I'm looking at Laravel's service container docs, specifically the binding section.
What are the differences and when should I use each type of binding? The documentation mentions:
Simple Binding
Singleton Binding
Instance Binding
Primitive binding
Interface binding
First, let's see what it actually is:
IoC container is a component that knows how instances are created. It also knows of all their underlying dependencies and how to resolve them.
Container's knowledge about instance creation and dependency resolving might be guided by the programmer. That's why Laravel's container provides various binding APIs for me, and you.
"Resolving out of the container" is a phrase you read/hear a lot. It means that you tell the container to make something for you based on the [optional] guidance you gave her previously.
Before you continue reading about bindings, I strongly recommend you to read this answer:
What is Laravel IoC Container in simple words?
Simple Binding
app()->bind(DatabaseWriter::class, function ($app) {
return new DatabaseWriter(
$app->make(DatabaseAdapterInterface)
);
});
You say to the container that when you want to resolve an instance of DatabaseWriter class, follow this logic I just told you in the closure coz I know better. Every single time that you want to resolve the class, you must follow this and deliver me a new instance.
You use this type of bindings all the time. You're giving the container small recipes on how to make your things for you.
Singleton Binding
Same as simple bindings, with one obvious difference. You're telling the container that I want only one instance of this class across my whole application. The first time you're resolving the class, follow the logic in the closure I passed to you, but be sure that you just return that only instance every other time you want to resolve it. Deliver me the only instance you were allowed to make.
It's a singleton, right? Once a singleton binding is resolved, the same object instance will be returned on subsequent calls into the container.
Obviously, you use this type of binding when you want to utilize the Singleton pattern. It's rare these days.
Instance Binding
It's like doing a favor for the container. You don't tell her how to instantiate a certain class, you do it yourself and just give her the instance. She holds it for you and returns it on subsequent calls into the container.
It's especially handy when you're unit-testing. If you bind a mock instance to the container for some class, all the subsequent calls to app()->make() will return that mock for you. So you're practically injecting a class mock all over the app when the actual class is used.
class QuestionsControllerTest extends TestCase
{
public function testQuestionListing()
{
$questionMock = Mockery::mock('Question')
->shouldReceive('latest')
->once()
->getMock();
// You're telling the container that everytime anyone
// wants a Question instance, give them this mock I just
// gave you.
$this->app->instance('Question', $this->questionMock);
// whatever...
}
}
Primitive Binding
Laravel's container provides a DSL for you to tell her how to resolve primitives as well. You say when BillingController class wants a $taxRate variable and it's not passed, give it 0.2. It's like setting default values from far far away!
app()->when('App\Http\Controllers\BillingController')
->needs('$taxRate')
->give(.2);
The use-case might be rare, but you might need them occasionally. This example might be a lil bit more sensual:
app()->when('App\Http\Controllers\CustomerController')
->needs('$customers')
->give(function() {
return Customer::paying();
});
Interface Binding
It's used when you want to bind interfaces to concrete implementations.
After reading a dozen articles on SOLID and how to be a better programmer, you decide to follow Dependency Inversion principle and instead of depending on concrete instances, you depend on abstractions.
After all, it's a good practice, in or out of Laravel.
class DatabaseWriter {
protected $db;
// Any concrete implementation of this interface will do
// Now, that I depend on this DatabaseAdapterInterface contract,
// I can work with MySQL, MongoDB and WhatevaDB! Awesome!
public function __construct(DatabaseAdapterInterface $db)
{
$this->db = $db;
}
public function write()
{
$this->db->query('...');
}
}
Without Laravel's container, you first need to create a concrete implementation of DatabaseAdapterInterface and pass it through DatabaseWriter's constructor to be able to instantiate it:
$dbWriter = new DatabaseWriter(new MongodbAdapter)
If MongodbAdapter has its own dependencies, you might end up here:
// Looks familiar, right?
// These are those recipes you used to give to Laravel container
// through simple binding.
$dbWriter = new DatabaseWriter(new MongodbAdapter(new MongodbConnection))
But with Laravel's container in the party, you tell her that when anyone asks for a concrete implementation of DatabaseAdapterInterface, ask no more and give them a MongodbAdapter:
app()->bind(DatabaseAdapterInterface::class, MongodbAdapter::class)
Then you go on and resolve an instance of DatabaseWriter out of container, like a boss:
$dbWriter = app()->make(DatabaseWriter::class)
Much easier and cleaner, right? You remove all the obvious clutter and move it to somewhere else. Your AppServiceProvider maybe.
OK, let's see how she works in this scenario. First, she probes DatabaseWriter for possible dependencies (through reflection), sees that it needs a DatabaseAdapterInterface. Checks her notebook, recalls that you told her that MongodbAdapter is the concrete implementation of that interface. Makes one and hand it over to DatabaseWriter.
You use these type of bindings almost all the time, if you're adhering to dependency inversion principle.
OK, enough with the chatter, let's see how she really works:
https://github.com/laravel/framework/blob/5.3/src/Illuminate/Container/Container.php#L627
Related
The issue
I have an unexpected warning from PHPStorm when I try to set a new value in a PHP-DI container.
Given the following code:
function inject(Psr\Container\ContainerInterface $container){
$container->set(RandomClass::class, new RandomClass());
}
$container = new DI\Container(); class is instantiated
inject($container);
The following warning is triggered
Potentially polymorphic call. does not have members in its hierarchy
I understand what the warning means, but I do not see why it pops up, especially since I have not found any occurrences of this situation while looking on Google and SO and the documentation does not mention it.
Is there something I am missing, or is this a "false positive" ?
The set() method is not part of Psr\Container\ContainerInterface.
If you want to use that method, you can't typehint against the interface because your code explicitly needs a PHP-DI instance.
Your code doesn't have to be generic, don't overthink things too much. The PSR is useful mostly for frameworks and libraries (who need to be compatible with multiple containers), not for end-users.
The day you switch container library you will have many more complex things to do than just replacing the set() call.
The reason behind the issue
Given the following code (which is very similar to the one I use)
function inject(Psr\Container\ContainerInterface $container){
$container->set(RandomClass::class, new RandomClass());
}
$container = new DI\Container(); class is instantiated
inject($container);
The $container->set(...) call is going to trigger the following warning
Potentially polymorphic call. does not have members in its hierarchy
This is to be expected as Psr\Container\ContainerInterface only contains definitions for the following methods
get($id)
has($id)
The solution
Two possible solutions for this issue:
Type the methods directly with the container, making sure to not use the FQN of the class but only use Container and "use the namespace", it will make changing to a new container package easier (because this is still the goal behind PSRs, being able to almost hot-swap packages).
Create a custom interface based on Psr\Container\ContainerInterface and add the required methods to it.
Or, eventually, you can try to make PHP-FIG extend the PSR-11 standard to include a standard set($id, $value) method.
How does reflection in Laravel actually work?
I tried to debug it to see how Laravel uses reflection in a controller's constructor or methods to resolve their dependencies and sub-dependencies and then and give it back to us.
But I found it hard, and it's very complicated to see and to even understand 50% of. Jumping from class to class, I can't really see it. I tried a few times by debugging it with low results of understanding.
I am very impressed by this and by reflection, and the way Laravel uses it makes my heart burn—it's just beautiful. And I wish to fully understand that—the whole process—in general, and step by step.
Beginning from hitting the route to finally having, let's say, dd($x), where $x is from a method argument and is a TestClass that has another dependency of TestClass2 that should be constructed through: $x = new TestClass(new TestClass2());
I think those are beautiful mechanics and architecture, and understanding this is something I want so badly.
So again, my question is: how does reflection in Laravel actually work?
It's not about dd guys... Let's say without dd. Just as I said earlier - when we have this object instantiated from the class method. It's not about dumping it, it's just about having it from method injection by reflection.
The dd was only an example. It can even be die(var_dump()); and it will work
Laravel uses PHP's reflection API for several components. Of these, the inverson-of-control (IoC) dependency injection container and controller method injection are most visible to developers.
To more clearly illustrate the use of reflection, here's a dramatically simplified version of the routine Laravel's IoC container class uses to build up an object's dependencies through constructor injection:
function build($className)
{
$reflector = new ReflectionClass($className);
$constructor = $reflector->getConstructor();
foreach ($constructor->getParameters() as $dependency) {
$instances[] = build($dependency->getClass()->name);
}
return $reflector->newInstanceArgs($instances);
}
As we can see, the concept isn't too difficult to understand. The container uses PHP's ReflectionClass to find the names of the classes in an object's constructor, and then loops through each of these names recursively to create instances of each object in the dependency tree. With these instances, build() finally instantiates the original class and passes the dependencies as arguments to the constructor.
Controller method injection uses the same container functionality shown above to resolve instances of dependencies declared as method parameters, but there's a bit of extra logic needed to separate class dependencies from route parameters:
function dispatch(Route $route, Controller $controller, $methodName)
{
$routeParameters = $route->parametersWithoutNulls();
$method = new ReflectionMethod($controller, $methodName);
foreach ($method->getParameters() as $index => $parameter) {
$class = $parameter->getClass();
if ($class !== null) {
$instance = build($class->name);
array_splice($routeParameters, $index, 0, [ $instance ]);
}
}
$controller->callAction($methodName, $routeParameters);
}
Again, this adaptation is slimmed-down to highlight the role reflection plays and relies on our build() function shown previously. The ControllerDispatcher class uses the getParameters() method of PHP's ReflectionMethod to determine which parameters a controller method expects, and then loops through these to find parameters that represent dependencies that it can resolve from the container. Then, it splices each dependency it finds back into the array of route parameters that it passes back to the controller method defined for the route. See RouteDependencyResolverTrait for details.
If we ignore the application bootstrapping process, this dependency injection cascade typically starts for a request when Laravel maps a request to a route, and then determines which controller to pass the request to. Laravel first resolves an instance of the controller from the container, which builds out any constructor-injected dependencies. Then, Laravel finds the appropriate controller method and resolves any more dependencies for the arguments as needed.
As shown here, Laravel uses relatively simple techniques to implement these tools using reflection. However, unlike the examples shown in this answer, the framework adds a lot of additional code to make them as robust and flexible as they are today.
First of all, sorry for my bad English, I hope you understand what I'm saying.
Here is my problem:
Lets assume i have an MVC application including standard router, controller, model(service) layer and some kind of db connector.
Model layer depends on a db connector, controllers depends on models/services and the top-level "application" class depends on routers and controllers.
My object hierarchy looks like this:
App -> ControllerFactory -> ServiceFactory -> DAO -> DbConnection
Perhaps, written above doesn't look like best application architecture ever, but i want to focus on the other thing:
When i'm trying to instantiate an App class i should pass all dependencies to the class instantiated; class dependencies, in turn, has their own dependencies and so on.
As a result I get all hierarchy stack instantiated at once. But what if i dont need to access the database in some cases; what if some controllers are used for rendering static templates without model interaction?
I mean, what if there are some special cases when class does not require its own dependencies(and in some cases it does)? Should i inject dependencies conditionaly or something?
I'm really stuck at this point and i don't know what to do.
Update: after re-reading carefully your question, here is another advice: yes, every class has different dependencies.
Don't inject every object into every other object. For example, some services might need DAOs, so inject them. But if a service doesn't need a DAO, don't inject any DAO.
The rest of my answer is valid if you have (for example) a service that needs a DAO (and thus a DB connection) not for every method.
What you may be looking for is lazy injection.
It is the act of injecting a dependency not loaded, so that the object is loaded only if/when used.
In conrete terms, that means injecting a proxy object, that would look like and behave exactly like the original object (for example, the db connection).
Several DI container (frameworks) support this so you don't have to create proxies yourself. I'll take as an example PHP-DI (I work on that project FYI).
Here is an example using annotations:
use DI\Annotation\Inject;
class Example {
/**
* #Inject(lazy=true)
* #var My\Class
*/
protected $property;
/**
* #Inject({ "param1" = {"lazy"=true} })
*/
public function method(My\Class $param1) {
}
}
Of course if you don't want to use annotations you can use any other configuration you want (PHP, YAML, …). Here is the same example by configuring the container in pure PHP:
$container->set('Example')
->withProperty('property', 'My\Class', true)
->withMethod('method', array('param1' => array(
'name' => 'My\Class',
'lazy' => true,
)));
See more in the documentation about Lazy Injection.
Note: you may not be using a Container for now (and that's not a problem), but for tackling lazy injection this is a fair amount of work and you might need to start considering using one.
If your dependency construction is complex, simply add a new factory class that should contain all the logic to create a correct object for you.
class AppFactory(){
__construct(all params){
}
build(useDB=true){
// logic to build
if(useDB){
App = new App(new ControllerFactory(new ServiceFactory(new DAO(new DbConnection(params)))))
} else {
App = new App(new ControllerFactory(new ServiceFactory(null))))
}
return App;
}
}
I have a question concerning dependency injection. I have been keeping it simple so far, my methodology is basically to factor out object creation within objects and passing it instead in the constructer. I have come to a point where I am attacking larger classes that require multiple oblects. Some even have objects that contain other objects, with merry little singletons here and there. It gets ugly fast when testing these classes, as they are far from 'isolated' they are still hard-coded to their dependencies.
So. Injecting an object or 2 for a trivial class is straightforward,
I have looked into dependency containers, saw many implementations and am now wondering what is the advantage of using container vs. a registry for example. Couldn't one just as easily use a registry to hold anonymous functions that create the needed dependencies when called upon?
The 2 containers I peeked into, Php Dependency and Pimple differ greatly in the implementation.
I am wondering on the advantages of user a container vs. passing straight objects. I fail to understand how php-dependency's implementation would be tested, ie how would one implement the mock database object in phpunit without the actual class being injected when tested? Is there advantage to having dependency mapped out and used in doctags like this?
Class Book {
private $_database;
/**
* #PdInject database
*/
public function setDatabase($database) {
$this->_database = $database;
}
}
Pimple, on the other hand takes a totally different approach. No docblock tags, no mapping in seperate file, it seems like some kind of souped up registry ....
Objects are defined by anonymous functions that return an instance of the object:
// define some parameters
$container['cookie_name'] = 'SESSION_ID';
$container['session_storage_class'] = 'SessionStorage';
... that can behave as a factory at same time:
$container['session'] = function ($c) {
return new Session($c['session_storage']);
};
Declaring shared ressources always serves the same instance (singleton!?):
$c['session'] = $c->share(function ($c) {
return new Session($c['session_storage']);
});
This is were I got the idea of using a simple registry that holds either objects or anonymous functions. BUt am I missing something in this approach? Pimple, I can see to how to test, but Php-Dependency is unclear to me from a testing point of view.
Normally in our apps, we do constructor injection and define an interface for all components in our system:
class Book
{
/**
* #var Db_AdapterInterface
*/
private $_database;
public function __construct(Db_AdapterInterface $database)
{
$this->_database = $database;
}
}
We have then of course a standard Db_Adapter and then another Db_TestAdapter. In Db_TestAdapter we can define results of SQL queries in our tests.
For our normal app, we have something like this for our container:
$container->add('Db_AdapterInterface', new Db_Adapter());
And then in our tests, we have this line instead:
$container->add('Db_AdapterInterface', new Db_TestAdapter());
To get an instance of a Book, we simply ask the container for it:
$book = $container->construct('Book');
And the container injects all the needed dependencies into the object.
If you keep all your objects loosely coupled, ie object A only needs an interface B then you can always provide object A with a test implementation. At that point what container you use doesn't matter.
We have a very simple IoC container which can do basic constructor injection. Our tests inherit from a base class which fills the container with standard test objects. That way we don't have a lot of code just to construct an object we want to test.
Update:
I added an example of wiring things up in the container.
I'm building out a small project to try to teach myself as much of the fundamentals as possible, which for me means not using a prefabricated framework (As Jeff once put it, "Don't reinvent the wheel, unless you plan on learning more about wheels" [emphasis mine]) and following the principles of Test Driven Development.
In my quest, I recently ran into the concept of Dependency Injection, which appears essential to TDD. My problem is that I can't quite wrap my head around it. My understanding so far is that it more or less amounts to "have the caller pass the class/method any other classes it may need, rather than letting them create them themselves."
I have two example issues that I'm trying to resolve with DI. Am I on the right track with these refactorings?
Database Connection
I'm planning to just use a singleton to handle the database, as I'm currently not expecting to use multiple databases. Initially, my models were going to look something like this:
class Post {
private $id;
private $body;
public static function getPostById($id) {
$db = Database::getDB();
$db->query("SELECT...");
//etc.
return new Post($id, $body);
}
public function edit($newBody) {
$db = Database::getDB();
$db->query("UPDATE...");
//etc.
}
}
With DI, I think it would look more like this:
class Post {
private $db; // new member
private $id;
private $body;
public static function getPostById($id, $db) { // new parameter
$db->query("SELECT..."); // uses parameter
//etc.
return new Post($db, $id, $body);
}
public function edit($id, $newBody) {
$this->db->query("UPDATE..."); // uses member
//etc.
}
}
I can still use the singleton, with credentials specified in the application setup, but I just have to pass it from the controller (controllers being un-unit-testable anyway):
Post::getPostById(123, Database::getDB);
Models calling models
Take, for example, a post which has a view count. Since the logic to determine if a view is new isn't specific to the Post object, it was just going to be a static method on its own object. The Post object would then call it:
class Post {
//...
public function addView() {
if (PageView::registerView("post", $this->id) {
$db = Database::getDB();
$db->query("UPDATE..");
$this->viewCount++;
}
}
With DI, I think it looks more like this:
class Post {
private $db;
//...
public function addView($viewRegistry) {
if ($viewRegistry->registerView("post", $this->id, $this->db) {
$this->db->query("UPDATE..");
$this->viewCount++;
}
}
This changes the call from the controller to this:
$post->addView(new PageView());
Which means instantiating a new instance of a class that only has static methods, which smells bad to me (and I think is impossible in some languages, but doable here because PHP doesn't allow classes themselves to be static).
In this case we're only going one level deep, so having the controller instantiate everything seems workable (although the PageView class is getting its DB connection indirectly by way of the Post's member variable), but it seems like it could get unwieldy if you had to call a method that needed a class that needed the class that needed a class. I suppose that could just mean that's a code smell too though.
Am I on the right track with this, or have I completely misunderstood DI? Any criticisms and suggestions are greatly appreciated.
Yes. It looks like you have the right idea. You'll see that as you implement DI all your dependencies will float to the "top". Having everything at the top will make it easy to mock the necessary objects for testing.
Having a class that needs a class that needs a class is not a bad thing. What your describing there is your object graph. This is normal for DI. Lets take a House object as an example. It has a dependency on a Kitchen; the Kitchen has a dependency on a Sink; the Sink has a dependency on a Faucet and so on. The House's instantiation would look something like new House(new Kitchen(new Sink(new Faucet()))). This helps to enforce the Single Responsibility Principle. (As an aside you should do this instantiation work in something like a factory or builder to further enforce the Single Responsibility Principle.)
Misko Hevery has written extensively about DI. His blog is a great resource. He's also pointed out some of the common flaws (constructor does real work, digging into collaborators, brittle global state and singletons, and class does too much) with warning signs to spot them and ways to fix them. It's worth checking out sometime.
Dependency injection is about injecting. You need some solution to inject the external object.
The traditional approaches are:
constructor injection __construnctor($dependecy) {$this->_object = $dependency}
setter injection setObject($dependency) {$this->_object = $dependency}
gettter injection getObject() {return $this->_dependency} and oveloading this method eg. from stub or mock in the tests.
You may also mix all the above, depends what you need.
Avoid static calls. My personal rule is use static only when you call some functions, e.g. My::strpos() or when dealing with singletons or registry (which should be limited to minimum, because global state is evil).
You will rarely need static methods when your app has a good dependency container.
Take a look at the other dependency injection + [php] topics on SO.
Edit after comment:
The container
Different frameworks handle the container in different way. Generally this is an object, which holds the instances of objects you need, so you don't have to instantiate new object each time. You may register any object with such a container, and then access it anytime you need.
The container may instantiate all the resources you need at boot time, or lazy load the resource when accessed (better solution).
As an example, consider:
Zend Application Resource Plugins
Symfony Dependency Injection Container
Another great reference:
http://martinfowler.com/articles/injection.html
It's certainly going into the right direction but you should not stop there.
The point of DI is to remove strong couplings between classes to allow for easier substitution of single components. This will allow for better testability because you can substitute dependencies more easily with Mocks and Stubs. And once your code is tested, it is much easiert to change and maintain.
Consequently, you should also remove those other aspects in your code that create strong coupling smells as well, e.g. remove the static methods and the singleton and any other globals.
For some more information on that, please see
How is testing the registry pattern or singleton hard in PHP?
http://gooh.posterous.com/singletons-in-php
http://kore-nordmann.de/blog/0103_static_considered_harmful.html
http://fabien.potencier.org/article/11/what-is-dependency-injection
EDIT: with a couple of others answers suggesting to use a DI container, I feel it's necessary to stress that you do not need a DI container to do DI. The second blog post in the last link given above discusses this.
To answer your questions: yes, you are on the right track. To give you more details: this is one of the best posts I found related to DI:
http://www.potstuck.com/2009/01/08/php-dependency-injection
You will understand what a container is:
$book = Container::makeBook();
Regarding the second example: in your method addView I would try to avoid passing the object $viewRegistry, I would check the condition outside in the controller.