a
{
public $name="Something";
function show()
{
echo $this->name;
}
};
class b extends a
{
public $name="Something Else";
function show()
{
echo $this->name;
}
};
$obj = new b();
$obj->show();
it'll Print string "Something Else", but what if i wish to access Base class Function show,
it doesn't seem to work like it is done in c++
obj.a::show();
Since you override $name in the child, the property will have the child's property value. You cannot access the parent value then. It wouldn't make sense any other way because the property is public, which means the property is visible to the child (and outside) and modifications to it will change the very base value. So it's effectively one and the same property and value for that instance.
The only way to have two separate properties of the same name is to declare the base property private and the child property non-private and then call a method that has access to the base property, e.g.
class Foo
{
private $name = 'foo';
public function show()
{
echo $this->name;
}
}
class Bar extends Foo
{
public $name = 'bar';
public function show()
{
parent::show();
echo $this->name;
}
}
(new Bar)->show(); // prints foobar
Since your C++ example call is using the scope resolution operator :: you might be looking for class/static properties:
class Foo
{
static public $name = 'foo';
public function show()
{
echo static::$name; // late static binding
echo self::$name; // static binding
}
}
class Bar extends Foo
{
static public $name = 'bar';
public function show()
{
parent::show(); // calling parent's show()
echo parent::$name; // calling parent's $foo
}
}
(new Bar)->show(); // prints barfoofoo
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
Here's some working code:
class A {
public $Foo;
public function GetFoo() {
$this->Foo = 'Bar';
}
}
class B extends A {
function __construct() {
$this->GetFoo();
echo $this->Foo;
}
}
$b = new B(); // Outputs "Bar"
Is there any way I can make this "prettier" (i.e. without the A::GetFoo() method)? I would've thought that wrapping the population of the $this->Foo inside a A::__construct() would work, but it doesn't.
Just to wrap it up, here's what I want: class A instantiates my DB object and that object is usable for every child class of A.
Perhaps you're overriding the parent's constructor without calling in from B?
class A {
protected $Foo = null;
public function __construct() {
$this->Foo = 'Bar';
}
}
class B extends A {
public function __construct() {
parent::__construct();
echo $this->Foo;
}
}
From the PHP manual:
"Class properties must be defined as
public, private, or protected. If
declared using var without an explicit
visibility keyword, the property will
be defined as public."
So, your class B can see $this->Foo. You don't have to call GetFoo() first. You must, however, call the parent constructor first if you need to reference $this->Foo inside of your constructor for class B.