MVC: Having static method in models - php

Concise: How I can avoid using static methods in a model?
Loquacious: Suppose I have a user class. Having userID I can get user name by (new user($userID))->getUserName(). Fine, what if I want to lookup a user? (new user())->lookup($uname, $pass). Still fine, but the latter case could be done via a simple static method user::lookup($uname, $pass)!
Some thoughts:
It's OK! Use (new object())->method() whenever you want. So should I create a hollow object to call a function?
Move this function out of your model. If it needs a DB lookup, where is better than Model context?
Define it as a static method. So isn't it lame to have a mixture of public and static methods in a class?
Side note: I've searched this question, no avail!

Move this function out of your model. If it needs a DB lookup, where is better than Model context?
Yes, indeed, this is the best way to solve the problem.
Currently your User class violates single responsibility principle which basically, says "one task - one class".
Right now your User describes user entity/state and handles persistence (in your case - retrieval from database). See, two things.
I suggest you create another class that is going to handle persistence tasks, like add/update/delete user. The simplest solution is to create a primitive repostitory, like this:
<?php
class UserRepository
{
public function addUser(User $user);
public function updateUser(User $user);
public function deleteUser(User $user);
public function getUserById($id);
}
Then retrieval of user can be done in the following manner:
// get an instance of this repository class
$userRepository = new UserRepository;
// ask it to find and return user from the database by ID
$user = $userRepository->getUserById($_GET['id']);
Easy to read, easy to handle, right?
This UserRepository class is actually a primitive implementation of Repository Pattern. UserRepository emulates an in-memory collection of all of your users, hiding implementation inside. It hides actual persistence mechanism from you as user: imagine, your coleague would write this class and you're just using its methods, like UserRepository::getById(1) - you don't even know/care if it grabs data from files/db/API. That's neat. )
This particular implementation is described very clearly in Kristopher Wilson's book "The Clean Architecture in PHP", which I highly recommed for you to read: it will take you two-three evenings, and push you to the next level.
You can extend the list of methods, of course, add lookups, etc.
class UserRepository
{
public function getByCompany(Company $company);
public function getByEmail($email);
public function countTotal();
}
In fact, every time you need to grab/add/update user in the database, you should do it via this repository.
I would like to emphasize that this is a simple implementation of the pattern, particularly, if you compare it to what Martin Fowler describes as Repository. However, in most cases it's totally fine.

It's OK! Use (new object())->method() whenever you want. So should I create a hollow object to call a function?
depends on how much creating an instance will cost
Move this function out of your model
Factory Pattern comes in mind here.
notes here:
What happens when $userID in the first call do not exists?
Isnt your lookup() method not creating 2 instances at one call, first for lookup, second the found one that is returned?
A FactoryPattern for example can have findByID() or findByName() and return an UserObject. And all that should not depend on this syntax at all: (new object())->method(), that is nice, but not always best practise.

Related

PHP MVC - Model needs to access data from another model

I have built a small PHP MVC framework and just want to clarify the best way to get data from one model into another. For example:
I have a Users_model that contains a method called get_users().
I also have Communications_model that needs to get specific or all user data and as such needs to access the get_users() method from the Users_model.
Is it best practice to:
a) Instantiate the Users_model in a controller and pass the data from the get_users() method into the Communications_model?
b) Instantiate the Users_model inside the Communications_model and run get_users() from there, so it can be accessed directly?
c) Another way?
Many thanks for any help.
It depends of your motive behind this.
If you want effect on result, then using well know library, like Doctrine etc. should be your choice.
If you want to learn design patterns, then you should get read about ActiveRecord or DataMapper + Repository patterns. Then implements both and check out.
If you want your code, this way - ORM should represent relations of data, then you should ask what it more important? If you menage communication (bus, train), then user can be there assigned and getting users from communication is OK. If user have communication (like car), then relation is reversed.
All depends, what is you motive behind this. Using library, like Doctrine, could you help you running you application. If you want learn design patterns, then check out both options to get some experience.
What you call "users model" is a repository. And what you call "communication model" looks like a service.
Your communication service should have the user repository passed in constructor as a dependency.
I honestly think, that a huge part of your confusion is that you try to call all of those things "models". Those classes are not part of the same layer. You migth find this answer to be useful.
All are possible ways but what I usually do is, whenever there is any function that I think would be reused a number of times by a number of objects, I declare it as static.
It would save the effort of playing with object declaration and would be easily accessible by ClassName::function();
Again, it's a design choice, usually objects are declared right there in the controller and used as per the need but just to save declaration of objects again and again I follow the approach of declaring function static.
The simple principle here is using the __construct() (constructor) to build the object with the relevant properties from the Database. The User Model will have a static function (therefore accessible through any scope) to create an array of instanced objects by simply passing the model data through a new self() which returns the instance.
The concept is you end up with an array of User_Model instances each being a build of the Database columns to properties. All that's left is to create the Database Model and the functions to retrieve the columns and data.
class Communications_Model {
private $_all_users;
public function getUsers() {
$this->_all_users = Users_Model::loadAllUsers();
}
}
class Users_Model {
private $_example_property;
public function __construct($user_id) {
$data = SomeDatabaseModel::getConnection()->loadUserFromDatabase((int)$user_id);
$this->_example_property = $data['example_column'];
}
public static function loadAllUsers() {
$users = array();
foreach(SomeDataModel::getConnection()->loadAllUsers() as $data) {
$users[] = new self($data['user_id']);
}
return $users;
}
}
Of course, now, you have a $_all_users; property that has an array of instanced User Models containing the data.

Constructor injection for two mutually dependent classes

A user fills in the form and submits it. Based on the input, an object Organization is hydrated. I want to separate communication with database from the actual object.
I thought of creating an OrganizationMapper that holds the methods for database communication (save, delete...). The organization class would get the OrganizationMapper through the constructor.
With these class definitions, however, I can't instantiate the classes because of their mutual dependence.
How else could I separate the database communication from Organization and put it into OrganizationMapper?
class Organization
{
protected $id;
protected $name;
... other properties ...
public function __construct(OrganizationMapper $mapper)
{
$this->mapper = $mapper;
}
public function getId() {...}
public function setId($id) {...}
... other methods ...
public function saveToDb()
{
$this->mapper->save($this);
}
The OrganizationMapper is
class OrganizationMapper
{
public function __construct(Organization $organization)
{
$this->organization = $organization
}
... other methods
public function save($organization)
{... the code to use the methods of Organization class to save the data to the database...}
}
And that's why circular dependencies are usually considered a bad thing.
Kidding aside, it seems to me that you do not actually need the constructor dependency in the OrganizationMapper class. From the looks of it, you're passing the Organization instance that you want to persist as a parameter into the mapper's save() method anyway and shouldn't need the instance attribute $this->organization in that class at all.
In general, I'd try to keep the OrganizationMapper stateless. Try to avoid storing an Organization instance as an instance attribute (especially if you actually use that same mapper instance for persisting multiple Organizations). Just do as you already did with the save() method and pass the Organization object as a method parameter.
Also, I would not associate the Organization class with the mapper. One could argue that this violates the Single Responsibility Principle as it's not the class' responsibility to persist itself. You could move this logic to the calling code and have the Organization class not know about the mapper at all (which is nice, because you completely eliminate the circular dependency between the two classes):
class Organization
{
protected $id;
protected $name;
// <other properties here>
// <getters and setters here>
}
class OrganizationMapper
{
public function save(Organization $organization)
{
// save $organization to DB, somehow
}
}
$organization = new Organization();
$organization->setName('Foobar International Inc.');
$mapper = new OrganizationMapper();
$mapper->save($organization);
To find a better way of seperating these two concerns, think about the purposes of your two objects:
an Organization is there to give you access to all informations of an organization
your OrganizationMapper is there to save a Organization object to database.
When you think about it like this, then there's a couple of questions, that rise up:
Why does your Organization need a saveToDb() method? It's not it's job to save it?
An instance of OrganizationMapper should be able to save any Organization in the database, so why do you pass it in twice? (once in the constructor, and once in the save($organization) method). In that case - what happens, if you pass a different organization to the constructor than to the save method?
In your current example, how would you load an Organization from Database?
As alternative, I would suggest to remove saveToDb() from Organization entirely, as it's not the job of the org to save itself to database. Additionally, I would remove the current Constructor from OrganizationMapper. In it's current design, there's little reason to pass the Organization to the constructor.
Also, I would rename the OrganizationMapper to OrganizationRepository or OrganizationService. The primary purpose of that class is not to map SQL to Objects but to retrieve/save Organizations from/to DB. (Also, in OOP, classes should only follow the single responsibility pattern, so maybe the part mapping between SQL and Objects should happen in specializied class)
As a side note: generally, it's not a great idea, to give many ways to do exactly the same thing (e.g. saving an organization). This will probably just cause inconsistencies over time (consider that you will be adding some validation logic in the future, but might forget to also add it in the second place).
I hope this helps you :)
Disclaimer: I name your Organization type as OrganizationEntity in this post.
Pretty simply, it's the other way around.
The OrganisationMapper gets an OrganisationEntity object and persists it to wherever you want to, by means you can choose.
For your problem:
move the saveToDb() method from your OrganisationEntity to the OrganisationMapper and pass it an object to be saved.
I don't know why Mapper should do any opperations on DB? Mapper sounds like converting Entity (Organization) into something that can be an input for DB operation ie. Query Object.
You should rename your class into DAO or Repository. It would be better name.
IMHO, the best idea would be to have:
Organization as an object that holds domain logic
OrganizationMapper should convert your domain object into some kind of query object
OrganizationDao should take Organization as an input param and use OrganizationMapper to convert it and do operation on DB.
BTW, why you are not using some kind of an ORM like Doctrine for example? It would make your life easier :)
You can't do that in php. Imagine if it would be posibble. Then instance of Organization would have a property OrganizationMapper, which would have a property Organization. So, property of a property of an instance of the class would be the instance itself! It is only possible in languages with pointers like c++. So, I see only 2 solutions here:
Put the classes together
Have a single link (maybe have 1 class that calls another while second doesn't call first.)

PHP OO Design: extend static class or instance class?

Want to improve this post? Provide detailed answers to this question, including citations and an explanation of why your answer is correct. Answers without enough detail may be edited or deleted.
I have an application which defines certain actions on common object types.
For example, you can have forum post and images. For each forum post and image you can do the following actions: recommend, comment, rate.
I have currently defined a static class
class CoreObjectUtil
{
protected static $_objObjKey = null;
protected static $_objTypeKey = null;
public static function getComments (...) {...}
public static function getCommentsArray (...) {...}
public static function getRatings (...) {...}
public static function getRatingsArray (...) {...}
}
which is then subclassed like this
class ForumPostUtil extends CoreObjectUtil
{
protected static $_objObjKey = 'forumpost';
protected static $_objTypeKey = 'FP';
}
to provide the relevant functionality for forum posts. The 2 parameters suffice to let the generic code in CoreObjectUtil know what to do for each object type for which these functions are applicable.
To use these functions, I am calling the selectPostProcess() class in my instance classes like this:
public function selectPostProcess ($data)
{
$data = ForumPostUtil::mergeRatings ($data);
$data = ForumPostUtil::mergeComments ($data);
...
}
This works well and keeps the main code centralized in the CoreObjectUtil class with its subclasses providing the data setup to let the code in CoreObjectUtil know what to do.
An alternative approach would be to move the code from CoreObjectUtil into a base instance class which is then inherited in my instance classes. So rather than calling static methods from CoreObjectUtil I would be doing method calls like $this->getComments().
Either approach would work just fine from a functionality type point of view. I'm wondering however what ObjectOriented design guidelines and experienced ObjectOriented developers think of these two approaches. Which way of doing this is preferable and why?
I would appreciate any thoughts/insights on this matter. I can code either way without problem, but I'm having a tough time deciding which route to take.
That code you have now is, I think, the most procedural approach ever posing as OOP i.e what you have now is at the opposite side of OOP. Using the class keyword doesn't make it OOP.
First of all, you should forget about static, it's not that it's bad ot use but it's so easily abused that you really have to try first if the functionality can belong to an object modelling a domain concept (in your case forum related). Only if it doesn't make sense this way, you'll have it as a static method somewhere in a utility class.
Truth be told you have to redesign yur app around the OOP mindset, that is to define classes with behaviour which model a specific concept or process and which have only one responsaiblity. More over you should not mix things like business objects (object which model the forum concepts) with persistence concerns i.e don't put in the same object business functionality and database access. Use a separate class for accessing storage.
Use the Repository pattern to separate business layer from the persistence layer. Try not to mix together create/update functionality with querying IF it complicates things. Use a separate read model specifically for querying in that case.
The code you show us is about querying. You can have a simple DAO/Repository (call it what you want in this case) like this
class ThreadViewData
{
public $Id ;
public $Title;
public $Comments; //etc
}
class ThreadsQueryRepository
{
//we inject the db access object , this helps with testing
function _construct($db) { }
public function GetThread($id){ } //this returns a ThreadViewData
}
The postPRocess functionality is a service that can Merge Ratings and Comments. But maybe the merge functionality is more suitable to the Rating and Comment objects. I don't know the domain to actually give a valid suggestion.
Point is, you have to think in objects not in functions and right now all you have is functions.

Static method get - is this bad practice?

Had a discussion with a colleague about wether this is bad practice or not. Now I can not find immediate examples of this online.
We have a lot of database object mappers and call it's functions like so
(example) - the setId method get's the row from the database and set's it to predefined propertys
class Person {
public static function get($id) {
$object = new Person;
$object->setId($id);
return $object;
}
}
Using it like this we can use simple constructions like this: (where we got the id from for-example a post)
$person = Person::get($id);
instead of
$person = new Person;
$person->setId($id);
Now, my instinct tells me this is bad practice. But I can not explain it. Maybe someone here can explain why this is, or is not bad practice
Here are some other examples how we use it. we mainly use it for getters. (just the names, not the code. Almost all of them just run a query, which can return 1 object and then use the id of the result to use the setId method)
class CatalogArticle {
public static function get($id) { }
public static function getByArticlenumber($articlenumber) {} //$articlenumber is unique in the database
public static function getRandom() {} //Runs a query returning a random row
}
This isn't horrible persay. It's an implementation of a Factory Method design pattern. It's not bad at all in principle.
However, in your specific example, it's not really doing anything significant, so I'm not so sure if it's necessary. You could eliminate the need by taking a (perhaps optional) parameter to the constructor for the id. Then anyone could call $foo = new Person($id); rather than needing an explicit factory.
But if the instantiation is complex, or you want the ability to build several different people types that can only be determined by logic, a factory method may work better. For example, let's say you need to determine the type of person to instantiate by some parameter. Then, a factory method on Person would be appropriate. The method would determine what "type" to load, and then instantiate that class.
Statics in general are hard to test and don't allow for polymorphic changes like an instance would. They also create hard dependencies between classes in the code. They are not horrible, but you should really think about it if you want to use one. An option would be to use a Builder or a Abstract Factory. That way, you create an instance of the builder/factory, and then let that instance determine how to instantiate the resulting class...
One other note. I would rename that method from Person::get() to something a little more semantically appropriate. Perhaps Person::getInstance() or something else appropriate.
This blog post should tell you why people don't like static methods better than i could:
http://kore-nordmann.de/blog/0103_static_considered_harmful.html
The question that strikes me most about your current code snippet: Is a Person allowed to NOT have an Id ?
I feel like that should be an constructor argument if it's representing a real Person. If you use that class to create new persons that ofc might not work.
The difference between the 2 calls is minor. Both "create" a Person class and set the Id so you are not winning / loosing anything there when it comes to 'hard wired dependencies'.
The advantage only shows when you want to be able to pass a Person into another object and that objects needs to change the ID (as an example, the blog post should explain that better than i did here).
I'm only adding to edorian's post, but I've used static get methods in the past, where there is a caching engine in place, and (for example) I might have a given Person object in memcache, and would rather retrieve it from the cache than going off to the database.
For example:
class Person {
public static function get($id) {
if(Cache::contains("Person", $id))
{
return Cache::get("Person", $id);
}
else
{
//fictional get_person_from_database, basically
//getting an instance of Person from a database
$object = get_person_from_database($id);
}
return $object;
}
}
In this way, all cache handling is done by the class in question, rather than the caller getting a person calls having to worry about the cache.
long story short, yes, they are bad practice:
http://r.je/static-methods-bad-practice.html
http://misko.hevery.com/2008/12/15/static-methods-are-death-to-testability/
A good reason apart of everything is that you 'should' be testing your code. Static methods cause issues, so there you have a good reason:
if you want to follow good practices, test your code
Ergo, if static causes testing issues, static prevent writing tests so it prevents to follow good practices :-)
time goes things changes.
just in case you have problems with testing you can use AspectMock library
https://github.com/Codeception/AspectMock
any way static is not so bad at all. to use static you should just know what you are doing and why. if you will place static only as fast solution it is bad idea in 99% of variations. in 1% time it is still bad solution but it gives you time when you need it.

Parameters vs. Attributes(class variables)?

In OOP, is it better to use class attributes within class functions, or just pass parameters to them.
class User{
private $user = array();
public function Get_Existing_User($user_id){
//SQL selects user info for existing user
$this->user = mysqli_fetch_assoc();
}
public function Set_User($user_data){
$this->user = (array) $user_data;
}
public function Add_User(){
//insert everything from $this->user into database
}
public function Get_User(){
return $this->user;
}
}
VS
class User{
public function Get_Existing_User($user_id){
//SQL selects user info for existing user
$user = mysqli_fetch_assoc();
return $user;
}
public function Add_User($user_data){
//insert everything from $user_data into database
}
}
Whats the better way to go?
Between your solutions, first is better, but you have to change the names of the functions. 'get' should be used only if function returns something.
The reason it is better is that it doesn't use side effects, side effects always bad as they are invisible to user of the class but change class behavior. So you should try to minimize them or make them obvious as they are in the first case, when they not really 'side'.
But in this particular case, Get_Existing_User and Add_User should be static functions, that return new User object, it is sometimes called as static constructor. The reason why it is much better is that it makes it clear what that functions do, they get something as parameter (user_id of existing user or first_name, last_name and other attributes for a new user) and create an object that represents the user. All database manipulation will be hidden away. Object itself should have properties for name and other attributes and even Save() method to push the changes back. But main idea is that you always work with constructed object, object that already have context and linked to something in the real world (that is, user in the database), not an empty shell that will be filled in as you go.
Some clarification on terminology first:
What you call class functions are more properly called methods. A method is a function on an object instance. Additionally, classes may have methods. These are called class methods or static methods. When you use the term class function, you are thus confusing the meaning.
That settled, there is no worse or better of the two approaches. You would use both, depending on the context. Parameters have a smaller scope, and thus cause less coupling. If everything else is the same, I would therefore say that parameters are preferable to setting an object property.
That said, there are usually other factors that can determine which to pick. You can think of an object as a scope for related variables. If a variable belongs to that scope, it would make sense to assign it to a property.
Class attributes are expected to describe the state of an instance of the class known as an object. As such, the attributes can be used by any function of the class to modify it's state. Function parameters on the other hand may have nothing to do with the current state of the object but can be used to modify it's state.
For example: a user object could be expected to have a user name attribute, a password attribute, and an authenticated attribute. this user object also has a function called authenticate that takes a parameter which describes an authentication method. The parameter is used to modify the state of the user object but would not be held as an attribute of it.
That entirely depends on wether you're going to re-use the data and how you're using the Class.
If you create many individual instances of the Class and each Object represents a unique user, it makes sense to persist the data in a member variable. If you're using the Class as a DAO (data access object) with a lot of one-off operations, it probably doesn't make a lot of sense to persist the data. But even in a DAO, depending on its inner workings, it might make sense to store the data at least temporarily in a member variable if there are many functions involved in a single call (like beforeQuery and afterQuery callbacks or the like).
There's no one-better-way-fits-it-all.
It is important that you choose the method that best suits your situation. Ignoring that not-so-helpful suggestion I encourage you to take a good look at some important principles in Object Oriented Design
Coupling
Cohesion
A strong understanding of these topics will help you assess your situation and code to suit the goals of the project. As your project grows, you'll likely find that you'll want to use methods that have optional parameters to interact with your objects to achieve high cohesion and loose coupling. Then you'll use methods and parameters like an expert.

Categories