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) {}
Related
I want to make a PHP class, lets say Myclass.php. Now inside that class I want to define just the class itself and some instance variables. But all the methods must come from a Myclass_methods.php file. Can I just include that file into the class body?
I have good reasons why I want to seperate this. In short, I'll have a backend in which I can change the business logic of a class, while all other things must remain untouched. The system maintains all the ORM and other stuff for me.
But if this is a bad idea, it might be better to re-generate the whole class file after editing the business logic (so, the user-defined methods in this case).
Performance question: If during one request Myclass.php is included just once, actually that Myclass_methods.php should also be included just once. Might be wrong. Experts?
No. You cannot include files in the class body.
In a file defining a class, you may only include files in a method body or outside the class body.
From your description I take you want this:
<?php // MyClass.php
class MyClass
{
protected $_prop;
include 'myclass-methods.php';
}
<?php // myclass-methods.php
public function myMethod()
{
$this->$_prop = 1;
}
Running this code will result in
Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_INCLUDE, expecting T_FUNCTION
What is possible though is this
<?php // MyClass.php
class MyClass
{
protected $_prop;
public function __construct() // or any other method
{
include 'some-functions.php';
foo($b); // echoes 'a';
}
}
<?php // some-functions.php
$b = 'a';
function foo($str)
{
echo $str;
}
Doing it this way, will import the contents of the include file into the method scope, not the class scope. You may include functions and variables in the include file, but not methods. You could but should not put entire scripts into it as well and change what the method does, e.g.
<?php // MyClass.php
// ...
public function __construct($someCondition)
{
// No No Code here
include ($someCondition === 'whatever') ? 'whatever.php' : 'default.php';
}
// ...
<?php // whatever.php
echo 'whatever';
<?php // default.php
echo 'foo';
However, patching the class this way to exhibit different behavior is not how you should do it in OOP. It's just plain wrong and should make your eyes bleed.
Since you want to dynamically change behavior, extending the class is also not a good option (see below why). What you really will want to do is write an interface and make your class use objects implementing this interface, thus making sure the appropriate methods are available. This is called a Strategy Pattern and works like this:
<?php // Meowing.php
interface Meowing
{
public function meow();
}
Now you got the contract that all Meowing Behaviors must obey, namely having a meow method. Next define a Meowing Behavior:
<?php // RegularMeow.php
class RegularMeow implements Meowing
{
public function meow()
{
return 'meow';
}
}
Now to use it, use:
<?php // Cat.php
class Cat
{
protected $_meowing;
public function setMeowing(Meowing $meowing)
{
$this->_meowing = $meowing;
}
public function meow()
{
$this->_meowing->meow()
}
}
By adding the Meowing TypeHint to setMeowing, you make sure that the passed param implements the Meowing interface. Let's define another Meowing Behavior:
<?php // LolkatMeow.php
class LolkatMeow implements Meowing
{
public function meow()
{
return 'lolz xD';
}
}
Now, you can easily interchange behaviors like this:
<?php
require_once 'Meowing.php';
require_once 'RegularMeow.php';
require_once 'LolkatMeow.php';
require_once 'Cat.php';
$cat = new Cat;
$cat->setMeowing(new RegularMeow);
echo $cat->meow; // outputs 'meow';
// now to change the behavior
$cat->setMeowing(new LolkatMeow);
echo $cat->meow; // outputs 'lolz xD';
While you also could have solved the above with inheritance by defining an abstract BaseCat and meow method and then deriving concrete RegularCat and Lolkat classes from that, you have to consider what you want to achieve. If your cats will never change the way they meow, go ahead and use inheritance, but if your RegularCat and Lolkat is supposed to be able to do arbitrary meows, then use the Strategy pattern.
For more design patterns in PHP, check these resources:
http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.patterns.php
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-php-designptrns/
http://www.fluffycat.com/PHP-Design-Patterns/
http://sourcemaking.com/design_patterns
Might it not be an idea to create the core class with the relevant base functionality and then extend this with the required methods - it seems like a more logical approach.
I'll start by saying I'm not too clear why this problem is not best solved using a base class containing the methods, subclasses containing the data, and dynamic class loading. I'll assume you have a good reason.
Once your provider supports PHP 5.4 you can do what you want using traits.
Code File:
if ($pet === 'dog') include 'dog.php';
elseif ($pet === 'cat') include 'cat.php';
else die('Unknown pet');
class Pet {
use PetSounds;
}
$myPet = new Pet();
$myPet->speak();
File cat.php
trait PetSounds {
function speak() { echo 'meow'; }
}
File dog.php
trait PetSounds {
function speak() { echo 'woof'; }
}
You could make this even cleaner by naming both include files the same, putting them in different subdirectories, and using set_include_path() or defining an __autoload() function to select between them. Like I said though, this same problem could be solved better using inheritance. If you have a multiple-inheritance type problem though, if for instance you have four kinds of pets with five kinds of colors with three hair types and you need a different combination of methods for each of the 60 different classes, this is the right solution.
5.4 is currently just a Release Candidate (as of 2/24/2012) and even once released most hosts will not support it for many months - mine took 18 months after 5.3 was released before they would support it. Until then you must write entirely separate and complete class files. You can however format your classes with an eventual change to traits in mind.
Right now you can partially get what you want using magic methods and have an easy upgrade to traits when they are available.
Code File:
if ($pet === 'dog') include 'dog.php';
elseif ($pet === 'cat') include 'cat.php';
else die('Unknown pet');
class Pet {
public function __call($name, array $arguments)
{
array_unshift($arguments, $this);
return call_user_func_array("TraitFunc_$name", $arguments);
}
}
$myPet = new Pet();
$myPet->speak();
File cat.php
function TraitFunc_speak(Pet $that) { echo 'meow'; }
File dog.php
function TraitFunc_speak(Pet $that) { echo 'woof'; }
You are limited however in that your functions can not access private and protected class properties and methods and you can not use this method to provide magic methods such as __get(). Traits will solve both of those limitations.
What about using traits for this? Would that be an acceptable option? This is something I am currently experimenting with and it seems to work quite while.
A simplified version of what I am doing is basically like this. I have an application with shared core files and multiple projects. Within those projects i have modules. I want to have functions that are available for the entire project on a core level but only for that specific project.
My project controller
if(is_file(PROJECT_PATH.'/project_extensions.trait.php')){
// additional functions for this specific project
require_once(PROJECT_PATH.'/project_extensions.trait.php');
}else{
// no additional functions
trait Extensions{};
}
Class Project{
USE Extensions;
// default functions shared between all projects
function shared_stuff(){
}
}
Extensions file
trait Extensions{
// project-specific extensions
function this_project_only(){
echo 'Project Only';
}
}
Module file in the project
class MyModule extends Modules{ // modules extends projects in a different class not relevant here
function do_something(){
echo $this->project_only();
}
}
Since PHP5.4 release you can create dynamic objects like this: https://github.com/ptrofimov/jslikeobject
But this is scarcely the best practice.
Reviving an old question but this is a fairly simple solution. Do you need the common function calls to be exclusive to your class? If not, simply include your common function file(s) within the same scope as your class. You will need to create methods in your class but they will only need to call the common function. Here's a simple SOAP server example:
<?php
include 'post_function.php';
$server = new SoapServer( null, array('uri' => "http://localhost/") );
$server->setClass( 'postsoapclass' );
$server->handle();
class postsoapclass
{
public function animalNoise( $animal )
{
return get_animal_noise($animal);
}
}
?>
post_function.php
<?php
function get_animal_noise($animal)
{
if(strtolower(trim($animal)) == 'pig')
{
return 'Oink';
}
else
{
return 'This animal is mute';
}
}
?>
I have had to do what you are describing in cases where I maintain a free version and a premium version of the same software. Because, as #Gordon noted, you cannot do exactly this:
class SomeClass {
premium_file = "premium.php";
if (file_exists($premium_file)) {
require($premium_file);
}
Instead I do this:
premium_file = "premium.php";
if (file_exists($premium_file)) {
require($premium_file);
}
class SomeClass {
...
For functions you want to reference, create class methods in the main class, and call the included file's method, passing the $this pointer as a parameter. So that I can tell at a glance where functions are, I will prefix the name of the included functions as shown below:
class SomeClass {
...
// Premium functions
public function showlist() {
premium_showlist($this);
}
You can include or require before declaring your class like below:
require 'path-to-file';
class myClass{
function show($uid){
}
}
The answer is yes, for example:
Into class construct, pass to the function (that's into the included file) values as params:
$this->wpd = $this->wpdopt = 'something';
include_once('/common/functions_common.php');
$this->wpdb = wpquery($sql='', $mode='', $this->wpd);
Into the included functions_common.php file:
function wpquery($sql, $mode, $wdp)
{
if(!empty($wdp))
{ return true; } else { return false; }
}
Into class methods:
$sql = "UPDATE ..... SET ... WHERE LOWER(user_email) = . ...";
$this->wpdb = wpquery($sql,'update',$this->wpd);
OR
$retval_var = $this->wpdb = wpquery($sql,'update',$this->wpd);
OR even
$this->var = $this->wpdb = wpquery($sql,'update',$this->wpd);
Cheers to all the lovely and cool people
I came across this recently, and came up with a solution, that helped in my case. I wanted many functions in a class, but the class became bloated, so wanted to separate out the class functions into groups for readability. It took a little time to accomplish, but since the functions of the class didn't rely (much) on $this, I removed "$this" from the class functions and created several helper files to include those functions. When $this was necessary, I could nevertheless move the function into a helper file, by passing $this to the function, adding public set/get functions where necessary. It's a hack, but it's sure to help someone
class myClass
{
var x;
function myClass()
{
$this->x = 0;
}
function myFunc1Group1()
{
$x = $this->x;
$x++;
$this->x = $x;
}
function myFunc2Group1(){}
function myFunc1Group2(){}
function myFunc2Group2(){}
}
can be worked around to
class myClass
{
var x;
function myClass()
{
$this->x = 0;
}
function doSomething()
{
// not called on $this but takes $this as a parameter
myFunc1Group1($this);
}
}
and helper function set 1
function myFunc1Group1($THIS_OBJECT)
{
$x = $THIS_OBJECT->getX();
$x++;
$THIS_OBJECT->setX($x);
}
function myFunc2Group1($THIS_OBJECT){}
and helper function set 2, etc.
Probably not the best route in all cases, but helped me out a lot. Basically the class functions were only to construct and delegate, and the calculations were put into helpers.
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.
Second update
I think I've been approaching this problem from the wrong side of the coin. Would I be correct in assuming that I should be making 'First' an abstract class and just finding a way to reference 'Second' and 'Third' at a later time?
Update
Based on some of the feedback, I have added some content to try and clear up what I would like to do. Something similar to this effect.
I know from just looking at the code below that, it is a waste of performance "if" it did work and because it doesn't, know I am approaching the problem from the wrong angle.The end objective isn't all to uncommon at a guess from some of the frameworks I've used.
I'm more trying to base this particular bit of code on the CodeIgniter approach where you can define (what below) is STR_CLASS_NAME in a config file and then at any point through the operation of the program, use it as i have dictated.
STR_CLASS_NAME = 'Second';
class First {
protected $intTestOne = 100;
public function __construct() {
$strClassName = STR_CLASS_NAME;
return new $strClassName();
}
public function TestOne() {
echo $this->intTestOne;
}
protected function TestThreePart() {
return '*Drum ';
}
}
class Second extends First{
/* Override value to know it's working */
protected $intTestOne = 200;
/* Overriding construct to avoid infinite loop */
public function __construct() {}
public function TestTwo() {
echo 'Using method from extended class';
}
public function TestThree() {
echo $this->TestThreePart().'roll*';
}
}
$Test = new First();
$Test->TestOne(); <-- Should echo 200.
$Test->TestTwo(); <-- Should echo 'Using method from extended class'
$Test->TestThree(); <-- Should echo '*Drum roll*'
You may be asking, why do this and not just instantiate Second, well, there are cases when it is slightly different:
STR_CLASS_NAME = 'Third';
class Third extends First{
/* Override value to know it's working */
protected $intTestOne = 300;
/* Overriding construct to avoid infinite loop */
public function __construct() {}
public function TestTwo() {
echo 'Using method from extended class';
}
public function TestThree() {
echo $this->TestThreePart().'snare*';
}
}
$Test = new First();
$Test->TestOne(); <-- Should echo 300.
$Test->TestTwo(); <-- Should echo 'Using method from extended class'
$Test->TestThree(); <-- Should echo '*Drum snare*'
Situation
I have a an abstract class which extends a base class with the actually implementation; in this case a basic DB wrapper.
class DBConnector ()
class DBConnectorMySQLi extends DBConnector()
As you can see, MySQLi is the implementation. Now, dependant upon a value in the configuration process, a constant becomes the class name I wish to use which in this case (as shown below builds DBConnectorMySQLi.
define('STR_DB_INTERFACE', 'MySQLi');
define('DB_CLASS', 'DBConnector'.STR_DB_INTERFACE);
Objective
To have a base class that can be extended to include the implementation
For the code itself not to need know what the name of the implementation actually is
To (in this case) be able to type or use a project accepted common variable to create DBConnectorMySQLi. I.E. $db or something similar. W
Issue
When it comes to actually calling this class, I would like the code to be shown as below. I was wondering whether this is at all possible without the need to add any extra syntax. On a side note, this constant is 100% guaranteed to be defined.
$DBI = new DB_CLASS();
Solution 1
I know it is possible to use a reflection class ( as discussed in THIS QUESTION) and this works via:
$DBI = new ReflectionClass(DB_CLASS);
However, this creates code that is "dirtier" than intended
Solution 2
Start the specific implementation of DBConnectorMySQLi within the constructor function of DBConnector.
define('STR_DB_INTERFACE', 'MySQLi');
define('DB_CLASS', 'DBConnector'.STR_DB_INTERFACE);
class DBConnector() { public function __construct() { $this->objInterface = new DBConnectorMySQLi(); }
class DBConnectorMySQLi()
This however would result in the need to keep on "pushing" variables from one to the other
Any advice is much appreciate
You can use variables when you instantiate a class.
$classname = DB_CLASS;
$DBI = new $classname();
Source: instantiate a class from a variable in PHP?
I've been trying for a long time now to find a correct design using PHP to achieve what I want, but everything I've tried failed and I'm guessing it's probably because I'm not looking from the right angle, so I wish some of you can enlighten me and give me some good advice!
The design might seem a little weird at first, but I assure you it's not because I like to make things complicated. For the sake of simplicity I'm only giving the minimal structure of my problem and not the actual code. It starts with these:
<?php
// ------------------------------------------------------------------------
class Mother_A
{
const _override_1 = 'default';
protected static $_override_2 = array();
public static function method_a()
{
$c = get_called_class();
// Uses $c::_override_1 and $c::$_override_2
}
}
// ------------------------------------------------------------------------
class Mother_B extends Mother_A
{
public function method_b()
{
// Uses self::method_a()
}
}
Class Mother_A defines a static method that uses constants and statics to be overridden by children. This allows to define a generic method (equivalent of a "template" method) in the derived class Mother_B. Neither Mother_A or Mother_B are intended to be instanciated, but Mother_B should not be abstract. This exploits Late Static Binding, which I find very useful btw.
Now comes my problem. I want to define two classes, in n distinct 'situations' (situation 1, situation 2, etc):
<?php
// ------------------------------------------------------------------------
class Child_A_Situation_k extends Mother_A
{
// Uses method_a
}
// ------------------------------------------------------------------------
class Child_B_Situation_k extends Mother_B
{
// Uses method_a and method_b
}
Of course I'm not actually giving these stupid names; both classes have different names in each situation, but both follow the same derivation pattern from Mother_A and Mother_B. However, in each individual case ('situation'), both classes need the exact same constants/static override, and I don't know how to do that without duplicating the override manually in both classes.
I tried many things, but the closest I got was to implement an interface Interface_Situation_k that defined constants and statics for the situation k, and make both children implement this interface. Of course, you can't define statics in an interface, so it failed, but you get the idea. I would have traded the interface for a class, but then there's no multiple inheritance in PHP, so it's not valid either. :/ I'm really stuck, and I can't wait to read a possible solution! Thanks in advance!
this is the best i can do, i don't think there is a way to do it with less code.
Look at the comments inside the code for more info.
Fully working code:
<?php
class Mother_A
{
// you're using '_override_1' as a variable, so its obviously not a constant
// also i made it public for the setSituation function,
// you could keep it protected and use reflections to set it
// but i dont really see a reason for that.
// if you want that, look up how to set private/protected variables
public static $_override_1 = 'default';
public static $_override_2 = array();
public static function method_a()
{
$c = get_called_class();
var_dump($c::$_override_1);
var_dump($c::$_override_2);
// Uses $c::_override_1 and $c::$_override_2
}
public static function setSituation($className)
{
$c = get_called_class();
// iterate through the static properties of $className and $c
// and when the you find properties with the same name, set them
$rBase = new ReflectionClass($c);
$rSituation = new ReflectionClass($className);
$staBase = $rBase->getStaticProperties();
$staSituation = $rSituation->getStaticProperties();
foreach($staSituation as $name => $value)
{
if(isset($staBase[$name])) $c::$$name = $value;
}
}
}
// ------------------------------------------------------------------------
class Mother_B extends Mother_A
{
public function method_b()
{
self::method_a();
}
}
class Situation_k
{
public static $_override_1 = 'k';
public static $_override_2 = array('k','k');
}
class Child_A_Situation_k extends Mother_A { }
Child_A_Situation_k::setSituation('Situation_k');
// This is not as short as writing 'extends Mother_A, Situation_k'
// but i think you wont get it shorter
class Child_B_Situation_k extends Mother_B { }
Child_B_Situation_k::setSituation('Situation_k');
echo '<pre>';
Child_A_Situation_k::method_a();
echo "\n";
Child_B_Situation_k::method_a();
echo "\n";
Child_B_Situation_k::method_b();
echo "\n";
echo '</pre>';
?>
Is there any way to redefine a class or some of its methods without using typical inheritance? For example:
class third_party_library {
function buggy_function() {
return 'bad result';
}
function other_functions(){
return 'blah';
}
}
What can I do to replace buggy_function()? Obviously this is what I would like to do
class third_party_library redefines third_party_library{
function buggy_function() {
return 'good result';
}
function other_functions(){
return 'blah';
}
}
This is my exact dilemma: I updated a third party library that breaks my code. I don't want to modify the library directly, as future updates could break the code again. I'm looking for a seamless way to replace the class method.
I've found this library that says it can do it, but I'm wary as it's 4 years old.
EDIT:
I should have clarified that I cannot rename the class from third_party_library to magical_third_party_library or anything else because of framework limitations.
For my purposes, would it be possible to just add a function to the class? I think you can do this in C# with something called a "partial class."
It's called monkey patching. But, PHP doesn't have native support for it.
Though, as others have also pointed out, the runkit library is available for adding support to the language and is the successor to classkit. And, though it seemed to have been abandoned by its creator (having stated that it wasn't compatible with PHP 5.2 and later), the project does now appear to have a new home and maintainer.
I still can't say I'm a fan of its approach. Making modifications by evaluating strings of code has always seemed to me to be potentially hazardous and difficult to debug.
Still, runkit_method_redefine appears to be what you're looking for, and an example of its use can be found in /tests/runkit_method_redefine.phpt in the repository:
runkit_method_redefine('third_party_library', 'buggy_function', '',
'return \'good result\''
);
runkit seems like a good solution but its not enabled by default and parts of it are still experimental. So I hacked together a small class which replaces function definitions in a class file. Example usage:
class Patch {
private $_code;
public function __construct($include_file = null) {
if ( $include_file ) {
$this->includeCode($include_file);
}
}
public function setCode($code) {
$this->_code = $code;
}
public function includeCode($path) {
$fp = fopen($path,'r');
$contents = fread($fp, filesize($path));
$contents = str_replace('<?php','',$contents);
$contents = str_replace('?>','',$contents);
fclose($fp);
$this->setCode($contents);
}
function redefineFunction($new_function) {
preg_match('/function (.+)\(/', $new_function, $aryMatches);
$func_name = trim($aryMatches[1]);
if ( preg_match('/((private|protected|public) function '.$func_name.'[\w\W\n]+?)(private|protected|public)/s', $this->_code, $aryMatches) ) {
$search_code = $aryMatches[1];
$new_code = str_replace($search_code, $new_function."\n\n", $this->_code);
$this->setCode($new_code);
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}
function getCode() {
return $this->_code;
}
}
Then include the class to be modified and redefine its methods:
$objPatch = new Patch('path_to_class_file.php');
$objPatch->redefineFunction("
protected function foo(\$arg1, \$arg2)
{
return \$arg1+\$arg2;
}");
Then eval the new code:
eval($objPatch->getCode());
A little crude but it works!
For people that are still looking for this answer.
You should use extends in combination with namespaces.
like this:
namespace MyCustomName;
class third_party_library extends \third_party_library {
function buggy_function() {
return 'good result';
}
function other_functions(){
return 'blah';
}
}
Then to use it do like this:
use MyCustomName\third_party_library;
$test = new third_party_library();
$test->buggy_function();
//or static.
third_party_library::other_functions();
For the sake of completeness - monkey patching is available in PHP through runkit. For details, see runkit_method_redefine().
How about wrapping it in another class like
class Wrapper {
private $third_party_library;
function __construct() { $this->third_party_library = new Third_party_library(); }
function __call($method, $args) {
return call_user_func_array(array($this->third_party_library, $method), $args);
}
}
Yes, it's called extend:
<?php
class sd_third_party_library extends third_party_library
{
function buggy_function() {
return 'good result';
}
function other_functions(){
return 'blah';
}
}
I prefixed with "sd". ;-)
Keep in mind that when you extend a class to override methods, the method's signature has to match the original. So for example if the original said buggy_function($foo, $bar), it has to match the parameters in the class extending it.
PHP is pretty verbose about it.
Zend Studio and PDT (eclipse based ide) have some built in refractoring tools. But there are no built in methods to do this.
Also you wouldn't want to have bad code in your system at all. Since it could be called upon by mistake.
I've modified the code from the answer by #JPhilly and made it possible to rename a the patched class to avoid errors.
Also, I've changed the regex that identifies the about-to-be-replaced function to fit cases where the replaced function doesn't have any class access modifiers in front of its name
Hope it helps.
class Patch {
private $_code;
public function __construct($include_file = null) {
if ( $include_file ) {
$this->includeCode($include_file);
}
}
public function setCode($code) {
$this->_code = $code;
}
public function includeCode($path) {
$fp = fopen($path,'r');
$contents = fread($fp, filesize($path));
$contents = str_replace('<?php','',$contents);
$contents = str_replace('?>','',$contents);
fclose($fp);
$this->setCode($contents);
}
function redefineFunction($new_function) {
preg_match('/function ([^\(]*)\(/', $new_function, $aryMatches);
$func_name = trim($aryMatches[1]);
// capture the function with its body and replace it with the new function
if ( preg_match('/((private|protected|public)?\s?function ' . $func_name .'[\w\W\n]+?)(private|protected|public|function|class)/s', $this->_code, $aryMatches) ) {
$search_code = $aryMatches[1];
$new_code = str_replace($search_code, $new_function."\n\n", $this->_code);
$this->setCode($new_code);
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}
function renameClass($old_name, $new_name) {
$new_code = str_replace("class $old_name ", "class $new_name ", $this->_code);
$this->setCode($new_code);
}
function getCode() {
return $this->_code;
}
}
This is how I've used it to patch a Wordpress plugin:
$objPatch = new Patch(ABSPATH . 'wp-content/plugins/a-plugin/code.php');
$objPatch->renameClass("Patched_AClass", "Patched_Patched_AClass"); // just to avoid class redefinition
$objPatch->redefineFunction("
function default_initialize() {
echo 'my patched function';
}");
eval($objPatch->getCode());
$result = new Patched_AClass();
If the library is explicitly creating the bad class and not using a locater or dependency system you are out of luck. There is no way to override a method on another class unless you subclass.
The solution might be to create a patch file that fixes the library, so you can upgrade the library and re-apply the patch to fix that specific method.
You might be able to do this with runkit. http://php.net/runkit
You can make a copy of the library class, with everything the same except the class name. Then override that renamed class.
It's not perfect, but it does improve the visibility of the extending class's changes. If you fetch the library with something like Composer, you'll have to commit the copy to source control and update it when you update the library.
In my case it was an old version of https://github.com/bshaffer/oauth2-server-php. I modified the library's autoloader to fetch my class file instead. My class file took on the original name and extended a copied version of one of the files.
Since you always have access to the base code in PHP, redefine the main class functions you want to override as follows, this should leave your interfaces intact:
class third_party_library {
public static $buggy_function;
public static $ranOnce=false;
public function __construct(){
if(!self::$ranOnce){
self::$buggy_function = function(){ return 'bad result'; };
self::$ranOnce=true;
}
.
.
.
}
function buggy_function() {
return self::$buggy_function();
}
}
You may for some reason use a private variable but then you will only be able to access the function by extending the class or logic inside the class. Similarly it's possible you'd want to have different objects of the same class have different functions. If so, do't use static, but usually you want it to be static so you don't duplicate the memory use for each object made. The 'ranOnce' code just makes sure you only need to initialize it once for the class, not for every $myObject = new third_party_library()
Now, later on in your code or another class - whenever the logic hits a point where you need to override the function - simply do as follows:
$backup['buggy_function'] = third_party_library::$buggy_function;
third_party_library::$buggy_function = function(){
//do stuff
return $great_calculation;
}
.
.
. //do other stuff that needs the override
. //when finished, restore the original function
.
third_party_library::$buggy_function=$backup['buggy_function'];
As a side note, if you do all your class functions this way and use a string-based key/value store like public static $functions['function_name'] = function(...){...}; this can be useful for reflection. Not as much in PHP as other languages though because you can already grab the class and function names, but you can save some processing and future users of your class can use overrides in PHP. It is however, one extra level of indirection, so I would avoid using it on primitive classes wherever possible.
There's alway extending the class with a new, proper, method and calling that class instead of the buggy one.
class my_better_class Extends some_buggy_class {
function non_buggy_function() {
return 'good result';
}
}
(Sorry for the crappy formatting)