Likely this has already been asked, but nevertheless, here goes. This may fall under best practice or security... I'm not really sure.
In my application, I am using a nested object, that is called in the __construct() function. Sort of like this:
class user {
public $userID = NULL;
public $someObject = NULL;
public function __construct() {
$this->userID = getThisUser();
$this->someObject = new objectBuilder($this->userID);
}
public function getThisUser() {
// ...
}
}
class objectBuilder {
public $buriedVar = NULL;
public function __construct($uid = NULL) {
if( !isset($uid) ) {
$this->buriedVar = setTheObject($uid);
} else {
$this->buriedVar = setTheObject(0);
}
}
public function setTheObject($id) {
// ...
return "random string";
}
}
$tom = new user();
Obviously terrible outline here, but the point is, I can then call $tom->someObject->buriedVar and it'll return "random string".
While looking for a way to nest classes, I noticed no one recommends this as a method for storing objects inside of another object. I'm curious of a few things:
1) Is this insecure?
2) Are the vars inside the nested object exclusive to the call made inside $tom->__construct(), or if I create another object using new objectBuilder() is it overwriting the one inside $tom->someObject? I haven't noticed this, but am not sure how to test for that entirely.
3) Is there something else I'm missing? A best practice reason not to instantiate an object inside a class? I've been using it for years and it works great for what I've done. Is it a speed thing?
1) Is this insecure?
Not inherently, no.
2) Are the vars inside the nested object exclusive to the call made
inside $tom->__construct(), or if I create another object using new
objectBuilder() is it overwriting the one inside $tom->someObject? I
haven't noticed this, but am not sure how to test for that entirely.
This is a fundamental question between class and object. Objects are instances of a class and there can be multiple. The only things that would be overwritten are static properties and methods. You could test it like this:
<?php
$obj1 = new objectBuilder();
$obj2 = new objectBuilder();
if ($obj1 !== $obj2) {
echo "objects are not the same\n";
}
if ($obj1->buriedVar !== $obj2->buriedVar) {
echo "nested objects are not the same either\n";
}
$obj3 = new objectBuilder(1);
if ($obj1->buriedVar != $obj3->buriedVar) {
echo "even the values of two different buried vars with different values are different.\n";
}
if ($obj1->buriedVar == $obj2->buriedVar) {
echo "counter-example: nested variables with the same values set are similar.\n";
}
It helps to know the difference between equality and identity (see this SO post).
3) Is there something else I'm missing? A best practice reason not to
instantiate an object inside a class? I've been using it for years and
it works great for what I've done. Is it a speed thing?
You touched on it briefly. What you should know is that this is not scalable and is difficult to test.
Imagine you're creating a website for dogs.
<?php
class Bio
{
public function __construct()
{
$this->dog = new Dog('Terrier');
}
}
class Dog
{
private $animal = 'dog';
private $noise = 'woof!';
private $breed;
public function __construct($breed=null)
{
$this->setBreed($breed);
}
public function setBreed($breed)
{
$this->breed = $breed;
}
}
What if you want to add a new breed? Well... That's easy enough:
class Bio
{
// ...
public function __construct($breed)
{
$this->dog = new Dog($breed);
}
// ...
}
Cool! You've solved everything.
Except...
One day you want to create a section for cats, because one of your best writers also loves cats, and you sense an untapped market.
Uh oh...
You can refactor the code, of course. But you wrote it a long time ago. Now you have to go in and figure out where everything went. No big deal.. A bit annoying but you fixed it!
But now you have another problem. Turns out that the same author wants to add different traits to the breed. You're surprised this hasn't come up sooner but, hey, it's probably a good thing to have.
Now you need to go in to the Dog object, and the Cat object, and add traits.
Every single time.
On. Every. Bio.
After some reconfiguring, you've created something monstrous like this:
$article1 = new Bio('Terrier', 'dog', ['independent']);
$article2 = new Bio('Persian', 'cat', ['flat-faced']);
//... and so on, and so on
The next time the author asks for something, you fire her and then tear your hair out in a mad rage.
Or, from the beginning, you use Dependency Injection.
<?php
class Bio
{
private $animal;
public function __construct(AnimalInterface $animal)
{
$this->animal = $animal;
}
}
interface Animal
{
public function getType();
public function setBreed($breed);
public function getBreed();
public function setTraits(array $traits);
public function getTraits();
}
abstract class AbstractAnimal implements AnimalInterface
{
private $breed;
private $traits = [];
abstract public function getType();
public function setBreed($breed)
{
$this->breed = $breed;
}
public function getBreed()
{
return $this->breed;
}
public function setTraits(array $traits)
{
$this->traits = $traits;
}
public function getTraits()
{
return (array)$this->traits;
}
}
class Cat extends AbstractAnimal
{
public function getType()
{
return 'cat';
}
}
class Dog extends AbstractAnimal
{
public function getType()
{
return 'dog';
}
}
This pattern requires little to no editing after it has been created.
Why? Because you are injecting the object to nest into the class, rather than instantiating it in the object.
$bio1 = new Bio($dog); $bio2 = new Bio($cat); can always stay like this. Now you just edit the $dog and $cat objects. The added benefit is that these objects can be used anywhere.
But what about utility classes?
(This is where testability comes in. If you haven't worked with unit testing, I recommend reading up on it in the link to PHPUnit below. I'm not going to dwell on how that works as it's off topic).
Dependency Injection is well and good if you have classes that require customization. But what about utility classes that just house various functions?
class Utils
{
public function add($a, $b)
{
return $a + $b;
}
}
You might think that you can call this function safely from the constructor. And you can. However, one day you might create a log method in your Utils class:
public function log($msg)
{
exec("cat '$msg' > /tmp/log.txt");
}
This works just fine. However, when you run tests, your /tmp/log.txt file complains. "Invalid permissions!". When this method is run via your website, log.txt needs to be writeable by www-data.
You could just chmod 777 /tmp/log.txt, but that would mean everyone who has access to your server can write to that log. Additionally, you may not want to always write to the same log when you're testing as when you're navigating through the web interface (Personally, I would find it confusing and cluttering).
PHPUnit and other unit testing services allow you to mock various objects. The problem is that you have classes calling Utils directly.
You have to find a way to manually override the constructor. Look at PHPUnit's manual to find out why this maybe isn't ideal.
So if you're not using Dependency Injection, what do you do?
PHPUnit suggests, amongst other fixes, moving this Utils object instantiation to another method and then stubbing/mocking that method in your unit test (I want to emphasize that this is after recommending Dependency Injection).
So the next best?
public function __construct()
{
$this->init();
}
private function init()
{
$this->utils = new Utils;
}
Now when you unit test, you can create a fake init method and it will be called as soon as the class is created.
In conclusion, the way you are currently instantiating classes is not scalable or easily testable in many real world situations. While it may be all right in limited situations, it is better to get used to the DI (Dependency Injection) pattern, because it will save you lots of headaches in the future.
Related
I'm looking for more comfortable/more short version of Switch() statement in case of using multiple functions.
I'll give you one example: imagine 100-200 functions in one class, and you want to call only one of them by setting value to id in that class.
In my particular case, I have the following structure of PHP file:
<?php
class _main
{
function request($id)
{
switch($id)
{
case 0:
$this->writeA();
break;
case 1:
$this->writeB();
break;
///...
// then we have 100-200 functions like this in switch.
}
}
function writeA()
{
echo('a');
}
function writeB()
{
echo('b');
}
}
$id = 1;
$x = new _main();
$x->request($id);
?>
For some of you it may seem weird, but I don't want to have that much lines of code with case and break. For me, they are just making code more difficult to read.
(by the way, writing it 100 times will not making it fun for me too).
CONCLUSION
What could be the best,fast and comfortable method?
Can I store functions to array and then call them?
And will it affect performance? Will be Swicth() even faster?
Thank you :)
EDIT
Perhaps there is a different way of thinking/coding and not only array/switch thing.
I can't say I would ever recommend this but if you really want that many methods within a single class and a singular function to route the calls through...
<?php
class MyClass
{
public $id;
public function callFunction()
{
$funcName = 'execute' . $this->id;
return $this->$funcName();
}
private function execute1()
{
echo 'execute1() Called.';
}
private function execute2()
{
echo 'execute2() Called.';
}
}
$c = new MyClass();
$c->id = 1;
$c->callFunction();
Output:
execute1() Called.
I feel like there is most likely another way to approach this with more information utilising Interfaces and Abstract classes, but with the information to go off the above might suffice your requirement.
Edit: Sadly I don't have the time right now to come up with a detailed solution, and I don't really have enough information to go off but perhaps utilising interfaces is your best solution for your requirement. Below is a very quick example.
<?php
interface WritableInterface
{
public function write($data);
}
class VersionOneWriter implements WritableInterface
{
public function write($data)
{
return $data . '<br/>';
}
}
class VersionTwoWriter implements WritableInterface
{
public function write($data)
{
return $data . $data . '<br/>';
}
}
class MyMainClass
{
public function request(WritableInterface $writer, $data)
{
return $writer->write($data);
}
}
$c = new MyMainClass();
$w1 = new VersionOneWriter();
$w2 = new VersionTwoWriter();
echo $c->request($w1, 'DataString');
echo $c->request($w2, 'DataString');
Essentially when you call your request function you pass along a Writer class which implements the WritableInterface. Anything that implements that interface has to have a write() method.
Now when you pass your data across with your method, since you are also passing a writer along that can handle the data you can safely call ->write($data) within your request() method and the result will be dependent on the class you passed through.
If you ever need another method of writing you can just add create another class that implements your interface
Hopefully that made some sense, it was a bit of a ramble as I have to disappear for a bit. If you have any questions I'll try to check back when I have time.
--
Edit2:
The define() in this instance requires PHP7+ since I'm defining an array, but you could prior to PHP7 you could just use a standard array. $classMap = ['FirstClass', 'SecondClass'];
interface MyInterface {}
class FirstClass implements MyInterface {}
class SecondClass implements MyInterface {}
$requestParam = 1;
define('CLASS_MAP', array(
'FirstClass',
'SecondClass',
));
$classMap = CLASS_MAP[$requestParam]; // SecondClass
$class = new $classMap;
var_dump($class); // Dumps out: object(SecondClass)#1 (0) {}
I've learned that OOP is all about data encapsulation, but what about passing data between classes that have nothing to do with each other (would the below example be worthy of using extends)?
class Dog {
private $secretVar;
public function getSecretVar() {
$this->secretVar = 'psst... only for rainbow!';
return $this->secretVar;
}
}
class Rainbow {
public function __construct(Dog $Dog) {
print_r($Dog->getSecretVar());
}
}
$Dog = new Dog();
$Rainbow = new Rainbow($Dog);
// ... classes that don't need the $secretVar
How would you encapsulate $secretVar for only classes Dog and Rainbow? As of now, anyone can call getSecretVar(), and I'm having a hard time allowing that to happen as it seems to defeat the whole point of encapsulation.
Here's a solution, although, it's ugly.
class Dog {
private $secretVar = 'psst... only for rainbow!';
public function getSecretVar($caller == NULL) {
// Here's the trick...
if (get_class($caller) == 'Rainbow') {
return $this->secretVar;
} else {
return '';
}
}
}
class Rainbow {
public function __construct(Dog $Dog) {
print_r($Dog->getSecretVar($this));
}
}
$Dog = new Dog();
$Rainbow = new Rainbow($Dog);
// ... classes that don't need the $secretVar
It's ugly because it hard to maintain and not intuitive. If you really need to do this, there's most likely a flaw in your design.
It wouldn't make sense for a Dog to extend Rainbow or vice versa just to share a variable.
What you are asking of may be possible but I don't know. If it was C++ using the friend visibility, it is certainly possible.
In this case, you have to make it public or use a getter and setter.
Encapsulation is not ment to hide the value of the variable from the rest of the program but to have full control of how the rest of your program can access the variable.
By declaring the variable private you can check what values it can be set to and you can make changes to it before anybody reads it.
There is no real point in trying to let only some of the classes read the variable.
What you are trying to do could be achieved by using reflection to check which class and method calls the getSecretVar() method, but it's hardly ever useful.
In your case, you could use protected like this: (every class that extends hasSecret will have access to it.)
<?php
class HasSecret {
protected $secretVar = 'psst... only for rainbow!';
}
class Dog extends HasSecret {
public function getSecretVar() {
return $this->secretVar;
}
}
class Rainbow extends HasSecret {
public function __construct(Dog $Dog) {
print_r($Dog->getSecretVar());
}
}
$Dog = new Dog();
$Rainbow = new Rainbow($Dog);
For the sake of simplicity, assume I have 2 classes, User and UserStatus, used in a Web application.
<?php
// library code:
class UserStatus {
protected $_status = NULL;
private function fetchDataFromDB() {
// regular DB stuff
$this->_status = ...
// result will be something like 'online', 'away', etc.
}
public function getIcon() {
global $icon_array;
if (is_null($this->_status)) {
$this->fetchDataFromDB()
}
return $icon_array[$this->_status];
}
}
class User {
protected $user_id;
public $user_name;
protected $status;
public function __construct() {}
public static function getAll() {
// some DB stuff
return $users;
}
}
// and now, in index.php:
$users = User::getAll();
// echoes the icon to use to reflect the current user status
foreach ($users as $user) {
echo <img src="$user->status->getIcon()"/>;
}
?>
In most of the HTTP request the status object will not be used so I'm looking for a way to only instantiate it as needed (call it lazy loading). How should I intercept the status->method() call and create that object on-the-fly?
An important note is that I need $user_id available in the UserStatus class, otherwise the fetchDataFromDB() method won't know to which user it should fetch the data. How should this be done?
I've looked at some interesting stuff on this matter like Fabien Potencier's What is Dependency Injection? and Pimple - a PHP 5.3 dependency injection container and also some articles about the Proxy Pattern but to implement them it looks like I have to mess a lot with the current code. Is there a simpler way?
Maybe im missing something but it seems the easiest solution in this instance would be to have your getter for Status simply create the object if it doesnt exist...
public function getStatus()
{
if(!isset($this->status))
{
// or however you creat this object..
$this->status = new UserStatus($this->user_id);
}
return $this->status;
}
public function __get($property)
{
$method = 'get'.ucfirst($property); // getStatus
if(method_exists($this, $method))
{
return $this->$method();
}
}
By using the __get magic method anytime you do $user->status it will call $user->getStatus(). Ofcourse you could also always just access it like: $user->getStatus()->getIcon() as well.
However you decide to set up accessing your properties i would recommend doing it in a consistent way across your entire model.
You could put the status class in a different file and then leverage php's autoloading mechnism:
http://php.net/manual/de/language.oop5.autoload.php
to not load that file until you access it.
There are rumors that auto loading (or actually just any kind of conditional loading) is troublesome for byte code caches and optimizers though unfortunately I don't know too much about the impact.
P.S.: The manual does not say rhis explicity at this point: You can also use spl_autoload_register() instead of just defining the magic __autoload function. This is slightly more powerful.
I would like to know whether there's a way to chain methods on a newly created object in PHP?
Something like:
class Foo {
public function xyz() { ... return $this; }
}
$my_foo = new Foo()->xyz();
Anyone know of a way to achieve this?
In PHP 5.4+, the parser's been modified so you can do something like this
(new Foo())->xyz();
Wrap the instantiation in parenthesis, and chain away.
Prior to PHP 5.4, when you're using the
new Classname();
syntax, you can't chain a method call off the instantiation. It's a limitation of PHP 5.3's syntax. Once an object is instantiated, you can chain away.
One method I've seen used to get around this is a static instantiation method of some kind.
class Foo
{
public function xyz()
{
echo "Called","\n";
return $this;
}
static public function instantiate()
{
return new self();
}
}
$a = Foo::instantiate()->xyz();
By wrapping the call to new in a static method, you can instantiate a class with method call, and you're then free to chain off that.
Define a global function like this:
function with($object){ return $object; }
You will then be able to call:
with(new Foo)->xyz();
In PHP 5.4 you can chain off a newly instantiated object:
http://docs.php.net/manual/en/migration54.new-features.php
For older versions of PHP, you can use Alan Storm's solution.
This answer is outdated - therefore want to correct it.
In PHP 5.4.x you can chain a method to a new-call. Let's take this class as example:
<?php class a {
public function __construct() { echo "Constructed\n"; }
public function foo() { echo "Foobar'd!\n"; }
}
Now, we can use this: $b = (new a())->foo();
And the output is:
Constructed
Foobar'd!
Further information may be found on the manual: http://www.php.net/manual/en/migration54.new-features.php
Well, this may be an old question but as with a lot of things in programming - eventually the answer changes.
Regarding PHP 5.3, no, you can't chain directly from the constructor. To expand on the accepted answer however, in order to properly accommodate for inheritance, you can do:
abstract class Foo
{
public static function create()
{
return new static;
}
}
class Bar extends Foo
{
public function chain1()
{
return $this;
}
public function chain2()
{
return $this;
}
}
$bar = Bar::create()->chain1()->chain2();
That will work just fine and will return you a new Bar() instance.
In PHP 5.4, however, you can simply do:
$bar = (new Bar)->chain1()->chain2();
Hopefully this helps someone stumbling across the question like I have!
It would be really helpful if they 'fix this' in a future release. I really appreciate the ability to chain (especially when populating collections):
I added a method to the base class of my framework called create() that can be chained off of. Should work with all descendant classes automatically.
class baseClass
{
...
public final static function create()
{
$class = new \ReflectionClass(get_called_class());
return $class->newInstance(func_get_args());
}
...
public function __call($method, $args)
{
$matches = array();
if (preg_match('/^(?:Add|Set)(?<prop>.+)/', $method, $matches) > 0)
{
// Magic chaining method
if (property_exists($this, $matches['prop']) && count($args) > 0)
{
$this->$matches['prop'] = $args[0];
return $this;
}
}
}
...
}
Class::create()->SetName('Kris')->SetAge(36);
Just for the sake of completeness (and for the fun of it...), since nobody seems to have mentioned the solution with the shortest (and least sophisticated) code.
For frequently used short-lived objects, especially when writing test cases, where you typically do lots of object creation, you may want to optimize for typing convenience (rather than purity), and sorta' combine Alan Storm's Foo::instantiate() factory method and Kenaniah's with() global function technique.
Simply make the factory method a global function with the same name as the class!. ;-o (Either add it as a convenience wrapper around the proper static Foo::instantiate() or just move it out there while nobody is looking.)
class Foo
{
public function xyz()
{
echo "Called","\n";
return $this;
}
}
function Foo()
{
return new Foo();
}
$a = Foo()->xyz();
NOTE:
I WOULDN'T DO THIS on production code. While kinda' sexy, this is an abuse on basic coding principles (like "principle of least surprise" (although this is actually rather intuitive syntax), or "don't repeat yourself", esp. if wrapping a real factory method with some parameters, which itself, BTW, is already an abuse of DRY...), plus PHP may change in he future to break code like this in funny ways.
I've searched but can't quite find what I'm looking for and the manual isn't much help in this respect. I'm fairly new to unit testing, so not sure if I'm on the right track at all. Anyway, onto the question. I have a class:
<?php
class testClass {
public function doSomething($array_of_stuff) {
return AnotherClass::returnRandomElement($array_of_stuff);
}
}
?>
Now, clearly I want the AnotherClass::returnRandomElement($array_of_stuff); to return the same thing every time. My question is, in my unit test, how do I mockup this object?
I've tried adding the AnotherClass to the top of the test file, but when I want to test AnotherClass I get the "Cannot redeclare class" error.
I think I understand factory classes, but I'm not sure how I would apply that in this instance. Would I need to write an entirely seperate AnotherClass class which contained test data and then use the Factory class to load that instead of the real AnotherClass? Or is using the Factory pattern just a red herring.
I tried this:
$RedirectUtils_stub = $this->getMockForAbstractClass('RedirectUtils');
$o1 = new stdClass();
$o1->id = 2;
$o1->test_id = 2;
$o1->weight = 60;
$o1->data = "http://www.google.com/?ffdfd=fdfdfdfd?route=1";
$RedirectUtils_stub->expects($this->any())
->method('chooseRandomRoot')
->will($this->returnValue($o1));
$RedirectUtils_stub->expects($this->any())
->method('decodeQueryString')
->will($this->returnValue(array()));
in the setUp() function, but these stubs are ignored and I can't work out whether it's something I'm doing wrong, or the way I'm accessing the AnotherClass methods.
Help! This is driving me nuts.
With Unit Tests you want to create 'test' classes that contain static data, and then pass those into your tested class. This removes variables from the testing.
class Factory{
function build()
{
$reader = new reader();
$test = new test($reader);
// ..... do stuff
}
}
class Factory{
function build()
{
$reader = new reader_mock();
$test = new test($reader);
// ..... do stuff
}
}
class reader_mock
{
function doStuff()
{
return true;
}
}
Because you are using Static Classes, you would have to remove AnotherClass from the program, and then recreate it so that it only contains functions that return test data. Normally though, you, don't want to actually remove classes from the program, which is why you pass classes in like the above example.