PHP combining 2 classes where 1 can be optional with composition [duplicate] - php

This question already has answers here:
Is there a "nullsafe operator" in PHP?
(3 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
I would like to combine 2 objects through composition with one optional object and keep a generic and clean API. To provide an example:
class Composition implements Object1Interface, Object2Interface
{
private $object1;
private $object2;
public function __construct($object1, $object2 = null)
{
$this->$object1 = $object1;
$this->$object2 = $object2;
}
// This will always work since the object is mandatory.
public function getId() {
return $this->object1->getId();
}
// This may fail because the object2 can be null.
public function getName() {
return $this->object2->getName();
}
}
You could see that this starts to fail pretty fast since I could be proxying on a null object here. What would be a good way to solve this?
If I were to make $object2 mandatory while I might not have all the constructor data at all times to fill out $object2, I need to make all arguments for the constructor optional. This seems like a big no-no since it would no longer have required arguments.
An option would be to create a method to return $object2 but this requires chaining by a user like so:
$composition->getObject2()->getName()
This could be acceptable but I am destroying the clean API that I have and am now chaining methods.
Is there anything that can be done here to fix this or should I simply go with the mentioned chaining of methods solution?

I guess you mean something like null-safe operator.
Unlike Hack, the PHP does not have this operator (the relevant RFC), so you need explicitly check the values for null. Also you can use something like Option Type. At least you can dynamically create "default" versions of dependent objects:
class Composition implements Object1Interface, Object2Interface
{
private $object1;
// ...
public function __construct(Object1Interface $object1 = null, Object2Interface $object2 = null)
{
if ($object1 !== null) {
$this->object1 = $object1;
} else {
$this->object1 = new class implements Object1Interface
{
public function getId()
{
return null;
}
};
}
// ...
}
public function getId() {
return $this->object1->getId(); // Always works.
}
}

You have two options: Either always check if the object is set before returning anything from it, or use a "dummy" object in place of a user-supplied one if one isn't supplied.
The former can become quite messy as you have to add guards around everything, so I'd personally prefer the latter.
One thing that will make implementing the latter a lot simpler is using an interface to specify the specifications of the expected object and having your constructor instantiate the dummy object if no real object is supplied.
interface AThingThatDoesSomething
{
public function getValue() : integer
}
class RealClass implements AThingThatDoesSomething
{
public function getValue() : integer
{
return mt_rand();
}
}
class DummyClass implements AThingThatDoesSomething
{
public function getValue() : integer
{
// You could return a dummy value here, or throw an exception, or whatever you deem to be the correct behaviour for the dummy class. This implementation just returns 0 for simplicity
return 0;
}
}
class ConsumingClass
{
private $requiredInstance = null;
private $optionalInstance = null;
public function __construct(AThingThatDoesSomething $requiredInstance, AThingThatDoesSomething $optionalInstance = null)
{
if (null === $optionalInstance)
{
$optionalInstance = new DummyClass();
}
$this->requiredInstance = $requiredInstance;
$this->optionalInstance = $optionalInstance;
}
public function getRequiredVal() : integer
{
return $this->requiredInstance->getValue();
}
// You don't need to worry if the user supplied an optional instance here because if they didn't then the dummy instance will have been instantiated instead
public function getOptionalVal() : integer
{
return $this->optionalInstance->getValue();
}
}
This might seem like a contrived example, and of course you'd be right, but it also demonstrates one of the benefits of a pattern called Design By Contract. As long as an object promises to meet certain criteria (in this case by implementing an interface) then you can substitute any object that meets those criteria, even if the object doesn't actually do anything.
In real life I use this for classes where I need logging. I use the psr\log package and set a new NullLogger in the constructor. If I need actual logging I then use setLogger() to pass a logger in, but if I don't then I don't need to worry about $this->logger failing because it's always set.

Related

PHP OOP design: an object can have several 'modes'. How do I define them?

I have a Display object that handles HTML output of the script. It has a mode property, which defines many aspects of how the output is generated. There are several modes, and I will probably add more later. Each mode implies it's own parameters. For example, an author mode would imply an authorID. A search mode would imply a Search object as a parameter, which would contain query information. A comment mode would imply a postID and commentID parameters.
So, a mode has a name and some number of parameters, depending on the name.
I decided to create a Display_Mode object, which has two properties: name and parameters. But how do I assign parameters to names? So that if I have a comment mode, it would neccessarily mean that there are postID and commentID parameters?
My current solution is this:
class display_mode{
public $name;
public $params;
public function __construct($name)
{
$this->name = $name;
switch ($this->name){
case 'comment':
$this->params = array('postID', `commentID`);
break;
case 'author':
$this->params = array('authorID');
}
//etc..
}
}
This seems a bit messy. Is there a better way?
UPD: given answers led me to ask another question, concerning the whole design, which also provides context for this one.
You're better off abstracting the common functionality of the Display_Mode class into an abstract base class or interface and then defining each individual mode as a class that inherits from the base class (or implements the interface).
These specialised mode classes would then explicitly define the parameters they require in their constructors and/or methods, and would be responsible for producing the output that each "mode" requires.
It's difficult to give more specific advice than this without knowing exactly what your Display_Mode class is supposed to do, however.
The idea here is that you should avoid do-it-all classes in OOP, preferring small, self-contained classes each with a single purpose. By giving each mode its own class that can independently render its content, you're making it easy to change the way display modes work or add new ones. All you have to do is add a new class.
This is known as loose coupling.
The description is kinda confusing, but I would create an adapter for each possible "parameter" of Display. This adapter could provide single interface, independently of the the resource that you want to display.
$parameter = new UnknownPrameter;
$adapterFactory = new AdapterFactory;
$parameter = $adapterFactory->build( $parameter );
$display->present( $parameter );
Where AdapterFactory::build() create a wrapper for the specific type of parameter, that you supplied. The returned instance is a container for that parameter.
This approach would also prevent the computation from accumulating in the constructor, which would make the code harder to test/expand.
#Will Vousden already gave you the answer. This is a quick example of how to approach your problem.
abstract class DisplayMode {
protected $_params = array();
public function __construct(array $params) {
$this->_params = $params;
}
public function hasParameter($key) {
if (array_key_exists($key, $this->_params)) {
return true;
}
return false;
}
public function setParameters(array $params) {
$this->_params = $params;
return $this;
}
public function getParameters() {
return $this->_params;
}
}
class CommentMode extends DisplayMode {
public function getCommentId() {
if ($this->hasParameter('comment_id')) {
return $this->_params['comment_id'];
}
return null;
}
public function getPostId() {
if ($this->hasParameter('post_id')) {
return $this->_params['post_id'];
}
return null;
}
}
class AuthorMode extends DisplayMode {
public function getAuthorId() {
if ($this->hasParameter('author_id')) {
return $this->_params['author_id'];
}
return null;
}
}
$comment = new CommentMode(array('post_id' => 4, 'comment_id' => 2));
$author = new AuthorMode(array('author_id' => 3));
// example
print $comment->getCommentId() . ' - ' . $comment->getPostId() . ' - ' . $author->getAuthorId();

Avoiding conditionals in lazy loading

Just to clarify, I mean something like:
class foon {
private $barn = null;
public function getBarn() {
if (is_null($this->barn)) {
$this->barn = getBarnImpl();
}
return $this->barn;
}
}
This is especially nice when you don't always need getBarn, and getBarn is particularly expensive (e.g. has a DB call). Is there any way to avoid the conditional? This takes up a lot of space, looks ugly, and seeing conditionals disappear is always nice. Is there some other paradigm to handle this lazy loading that I just can't see?
By using php's __call() magic method, we can easily write a decorator object that intercepts all method calls, and caches the return values.
One time I did something like this:
class MethodReturnValueCache {
protected $vals = array();
protected $obj;
function __construct($obj) {
$this->obj = $obj;
}
function __call($meth, $args) {
if (!array_key_exists($meth, $this->vals)) {
$this->vals[$meth] = call_user_func_array(array($this->obj, $meth), $args);
}
return $this->vals[$meth];
}
}
then
$cachedFoon = new MethodReturnValueCache(new foon);
$cachedFoon->getBarn();
I've wondered this from time to time, but I certainly can't think of one. Unless you want to create a single function to handle this with arrays and reflective property lookups.
You could do:
return $this->barn != null ? $this->barn : ($this->barn = self::getBarnImpl());
But I don't see how that's any better.
return ( $this->barn = $this->barn ? $this->barn : getBarn() );
or the php 5.3 (?) one:
return ( $this->barn = $this->barn ?: getBarn() );
I don't think I have ever seen a method for completely eliminating this type of lazy initialization checking, but it is interesting to think about. With a toy sample there doesn't seem to be any advantage, but in large objects you could refactor the lazy initialization behavior into either the object to be initialized or (more interestingly) some sort of generic lazy initializer pattern (I am picturing something roughly similar to a singleton). Basically unless they decide to build it in as a language construct (in which case it would still be there, only hidden) I think the best you can do is to encapsulate the code yourself.
class LazyObject
{
...
public function __construct($type, $args)
{
$this->type = $type;
...
}
public getInstance()
{
if (empty($this->instance))
$this->instance = new $this->type($args);
return $instance;
}
}
class AggregateObject
{
private $foo;
private $bar;
public function __construct()
{
$this->foo = new LazyObject('Foo');
$this->bar = new LazyObject('Bar');
}
public function getFoo()
{
return $this->foo->getInstance();
}
...
}
Method1
I can think of listener class.
Constructor () {
object = null
listener = new Object() { // this is called once
object = init()
listener = new Object() { // next time
do-nothing() // this is called
}
}
Object get() {
listener.invoke()
return object
This has no condition checkers but it adds an extra field to every object, effectively duplicaing the memory consumption whereas the stupid penalty of calling useless code, listener.invoke(), persists. I do not know how to remove it with all the polymorphysm. Because the get() method is shared by all instances of the class, it cannot be morphed.
Method2
Java on-demand initialization by exploiting the lazy class loading.
Bottom line
So, it looks like the alternatives are worse than the conditional because modern CPUs optimize the branch predictions. So, check penalty will be very tiny, I expect, once code is initialized and branch is always go into one direction. The false branch will be taken only once, at the initialization time, and it will also be short compared to your initialization time. Otherwise you may be do not want to defer the initialization.

Best practices for static constructors

I want to create an instance of a class and call a method on that instance, in a single line of code.
PHP won't allow calling a method on a regular constructor:
new Foo()->set_sth(); // Outputs an error.
So I'm using, if I can call it that, a static constructor:
Foo::construct()->set_sth();
Here's my question:
Is using static constructors like that considered a good practice and if yes, how would you recommend naming the methods for these static constructors?
I've been hesitating over the following options:
Foo::construct();
Foo::create();
Foo::factory()
Foo::Foo();
constructor::Foo();
Static constructors (or "named constructors") are only beneficial to prove an intention, as #koen says.
Since 5.4 though, someting called "dereferencing" appeared, which permits you to inline class instantiation directly with a method call.
(new MyClass($arg1))->doSomething(); // works with newer versions of php
So, static constructors are only useful if you have multiple ways to instantiate your objects.
If you have only one (always the same type of arguments and number of args), there is no need for static constructors.
But if you have multiple ways of instantiations, then static constructors are very useful, as it avoids to pollute your main constructor with useless argument checking, weakening languages constraints.
Example:
<?php
class Duration
{
private $start;
private $end;
// or public depending if you still want to allow direct instantiation
private function __construct($startTimeStamp = null, $endTimestamp = null)
{
$this->start = $startTimestamp;
$this->end = $endTimestamp;
}
public static function fromDateTime(\DateTime $start, \DateTime $end)
{
return new self($start->format('U'), $end->format('U'));
}
public static function oneDayStartingToday()
{
$day = new self;
$day->start = time();
$day->end = (new \DateTimeImmutable)->modify('+1 day')->format('U');
return $day;
}
}
As you can see in oneDayStartingToday, the static method can access private fields of the instance! Crazy isn't it ? :)
For a better explanation, see http://verraes.net/2014/06/named-constructors-in-php/
The naming of any method should be with intention revealing names. I can't tell what 'Foo::factory' does. Try to build to a higher level language:
User::with100StartingPoints();
This would be the same as:
$user = new User();
$user->setPointsTo(100);
You could also easily test whether User::with100StartingPoints() is equal to this.
If you don't need a reference to the newly constructed Foo, why don't you simply make set_sth a static function (and have it create a new Foo internally if required)?
If you do need to get hold of the reference, how would you do it? return $this in set_sth? But then set_sth can be made into a factory function anyway.
The only situation I can think of is if you want to call chainable methods (like in a fluent interface) on a newly constructed instance all in one expression. Is that what you are trying to do?
Anyway, you can use a general-purpose factory function for all types of objects, e.g.
function create_new($type) {
return new $type;
}
create_new('Foo')->set_sth();
It's probably not quite a best practice, but you could use the fact that functions and classes have two different namespaces : you can have a function that have the same name as a class.
This allows one to write this kind of code, for example :
function MyClass() {
return new MyClass();
}
class MyClass {
public function __construct() {
$this->a = "plop";
}
public function test() {
echo $this->a;
}
protected $a;
}
Note that I have defined a function called MyClass, and a class with the same name.
Then, you can write this :
MyClass()->test();
Which will work perfectly, and not get you any error -- here, you'll get the following output :
plop
Addition to Jon's answer: To allow constructor arguments use the following:
function create($type) {
$args = func_get_args();
$reflect = new ReflectionClass(array_shift($args));
return $reflect->newInstanceArgs($args);
}
create('Foo', 'some', 'args')->bar();
Documentation: ReflectionClass->newInstanceArgs
These are called creation methods, and I typically name them createXXX() such as createById() or createEmptyCatalog(). Not only do they provide a nice way to reveal the different intentions of an object's constructors, but they enable immediate method chaining in a fluent interface.
echo Html_Img::createStatic('/images/missing-image.jpg')
->setSize(60, 90)
->setTitle('No image for this article')
->setClass('article-thumbnail');
Propel uses a static method "create". I'd go with that. This method makes the code easier to test rather than just using static methods to perform business logic.
<?php
class MyClass
{
public static function create()
{
return new MyClass();
}
public function myMethod()
{
}
}
Besides, you can also pass parameters to the constructor. For instance:
<?php
class MyClass
{
public function __construct($param1, $param2)
{
//initialization using params
}
public static function create($param1, $param2)
{
return new MyClass($param1, $param2); // return new self($param1, $param2); alternative ;)
}
public function myMethod()
{
}
}
In either case, you'd be able to invoke myMethod right after the create method
<?php
MyClass::create()->myMethod();
// or
MyClass::create($param1, $param2)->myMethod();
A bit late to the party but I think this might help.
class MyClass
{
function __construct() {
// constructor initializations here
}
public static myMethod($set = null) {
// if myclass is not instantiated
if (is_null($set)) {
// return new instance
$d = new MyClass();
return $d->Up('s');
} else {
// myclass is instantiated
// my method code goes here
}
}
}
this can then be used as
$result = MyClass::myMethod();
optional parameters can be passed through either the __constructor or myMethod.
This is my first post and I hope I got the gimmicks right

What are the advantages of using getters and setters instead of functions or simply public fields in PHP? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 10 months ago.
This post was edited and submitted for review 6 months ago and failed to reopen the post:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
I'm not a PHP developer, so I'm wondering what the advantages and disadvantages are in PHP to using explicit getter/setters, in a pure OOP style, with private fields (the way I like):
class MyClass {
private $firstField;
private $secondField;
public function getFirstField() {
return $this->firstField;
}
public function setFirstField($x) {
$this->firstField = $x;
}
public function getSecondField() {
return $this->secondField;
}
public function setSecondField($x) {
$this->secondField = $x;
}
}
or just public fields:
class MyClass {
public $firstField;
public $secondField;
}
You can use php magic methods __get and __set.
<?php
class MyClass {
private $firstField;
private $secondField;
public function __get($property) {
if (property_exists($this, $property)) {
return $this->$property;
}
}
public function __set($property, $value) {
if (property_exists($this, $property)) {
$this->$property = $value;
}
return $this;
}
}
?>
Why use getters and setters?
Scalability: It's easier refactor a getter than search all the var assignments in a project code.
Debugging: You can put breakpoints at setters and getters.
Cleaner: Magic functions are not good solution for writting less, your IDE will not suggest the code. Better use templates for fast-writting getters.
Google already published a guide on optimization of PHP and the conclusion was:
No getter and setter Optimizing PHP
And no, you must not use magic methods. For PHP, Magic Methods are evil. Why?
They are hard to debug.
There is a negative performance impact.
They require writing more code.
PHP is not Java, C++, or C#. PHP is different and plays with different rules.
Encapsulation is important in any OO language, popularity has nothing to do with it. In dynamically typed languages, like PHP, it is especially useful because there is little ways to ensure a property is of a specific type without using setters.
In PHP, this works:
class Foo {
public $bar; // should be an integer
}
$foo = new Foo;
$foo->bar = "string";
In Java, it doesn't:
class Foo {
public int bar;
}
Foo myFoo = new Foo();
myFoo.bar = "string"; // error
Using magic methods (__get and __set) also works, but only when accessing a property that has lower visibility than the current scope can access. It can easily give you headaches when trying to debug, if it is not used properly.
If you preffer to use the __call function, you can use this method. It works with
GET => $this->property()
SET => $this->property($value)
GET => $this->getProperty()
SET => $this->setProperty($value)
kalsdas
public function __call($name, $arguments) {
//Getting and setting with $this->property($optional);
if (property_exists(get_class($this), $name)) {
//Always set the value if a parameter is passed
if (count($arguments) == 1) {
/* set */
$this->$name = $arguments[0];
} else if (count($arguments) > 1) {
throw new \Exception("Setter for $name only accepts one parameter.");
}
//Always return the value (Even on the set)
return $this->$name;
}
//If it doesn't chech if its a normal old type setter ot getter
//Getting and setting with $this->getProperty($optional);
//Getting and setting with $this->setProperty($optional);
$prefix = substr($name, 0, 3);
$property = strtolower($name[3]) . substr($name, 4);
switch ($prefix) {
case 'get':
return $this->$property;
break;
case 'set':
//Always set the value if a parameter is passed
if (count($arguments) != 1) {
throw new \Exception("Setter for $name requires exactly one parameter.");
}
$this->$property = $arguments[0];
//Always return the value (Even on the set)
return $this->$name;
default:
throw new \Exception("Property $name doesn't exist.");
break;
}
}
In addition to the already great and respected answers in here, I would like to expand on PHP having no setters/getters.
PHP does not have getter and setter syntax. It provides subclassed or magic methods to allow "hooking" and overriding the property lookup process, as pointed out by Dave.
Magic allows us lazy programmers to do more with less code at a time at which we are actively engaged in a project and know it intimately, but usually at the expense of readability.
Performance Every unnecessary function, that results from forcing a getter/setter-like code-architecture in PHP, involves its own memory stack-frame upon invocation and is wasting CPU cycles.
Readability: The codebase incurs bloating code-lines, which impacts code-navigation as more LOC mean more scrolling,.
Preference: Personally, as my rule of thumb, I take the failure of static code analysis
as a sign to avoid going down the magical road as long as obvious long-term benefits elude me at that time.
Fallacies:
A common argument is readability. For instance that $someobject->width is easier to read than $someobject->width(). However unlike a planet's circumference or width, which can be assumed to be static, an object's instance such as $someobject, which requires a width function, likely takes a measurement of the object's instance width.
Therefore readability increases mainly because of assertive naming-schemes and not by hiding the function away that outputs a given property-value.
__get / __set uses:
pre-validation and pre-sanitation of property values
strings e.g.
"
some {mathsobj1->generatelatex} multi
line text {mathsobj1->latexoutput}
with lots of variables for {mathsobj1->generatelatex}
some reason
"
In this case generatelatex would adhere to a naming scheme of actionname + methodname
special, obvious cases
$dnastringobj->homeobox($one_rememberable_parameter)->gattaca->findrelated()
$dnastringobj->homeobox($one_rememberable_parameter)->gttccaatttga->findrelated()
Note: PHP chose not to implement getter/setter syntax. I am not claiming that getters/setter are generally bad.
class MyClass {
private $firstField;
private $secondField;
private $thirdField;
public function __get( $name ) {
if( method_exists( $this , $method = ( 'get' . ucfirst( $name ) ) ) )
return $this->$method();
else
throw new Exception( 'Can\'t get property ' . $name );
}
public function __set( $name , $value ) {
if( method_exists( $this , $method = ( 'set' . ucfirst( $name ) ) ) )
return $this->$method( $value );
else
throw new Exception( 'Can\'t set property ' . $name );
}
public function __isset( $name )
{
return method_exists( $this , 'get' . ucfirst( $name ) )
|| method_exists( $this , 'set' . ucfirst( $name ) );
}
public function getFirstField() {
return $this->firstField;
}
protected function setFirstField($x) {
$this->firstField = $x;
}
private function getSecondField() {
return $this->secondField;
}
}
$obj = new MyClass();
echo $obj->firstField; // works
$obj->firstField = 'value'; // works
echo $obj->getFirstField(); // works
$obj->setFirstField( 'value' ); // not works, method is protected
echo $obj->secondField; // works
echo $obj->getSecondField(); // not works, method is private
$obj->secondField = 'value'; // not works, setter not exists
echo $obj->thirdField; // not works, property not exists
isset( $obj->firstField ); // returns true
isset( $obj->secondField ); // returns true
isset( $obj->thirdField ); // returns false
Ready!
I made an experiment using the magic method __call.
Not sure if I should post it (because of all the "DO NOT USE MAGIC METHODS" warnings in the other answers and comments) but i'll leave it here.. just in case someone find it useful.
public function __call($_name, $_arguments){
$action = substr($_name, 0, 4);
$varName = substr($_name, 4);
if (isset($this->{$varName})){
if ($action === "get_") return $this->{$varName};
if ($action === "set_") $this->{$varName} = $_arguments[0];
}
}
Just add that method above in your class, now you can type:
class MyClass{
private foo = "bar";
private bom = "bim";
// ...
// public function __call(){ ... }
// ...
}
$C = new MyClass();
// as getter
$C->get_foo(); // return "bar"
$C->get_bom(); // return "bim"
// as setter
$C->set_foo("abc"); // set "abc" as new value of foo
$C->set_bom("zam"); // set "zam" as new value of bom
This way you can get/set everything in your class if it exist so, if you need it for only a few specific elements, you could use a "whitelist" as filter.
Example:
private $callWhiteList = array(
"foo" => "foo",
"fee" => "fee",
// ...
);
public function __call($_name, $_arguments){
$action = substr($_name, 0, 4);
$varName = $this->callWhiteList[substr($_name, 4)];
if (!is_null($varName) && isset($this->{$varName})){
if ($action === "get_") return $this->{$varName};
if ($action === "set_") $this->{$varName} = $_arguments[0];
}
}
Now you can only get/set "foo" and "fee".
You can also use that "whitelist" to assign custom names to access to your vars.
For example,
private $callWhiteList = array(
"myfoo" => "foo",
"zim" => "bom",
// ...
);
With that list you can now type:
class MyClass{
private foo = "bar";
private bom = "bim";
// ...
// private $callWhiteList = array( ... )
// public function __call(){ ... }
// ...
}
$C = new MyClass();
// as getter
$C->get_myfoo(); // return "bar"
$C->get_zim(); // return "bim"
// as setter
$C->set_myfoo("abc"); // set "abc" as new value of foo
$C->set_zim("zam"); // set "zam" as new value of bom
.
.
.
That's all.
Doc:
__call() is triggered when invoking inaccessible methods in an object context.
Well, PHP does have magic methods __get, __set, __isset & __unset, which is always a start. Alas proper (get it?) OO properties is more than magic methods. The main problem with PHP's implementation is that magic methods are called for all inaccessible properties. Which means you have to Repeat Yourself (eg. by calling property_exists()) in the magic methods when determining if name is actually a property of your object. And you can't really solve this general problem with a base class unless all your classes inherit from ie. ClassWithProperties, since PHP lacks multiple inheritance.
In contrast, Python new style classes gives you property(), which lets you explicitly define all your properties. C# has special syntax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_(programming)
After reading the other advices, I'm inclined to say that:
As a GENERIC rule, you will not always define setters for ALL properties, specially "internal" ones (semaphores, internal flags...). Read-only properties will not have setters, obviously, so some properties will only have getters; that's where __get() comes to shrink the code:
define a __get() (magical global getters) for all those properties which are alike,
group them in arrays so:
they'll share common characteristics: monetary values will/may come up properly formatted, dates in an specific layout (ISO, US, Intl.), etc.
the code itself can verify that only existing & allowed properties are being read using this magical method.
whenever you need to create a new similar property, just declare it and add its name to the proper array and it's done. That's way FASTER than defining a new getter, perhaps with some lines of code REPEATED again and again all over the class code.
Yes! we could write a private method to do that, also, but then again, we'll have MANY methods declared (++memory) that end up calling another, always the same, method. Why just not write a SINGLE method to rule them all...? [yep! pun absolutely intended! :)]
Magic setters can also respond ONLY to specific properties, so all date type properties can be screened against invalid values in one method alone. If date type properties were listed in an array, their setters can be defined easily. Just an example, of course. there are way too many situations.
About readability... Well... That's another debate: I don't like to be bound to the uses of an IDE (in fact, I don't use them, they tend to tell me (and force me) how to write... and I have my likes about coding "beauty"). I tend to be consistent about naming, so using ctags and a couple of other aids is sufficient to me... Anyway: once all this magic setters and getters are done, I write the other setters that are too specific or "special" to be generalized in a __set() method. And that covers all I need about getting and setting properties. Of course: there's not always a common ground, or there are such a few properties that is not worth the trouble of coding a magical method, and then there's still the old good traditional setter/getter pair.
Programming languages are just that: human artificial languages. So, each of them has its own intonation or accent, syntax and flavor, so I won't pretend to write a Ruby or Python code using the same "accent" than Java or C#, nor I would write a JavaScript or PHP to resemble Perl or SQL... Use them the way they're meant to be used.
Generally speaking, the first way is more popular overall because those with prior programming knowledge can easily transition to PHP and get work done in an object-oriented fashion. The first way is more universal. My advice would be to stick with what is tried and true across many languages. Then, when and if you use another language, you'll be ready to get something accomplished (instead of spending time reinventing the wheel).
There are many ways to create sourcecode in a netbeans-convention. This is nice. It makes thinks such easyer === FALSE. Just use the traditionel, specially if you are not sure which one of the properties should be encapsuled and which one not. I know, it is a boi.... pla... code, but for debugging-works and many other thinks it is the better, clear way. Dont spend to much time with thousend of arts how to make simple getters and setters. You cannot implement too some design patterns like the demeter-rule and so on, if you use magics. In specific situation you can use magic_calls or for small, fast and clear solutions. Sure you could make solutions for design-patters in this way too, but why to make you live more difficult.
Validating + Formatting/Deriving Values
Setters let you to validate data and getters let you format or derive data. Objects allow you to encapsulate data and its validation and formatting code into a neat package that encourages DRY.
For example, consider the following simple class that contains a birth date.
class BirthDate {
private $birth_date;
public function getBirthDate($format='Y-m-d') {
//format $birth_date ...
//$birth_date = ...
return $birth_date;
}
public function setBirthDate($birth_date) {
//if($birth_date is not valid) throw an exception ...
$this->birth_date = $birth_date;
}
public function getAge() {
//calculate age ...
return $age;
}
public function getDaysUntilBirthday() {
//calculate days until birth days
return $days;
}
}
You'll want to validate that the value being set is
A valid date
Not in the future
And you don't want to do this validation all over your application (or over multiple applications for that matter). Instead, it's easier to make the member variable protected or private (in order to make the setter the only access point) and to validate in the setter because then you'll know that the object contains a valid birth date no matter which part of the application the object came from and if you want to add more validation then you can add it in a single place.
You might want to add multiple formatters that operate on the same member variable i.e. getAge() and getDaysUntilBirthday() and you might want to enforce a configurable format in getBirthDate() depending on locale. Therefore I prefer consistently accessing values via getters as opposed to mixing $date->getAge() with $date->birth_date.
getters and setters are also useful when you extend objects. For example, suppose your application needed to allow 150+ year birth dates in some places but not in others. One way to solve the problem without repeating any code would be to extend the BirthDate object and put the additional validation in the setter.
class LivingBirthDate extends BirthDate {
public function setBirthDate($birth_date) {
//if $birth_date is greater than 150 years throw an exception
//else pass to parent's setter
return parent::setBirthDate($birth_date);
}
}
This post is not specifically about __get and __set but rather __call which is the same idea except for method calling. As a rule, I stay away from any type of magic methods that allow for overloading for reasons outlined in the comments and posts HOWEVER, I recently ran into a 3rd-party API that I use which uses a SERVICE and a SUB-SERVICE, example:
http://3rdparty.api.com?service=APIService.doActionOne&apikey=12341234
The important part of this is that this API has everything the same except the sub-action, in this case doActionOne. The idea is that the developer (myself and others using this class) could call the sub-service by name as opposed to something like:
$myClass->doAction(array('service'=>'doActionOne','args'=>$args));
I could do instead:
$myClass->doActionOne($args);
To hardcode this would just be a lot of duplication (this example very loosely resembles the code):
public function doActionOne($array)
{
$this->args = $array;
$name = __FUNCTION__;
$this->response = $this->executeCoreCall("APIService.{$name}");
}
public function doActionTwo($array)
{
$this->args = $array;
$name = __FUNCTION__;
$this->response = $this->executeCoreCall("APIService.{$name}");
}
public function doActionThree($array)
{
$this->args = $array;
$name = __FUNCTION__;
$this->response = $this->executeCoreCall("APIService.{$name}");
}
protected function executeCoreCall($service)
{
$cURL = new \cURL();
return $cURL->('http://3rdparty.api.com?service='.$service.'&apikey='.$this->api.'&'.http_build_query($this->args))
->getResponse();
}
But with the magic method of __call() I am able to access all services with dynamic methods:
public function __call($name, $arguments)
{
$this->args = $arguments;
$this->response = $this->executeCoreCall("APIService.{$name}");
return $this;
}
The benefit of this dynamic calling for the return of data is that if the vendor adds another sub-service, I do not have to add another method into the class or create an extended class, etc. I am not sure if this is useful to anyone, but I figured I would show an example where __set, __get, __call, etc. may be an option for consideration since the primary function is the return of data.
EDIT:
Coincidentally, I saw this a few days after posting which outlines exactly my scenario. It is not the API I was referring to but the application of the methods is identical:
Am I using api correctly?
Update: Don't use this answer since this is very dumb code that I found while I learn. Just use plain getter and setter, it's much better.
I usually using that variable name as function name, and add optional parameter to that function so when that optional parameter is filled by caller, then set it to the property and return $this object (chaining) and then when that optional parameter not specified by caller, i just return the property to the caller.
My example:
class Model
{
private $propOne;
private $propTwo;
public function propOne($propVal = '')
{
if ($propVal === '') {
return $this->propOne;
} else {
$this->propOne = $propVal;
return $this;
}
}
public function propTwo($propVal = '')
{
if ($propVal === '') {
return $this->propTwo;
} else {
$this->propTwo = $propVal;
return $this;
}
}
}

Factory pattern appropriate?

Well,
I have a problem (ok, no real problem, but I wanna try out something new) with creating objects. Actually I have some orders, which contains a list of orderitems.
These orderitems are used and so spreaded in the whole application, and I need a way to create them. The main problem is, I want to be able to create these objects in many different ways.
Actually I do this in the class constructor and check if the argument which is given.
(I'm using php, so there is no overloading support from the language as you surely know :))
A simple and quick Example
class foo {
protected $_data=null;
public function __contruct($bar){
if (is_array($bar)){
$this->_data=$bar;
}
else {
$dataFromDb=getDataFromDatabase
$this->_data=$dataFromDb;
}
}
}
Anyway, if I want to create my object by giving another type of parameter, lets say a xml-document encapsulated in a string I need to put all this stuff in my constructor.
If the process for creating an object is more complicated, I eventually need to create a seperate method for each type, I want to initiate. But this method is only called when this special type is created. (I think you got the problem :))
Another problem comes to mind, if I need more parameters in the constructor to create a concrete object, I have modify all my code, cause the contructor changed. (Ok, I can give him more and more parameters and work with default values, but that is not what I really want).
So my Question is, which pattern fits this problem to solve my creation of a concrete object. I thought about creating a factory for each way I want to create the concrete object. But I'm not sure if this is a common solution to solve such a problem.
IF its only the signature of the constructor changing i would do it like so (a la the Zend Framework universal constructor):
class foo {
// params
public function __construct($options = null)
{
if(null !== $options)
{
$this->setOptions($options);
}
}
public function setOptions(array $options){
foreach ($options as $name => $value){
$method = 'set' . $name;
if(method_exists($this, $method)
{
$this->$method($value);
}
}
return $this;
}
}
And this essntially means all your constructor parameters are array elements with named keys, and anything you want used in this array during initialization you create a setter for and then its automatically called. The down side is the lack of effective hinting in IDEs.
On the otherhand if you want to have specific constructors then i might go with a factory but still use much the same approach:
class foo {
public static function create($class, $options)
{
if(class_exists($class))
{
$obj = new $class($options);
}
}
}
Of course you could alternatively use PHP's reflection to determine how to call the constructor instead of just injecting an arbitrary array argument.
you could simply make it a factory with optional params :)
class Example_Factory
{
public static function factory($mandatoryParam, $optionalParam = null)
{
$instance = new self;
$instance->setMandatory($mandatoryParam);
if ($optionalParam !== null) {
$instance->setOptional($optionalParam);
}
return $instance;
}
public function setMandatory($in)
{
// do something....
}
public function setOptional($in)
{
// do some more...
}
}

Categories