Singleton alternative for PHP PDO - php

This is my class that I'm using to connect to my MySQL database.
As you can see I'm using the Singleton Pattern but almost every post says it is a very bad pattern. What is the best approach to create a database connection class? Is there a better pattern?
class DB extends PDO {
function __construct() {
try {
parent::__construct('mysql:host=' . 'localhost' . ';dbname=' . 'kida', 'root', 'root', array(PDO::MYSQL_ATTR_INIT_COMMAND => "SET NAMES 'utf8'");
parent::setAttribute(PDO::ATTR_ERRMODE, PDO::ERRMODE_EXCEPTION);
} catch(PDOException $e) {
echo $e->getMessage();
}
}
public static function get_instance() {
static $instance = false;
if(!$instance) $instance = new self;
return $instance; //returns pdo object.
}
}

Using the singleton-pattern (or antipattern) is considered bad practice because it makes testing your code very hard and the depencies very convoluted until the project becomes hard to manage at some point. You can only have one fixed instance of your object per php-process. When writing automated unit-tests for your code you need to be able to replace the object the code you want to test uses with a test-double that behaves in a prdictable manner. When the code you want to test uses a singleton, then you cannot replace that with a test double.
The best way (to my knowlege) to organize the interaction between objects (like your Database-Object and other objects using the database) would be to reverse the direction of the depencies. That means that your code is not requesting the object it needs from an external source (in most cases a global one like the static 'get_instance' method from your code) but instead gets its depency-object (the one it needs) served from outside before it needs it. Normally you would use a Depency-Injection Manager/Container like this one from the symfony project to compose your objects.
Objects that use the database-object would get it injected upon construction. It can be injected either by a setter method or in the constructor. In most cases (not all) is it better to inject the depency (your db-object) in the constructor because that way the object that uses the db-object will never be in an invalid state.
Example:
interface DatabaseInterface
{
function query($statement, array $parameters = array());
}
interface UserLoaderInterface
{
public function loadUser($userId);
}
class DB extends PDO implements DatabaseInterface
{
function __construct(
$dsn = 'mysql:host=localhost;dbname=kida',
$username = 'root',
$password = 'root',
) {
try {
parent::__construct($dsn, $username, $password, array(PDO::MYSQL_ATTR_INIT_COMMAND => "SET NAMES 'utf8'");
parent::setAttribute(PDO::ATTR_ERRMODE, PDO::ERRMODE_EXCEPTION);
} catch(PDOException $e) {
echo $e->getMessage();
}
}
function query($statement, array $parameters = array())
{
# ...
}
}
class SomeFileBasedDB implements DatabaseInterface
{
function __construct($filepath)
{
# ...
}
function query($statement, array $parameters = array())
{
# ...
}
}
class UserLoader implements UserLoaderInterface
{
protected $db;
public function __construct(DatabaseInterface $db)
{
$this->db = $db;
}
public function loadUser($userId)
{
$row = $this->db->query("SELECT name, email FROM users WHERE id=?", [$userId]);
$user = new User();
$user->setName($row[0]);
$user->setEmail($row[1]);
return $user;
}
}
# the following would be replaced by whatever DI software you use,
# but a simple array can show the concept.
# load this from a config file
$parameters = array();
$parameters['dsn'] = "mysql:host=my_db_server.com;dbname=kida_production";
$parameters['db_user'] = "mydbuser";
$parameters['db_pass'] = "mydbpassword";
$parameters['file_db_path'] = "/some/path/to/file.db";
# this will be set up in a seperate file to define how the objects are composed
# (in symfony, these are called 'services' and this would be defined in a 'services.xml' file)
$container = array();
$container['db'] = new DB($parameters['dsn'], $parameters['db_user'], $parameters['db_pass']);
$container['fileDb'] = new SomeFileBasedDB($parameters['file_db_path']);
# the same class (UserLoader) can now load it's users from different sources without having to know about it.
$container['userLoader'] = new UserLoader($container['db']);
# or: $container['userLoader'] = new UserLoader($container['fileDb']);
# you can easily change the behaviour of your objects by wrapping them into proxy objects.
# (In symfony this is called 'decorator-pattern')
$container['userLoader'] = new SomeUserLoaderProxy($container['userLoader'], $container['db']);
# here you can choose which user-loader is used by the user-controller
$container['userController'] = new UserController($container['fileUserLoader'], $container['viewRenderer']);
Notice how the different classes no not know about each other. There are no direct depencies between them. This is done by not require the actual class in the constructor, but instead require the interface that provides the methods it needs.
That way you can always write replacements for your classes and just replace them in the depency-injection container. You do not have to check the whole codebase because the replacement just has to implement the same interface that is used by all other classes. You know that everything will continue to work because every component using the old class only knows about the interface and calls only methods known by the interface.
P.S.: Please excuse my constant references to the symfony project, it is just what i am most used to. Other project's like Drupal, Propel or Zend probably also have concepts like this.

Related

What is the difference between a public constructor which calls a class method and a class method that calls another class method?

I'm a little new to OO programming and am having trouble grasping why one mechanism works and another does not.
I've create a simple class that is to return a MySQL database handle. My attempt at returning the handle directly from a constructor fails. But succeeds from either a class method or from a class(?) method after an instance has been created. Here's the class definition and the sample script
<?php
class HMMDatabaseHandle {
private static $configfile = "config.json";
// uncomment for test 1
// public function __construct () {
// return self::get_handle_admin();
// }
public static function create() {
return self::get_handle_admin();
}
private static function get_handle_admin() {
$config = json_decode(file_get_contents(self::$configfile));
$dbhost = $config->database->dbhost;
$dbname = $config->database->dbname;
$dbuser = $config->database->dbuser;
$dbpass = $config->database->dbpass;
try {
return new PDO("mysql:host=$dbhost;dbname=$dbname", $dbuser, $dbpass);
}
catch(PDOException $e) {
echo $e->getMessage();
}
}
}
?>
And here is the test script I'm using:
<?php
require_once 'HMMDatabaseHandle.php';
// Test 1 - fails (uncomment constructor func) at call to prepare() with:
// PHP Fatal error: Call to undefined method HMMDatabaseHandle::prepare()
//$dbh = new HMMDatabaseHandle();
// Test 2 - works when class creates default constructor
// i.e. no explicit __construct() func
// Fetching data from executed query is fine
//$db = new HMMDatabaseHandle();
//$dbh = $db->create();
// Works using static class methods rather than instance
$dbh = HMMDatabaseHandle::create();
$sth = $dbh->prepare('select data_title,track_id from master');
$sth->execute();
while($row = $sth->fetch(PDO::FETCH_ASSOC)) {
...
}
My questions are:
Why can't I return the handle directly from a constructor when it seems so similar to calling the class method directly? Why does it matter whether the constructor calls the class method or my script calls it?
If I create an instance with PHP's default constructor, am I really calling a class method with $db->create()?
I seem to be missing some fundamental concept here. Thanks in advance!
You can't return the handle from the constructor in that context because that would violate the defined behavior of new. new SomeClass(); will only ever return an instance of the class, regardless of what other methods are called in the constructor.
__construct() is a void method. It is not intended to return anything1. That doesn't mean that the other code in it doesn't get executed, just that your return is disregarded in the context of creating a new object. This makes sense as the primary purpose for the constructor is to provide a means to pass dependencies to the object. Sometimes it is used to do additional initialization/setup of the object, but many people believe it should not do any work other than assigning the given arguments to the object's properties. Either way, there should be no need for it to return anything.
1 You can actually call the __construct() method explicitly after you create the object, and then it will behave like a normal method and your return will work.
$db = new HMMDatabaseHandle();
$dbh = $db->__construct();
var_dump($dbh); // PDO Object
This isn't a normal thing to do though, and I can't think of a scenario where it would be useful or desirable. I just wanted to point out that it is possible.
Why can't I return the handle directly from a constructor when it
seems so similar to calling the class method directly?
If you were able to do that, then you wouldn't have an instance of HMMDatabaseHandle; you'd have an instance of PDO. How would you access any other methods that HMMDatabaseHandle provides?
While I fully agree with #Don't Panic's answer, I need to also point out that you're mixing static and instance methods.
As a general rule of thumb, use the static keyword when you want to be able to call a method without instantiating the object first. If you want to actually create and use an object, then you can define you class like so and use $this-> (or $object-> if outside of the class) instead of :: to access instance properties and methods.
<?php
class HMMDatabaseHandle
{
private $configfile = "config.json";
public function __construct()
{
// You're not initializing anything in here, so this constructor is optional.
}
public function create()
{
return $this->get_handle_admin();
}
private function get_handle_admin()
{
$config = json_decode(file_get_contents($this->configfile));
$dbhost = $config->database->dbhost;
$dbname = $config->database->dbname;
$dbuser = $config->database->dbuser;
$dbpass = $config->database->dbpass;
try {
return new PDO("mysql:host=$dbhost;dbname=$dbname", $dbuser, $dbpass);
}
catch (PDOException $e) {
echo $e->getMessage();
}
}
}
To actually execute this, you need to now instantiate new class.
$dbManager = new HMMDatabaseHandle();
$handle = $dbManager->create();
Finally, there is a trick you can employ to make your constructor chainable. Simply wrap it in brackets.
$handle = (new HMMDatabaseHandle())->create();

database connection is not recognized in my functions [duplicate]

A couple of the options are:
$connection = {my db connection/object};
function PassedIn($connection) { ... }
function PassedByReference(&$connection) { ... }
function UsingGlobal() {
global $connection;
...
}
So, passed in, passed by reference, or using global. I'm thinking in functions that are only used within 1 project that will only have 1 database connection. If there are multiple connections, the definitely passed in or passed by reference.
I'm thining passed by reference is not needed when you are in PHP5 using an object, so then passed in or using global are the 2 possibilities.
The reason I'm asking is because I'm getting tired of always putting in $connection into my function parameters.
I use a Singleton ResourceManager class to handle stuff like DB connections and config settings through a whole app:
class ResourceManager {
private static $DB;
private static $Config;
public static function get($resource, $options = false) {
if (property_exists('ResourceManager', $resource)) {
if (empty(self::$$resource)) {
self::_init_resource($resource, $options);
}
if (!empty(self::$$resource)) {
return self::$$resource;
}
}
return null;
}
private static function _init_resource($resource, $options = null) {
if ($resource == 'DB') {
$dsn = 'mysql:host=localhost';
$username = 'my_username';
$password = 'p4ssw0rd';
try {
self::$DB = new PDO($dsn, $username, $password);
} catch (PDOException $e) {
echo 'Connection failed: ' . $e->getMessage();
}
} elseif (class_exists($resource) && property_exists('ResourceManager', $resource)) {
self::$$resource = new $resource($options);
}
}
}
And then in functions / objects / where ever:
function doDBThingy() {
$db = ResourceManager::get('DB');
if ($db) {
$stmt = $db->prepare('SELECT * FROM `table`');
etc...
}
}
I use it to store messages, error messages and warnings, as well as global variables. There's an interesting question here on when to actually use this type of class.
Try designing your code in an object-oriented fashion. Methods that use the database should be grouped in a class, and the class instance should contain the database connection as a class variable. That way the database connection is available to the functions that need it, but it's not global.
class MyClass {
protected $_db;
public function __construct($db)
{
$this->_db = $db;
}
public function doSomething()
{
$this->_db->query(...);
}
}
I see that a lot of people have suggested some kind of static variable.
Essentially, there is very little difference between a global variable and a static variable. Except for the syntax, they have exactly the same characteristics. As such, you are gaining nothing at all, by replacing a global variable with a static variable. In most examples, there is a level of decoupling in that the static variable isn't referred directly, but rather through a static method (Eg. a singleton or static registry). While slightly better, this still has the problems of a global scope. If you ever need to use more than one database connection in your application, you're screwed. If you ever want to know which parts of your code has side-effects, you need to manually inspect the implementation. That's not stuff that will make or break your application, but it will make it harder to maintain.
I propose that you chose between one of:
Pass the instance as arguments to the functions that needs it. This is by far the simplest, and it has all the benefits of narrow scope, but it can get rather unwieldy. It is also a source for introducing dependencies, since some parts of your code may end up becoming a middleman. If that happens, go on to ..
Put the instance in the scope of the object, which has the method that needs it. Eg. if the method Foo->doStuff() needs a database connection, pass it in Foo's constructor and set it as a protected instance variable on Foo. You can still end up with some of the problems of passing in the method, but it's generally less of a problem with unwieldy constructors, than with methods. If your application gets big enough, you can use a dependency injection container to automate this.
My advice is to avoid global in the bulk of the code - it's dangerous, hard to track and will bite you.
The way that I'd do this is to have a function called getDB() which can either be at class level by way of a constructor injection or static within a common class.
So the code becomes
class SomeClass {
protected $dbc;
public function __construct($db) {
$this->dbc = $db;
}
public function getDB() {
return $this->dbc;
}
function read_something() {
$db = getDB();
$db->query();
}
}
or using a common shared class.
function read_something() {
$db = System::getDB();
$db->query();
}
No matter how much elegant system design you do, there are always a few items that are necessarily global in scope (such as DB, Session, Config), and I prefer to keep these as static methods in my System class.
Having each class require a connection via the constructor is the best way of doing this, by best I mean most reliable and isolated.
However be aware that using a common shared class to do this can impact on the ability to isolate fully the objects using it and also the ability to perform unit tests on these objects.
None of the above.
All the mysql functions take the database connection argument optionally. If you leave that argument out, the last connection by mysql_connect() is assumed.
function usingFunc() {
$connection = getConnection();
...
}
function getConnection() {
static $connectionObject = null;
if ($connectionObject == null) {
$connectionObject = connectFoo("whatever","connection","method","you","choose");
}
return $connectionObject;
}
This way, the static $connectionObject is preserved between getConnection calls.

Difference Between Class with constructor and Class without when calling a function?

What's the difference between a class with constructor and class without when calling a function in this code? below is my example code
Class w/ Constructor:
class DatabaseConnection
{
public $database_host = "";
public $database_name = "";
public $database_username = "";
public $database_password = "";
public function __construct( $database_host, $database_name, $database_username, $database_password )
{
$this->$database_host = $database_host;
$this->$database_name = $database_name;
$this->$database_username = $database_username;
$this->$database_password = $database_password;
}
public function connect_database()
{
$database_connection = null;
try {
$database_connection = new PDO( "mysql:host={$database_host};
dbname={$database_name}",
$database_username,
$database_password );
$database_connection->setAttribute( PDO::ATTR_ERRMODE,
PDO::ERRMODE_EXCEPTION );
} catch ( PDOException $pdo_exception ) {
trigger_error( $pdo_exception,
E_USER_ERROR );
}
return $database_connection;
}
}
Class without constructor:
class DatabaseConnection
{
public function connect_database( $database_host, $database_name, $database_username, $database_password )
{
$database_connection = null;
try {
$database_connection = new PDO( "mysql:host={$database_host};
dbname={$database_name}",
$database_username,
$database_password );
$database_connection->setAttribute( PDO::ATTR_ERRMODE,
PDO::ERRMODE_EXCEPTION );
} catch ( PDOException $pdo_exception ) {
trigger_error( $pdo_exception,
E_USER_ERROR );
}
return $database_connection;
}
}
Call a function in a class that has constructor:
$db = new DatabaseConnection( "localhost", "dbname", "username", "password" )
$db->connect_database();
Call a fucntion in a class that has no constructor:
$db = new DatabaseConnection();
$db->connect_database( "localhost", "dbname", "username", "password" );
Technically, almost everything that is done in a constructor could also be done within other functions. There are advantages in using constructors though. One huge benefit I think lies within the semantics.
semantics of a constructor
When I say something like $house = new House(), I do expect to have a house. I would not expect to have a skeleton of a house, with all the walls and the roof missing. I would not expect, that I'm required to call $house->build() or $house->complete() after I created it. Because if I need to call that, it wasn't a house, it was a template of a house or a design or whatever.
The same logic goes for your DatabaseConnection. If I have to call connect_database() (in either of your two cases), I would argue, that the DatabaseConnection wasn't a database connection before, so what does new DatabaseConnection([args]) actually mean in your case? It creates an object of the class DatabaseConnection, that can - after creation - be used to create a database connection. So, technically, it's a DatabaseConnector.
Constructors have many advantages, mainly when you don't have any influence on which functions get called on it. Let's for example assume, that you're writing a database connector for a function called getBlogEntry, because your blog is super dynamic and stuff.
var $connectionString = "mysql:localhost;someparams";
function getBlogEntry($request) {
global $connectionString; // global is bad, but space is precious
$db = new DatabaseConnection($connectionString);
$db->query([query to fetch the current blog entry])
}
The point here is, you don't want to call a different connect function after creating the object. When the object exists, the connection should exist. Your API should be as clear as possible. Technically there might be no difference between doing the work in the constructor or in another function, but there sure as hell is a semantic difference. You should have a good argument not doing something in a constructor that's necessary to actually use all the functions of an object.
answer to the question
To actually answer your question. The class with constructor has 4 member variables, which you can be sure that whoever created an object of that class has provided those values. Setting those values can of course also be done by your connect_database. For the connect_database it doesn't make a big difference if it uses member vars or params (there is of course a small difference, accessing member vars is different than params, but that should not be your concern - especially in this case).
However, in your specific code example, you wouldn't need the DatabaseConnection class at all! You could just define the (second) function and be done with it.
It is not required to explicitly define a constructor; however, all classes must have a constructor, and a default empty constructor will be generated if you don't provide any. If you create constructor with parameters it simply passes them to the fields in the class.

Singleton v Single Instance DB Connection in PHP

I'm moving onto teaching myself OOP in PHP.
I'm creating a couple of little web apps and have followed a lot of tutorials that either create the database (using PDO) via a Singleton, or via passing the global around. I've read that these are pretty much the same thing and are both to be avoided like the plague.
So I've watched the Google Tech Talks on clean code, and read almost every SO article on dependency injection and the like. I have a couple of questions.
The clean code videos suggest you shouldn't do 'work' in your constructors. Is this 'work' in reference to business logic. Ie. If my class's job is to create another object, is that an OK kind of 'work'?
For example, in trying to conform to single repsonibility classes I created three.
Class DB - which actually connects to the database.
Class DBFactory - which creates the DB object which connects to the database.
Class DBInstance - which returns a single instance of the DBFactory created PDO object.
Please note that I'm trying to create a single instance, without creating a Singleton pattern.
So I try and pass my dependencies for each class up the chain. I find myself in a position where I have to create all of the objects (from DB down) so I can inject the dependencies. For some reason I thought it would work the other way, I'd create the first object, which would create the second for me etc. I'm clearly missing something?
Hopefully this helps others as well - there seems to be a myriad of questions relating to this stuff and databases but very little good examples.
(I should mention this does work, I do get a list of hotel names out of the database!)
TestCode.php
include './classes/DB.php';
include './classes/DBFactory.php';
include './classes/DBInstance.php';
include './classes/Location.php';
$db = new DB;
$dbfactory = new DBFactory($db);
$dbinstance = new DBInstance($dbfactory);
$dbh = $dbinstance->getDbInstance();
//Example business logic
$location_names = Location::getLocationNames($dbh);
print_r($location_names);
Class DB.php:
class DB {
private $_dbhost = 'myhost';
private $_dbname = 'myname';
private $_dbuser = 'myuser';
private $_dbpass = 'mypass';
private $_error;
public function connect() {
try {
return new PDO("mysql:host=$this->_dbhost;dbname=$this->_dbname",
$this->_dbuser, $this->_dbpass);
}
catch (PDOException $e) {
$this->_error = 'Error! ' . $e->getMessage() . '<br />';
die();
}
}
public function getError() {
if (isset($this->_error)) {
return $this->_error;
}
}
}
Class DBFactory.php
class DBFactory {
private $_dbh;
public function __construct(DB $db) {
$this->_dbh = $db;
}
public function Create() {
return $this->_dbh->Connect();
}
}
Class DBInstance.php
class DBInstance {
private static $_dbinstance;
public function __construct(DBFactory $dbfactory) {
if (!isset(self::$_dbinstance)) {
self::$_dbinstance = $dbfactory->Create();
}
}
public function getDbInstance() {
return self::$_dbinstance;
}
}
Your code seems to do what you want it to.. but maybe we can use less object instantiation using inheritance and maybe we can avoid static properties in instanciated classes.
Also in regard to using a pattern of dependency injection that is able to handle multiple connections, but support using a single instance of it. exemple first, classes after
$params = array
('host'=>'localhost',
'db'=>'ice',
'user'=>'kopitar',
'pass'=>'topnet',
'charset'=>'utf8'); // passing the charset explicitely is great
$handle = new handle($params);
$db = $handle->getInstance();
we can either pass the $db to our functions
$location_names = Location::getLocationNames($db);
or the whole $handle. as long as $handle is not reconstructed, it will always return the same database connection.
$location_names = Location::getLocationNames($handle);
if I want to reconstruct I need the whole $handle
$handle->__construct(/* params but with another database infos */);
$db2 = $handle->getInstance();
As for the classes, I think we want the params to arrive from the instanciated class, so we can change them later.
class db {
function __construct($params) {
foreach ($params as $param => $value) {
$this->{$param} = $value; // assigns the connections infos
}
}
protected function connect() {
$dsn = 'mysql:host='.$this->host.';dbname='.$this->db.';charset='.$this->charset;
return new PDO($dsn,$this->user,$this->pass);
}
}
the factory creates a connection from params and passes it to something else, good factory
class factory extends db {
protected function create() {
return $this->connect();
}
}
now we want to have our object to keep it's connection as long as we do not rebuild it. so we give it to instance
class instance extends factory {
function instantiate() {
$this->instance = $this->create();
}
}
and last but not least, our handle which returns the instance. it could be in instance class.....................
but I feel like having four and find no real reason not to.
class handle extends instance {
function __construct($params) {
db::__construct($params);
$this->instantiate(); // when we construct a handle, we assign an instance to the instance property
}
function getInstance() {
return $this->instance;
}
}
KISS
Don't make things more complex than they are, of course this is just my opinion, but as I see it you are building a complex solution for a problem that someone else says might exist is some cases.
Php is not multi threaded so there goes one of the biggest arguments overboard. (in very rare-occasions it might be)
I'm using singletons for my database connections for about 15 years now and never ever had a problem with them, I do play around with different connections having one singleton handle several connection instances, but whatever... it works great and everyone that looks at the code.. understands it directly.
I'm not using globals because they can be overwritten and are kind of hard to predict (when it holds the correct object, and when/why they don't)
Use OOP to make your code cleaner, easier to work with and more flexible.
Don't use it to fix problems that aren't there and make your code more complex because others tell you to.
An very simple example of a db-connection singleton class handling several different connections.
class singleton{
private static $_instances=array();
public static function getInstance($connectionName){
if(!isset(self::$_instance[$connectionName]){
self::$_instance[$connectionName]=self::_getConnection($connectionName);
}
return self::$_instance[$connectionName];
}
}
just my 2 cents
Why do you have a factory if you have a singleton? This is needless.
This is a never-ending debate, but I'm advocate of do not use singletons for database connections.
As far as in most applications, you have only one data channel, you can consider your database connection unique, but this might not be always true.
In deed, the effort made to create a singleton database connection is even bigger than just create a regular one.
Also, your class DB is not configurable, therefore, you need to change it when your connection parameters change. And I think DB is a very bad name for this.
I'd rather call this Storage and do something like:
inteface Storage {
public function insert($container, array $data);
public function update($container, array $data, $where);
public function delete($container, $where);
public function getAll($container);
public function getOne($identifier);
}
final class PdoStorage implements Storage {
private $dbh;
private $dsn;
private $user;
private $pswd;
public function __construct($dsn, $user, $pswd) {
$this->dsn = $dsn;
$this->user = $user;
$this->pswd = $pswd;
}
// Lazy Initialization
private function connect() {
if ($this->dbh === null)
$this->dbh = new PDO($this->dsn, $this->user, $this->pswd);
}
public function insert($container, array $data) {
$this->connect();
// ... omitted for brevity
}
}
Now, when you need a database storage, you do:
$someObj = new SomeClass(new PdoStorage(...));
Now you might be wondering if you will need to create an PdoStorage for each single object that depends on it.
The answer is: no!
Now you can use a factory to simplify your life.
class SomeFactory {
private $defaultStorage;
public function __construct(Storage $storage) {
$this->defaultStorage = $storage;
}
public function create($type) {
// Somehow fetches the correct class to instantiate and put it into $class variable , for example... and then
return new $class($this->defaultStorage); // Or you'd better do this with reflection
}
}
$factory = new SomeFactory(new PdoStorage(...));
$factory->create('SomeClass');
This way, you can have just one database connector or more if you need.

What is the best method for getting a database connection/object into a function in PHP?

A couple of the options are:
$connection = {my db connection/object};
function PassedIn($connection) { ... }
function PassedByReference(&$connection) { ... }
function UsingGlobal() {
global $connection;
...
}
So, passed in, passed by reference, or using global. I'm thinking in functions that are only used within 1 project that will only have 1 database connection. If there are multiple connections, the definitely passed in or passed by reference.
I'm thining passed by reference is not needed when you are in PHP5 using an object, so then passed in or using global are the 2 possibilities.
The reason I'm asking is because I'm getting tired of always putting in $connection into my function parameters.
I use a Singleton ResourceManager class to handle stuff like DB connections and config settings through a whole app:
class ResourceManager {
private static $DB;
private static $Config;
public static function get($resource, $options = false) {
if (property_exists('ResourceManager', $resource)) {
if (empty(self::$$resource)) {
self::_init_resource($resource, $options);
}
if (!empty(self::$$resource)) {
return self::$$resource;
}
}
return null;
}
private static function _init_resource($resource, $options = null) {
if ($resource == 'DB') {
$dsn = 'mysql:host=localhost';
$username = 'my_username';
$password = 'p4ssw0rd';
try {
self::$DB = new PDO($dsn, $username, $password);
} catch (PDOException $e) {
echo 'Connection failed: ' . $e->getMessage();
}
} elseif (class_exists($resource) && property_exists('ResourceManager', $resource)) {
self::$$resource = new $resource($options);
}
}
}
And then in functions / objects / where ever:
function doDBThingy() {
$db = ResourceManager::get('DB');
if ($db) {
$stmt = $db->prepare('SELECT * FROM `table`');
etc...
}
}
I use it to store messages, error messages and warnings, as well as global variables. There's an interesting question here on when to actually use this type of class.
Try designing your code in an object-oriented fashion. Methods that use the database should be grouped in a class, and the class instance should contain the database connection as a class variable. That way the database connection is available to the functions that need it, but it's not global.
class MyClass {
protected $_db;
public function __construct($db)
{
$this->_db = $db;
}
public function doSomething()
{
$this->_db->query(...);
}
}
I see that a lot of people have suggested some kind of static variable.
Essentially, there is very little difference between a global variable and a static variable. Except for the syntax, they have exactly the same characteristics. As such, you are gaining nothing at all, by replacing a global variable with a static variable. In most examples, there is a level of decoupling in that the static variable isn't referred directly, but rather through a static method (Eg. a singleton or static registry). While slightly better, this still has the problems of a global scope. If you ever need to use more than one database connection in your application, you're screwed. If you ever want to know which parts of your code has side-effects, you need to manually inspect the implementation. That's not stuff that will make or break your application, but it will make it harder to maintain.
I propose that you chose between one of:
Pass the instance as arguments to the functions that needs it. This is by far the simplest, and it has all the benefits of narrow scope, but it can get rather unwieldy. It is also a source for introducing dependencies, since some parts of your code may end up becoming a middleman. If that happens, go on to ..
Put the instance in the scope of the object, which has the method that needs it. Eg. if the method Foo->doStuff() needs a database connection, pass it in Foo's constructor and set it as a protected instance variable on Foo. You can still end up with some of the problems of passing in the method, but it's generally less of a problem with unwieldy constructors, than with methods. If your application gets big enough, you can use a dependency injection container to automate this.
My advice is to avoid global in the bulk of the code - it's dangerous, hard to track and will bite you.
The way that I'd do this is to have a function called getDB() which can either be at class level by way of a constructor injection or static within a common class.
So the code becomes
class SomeClass {
protected $dbc;
public function __construct($db) {
$this->dbc = $db;
}
public function getDB() {
return $this->dbc;
}
function read_something() {
$db = getDB();
$db->query();
}
}
or using a common shared class.
function read_something() {
$db = System::getDB();
$db->query();
}
No matter how much elegant system design you do, there are always a few items that are necessarily global in scope (such as DB, Session, Config), and I prefer to keep these as static methods in my System class.
Having each class require a connection via the constructor is the best way of doing this, by best I mean most reliable and isolated.
However be aware that using a common shared class to do this can impact on the ability to isolate fully the objects using it and also the ability to perform unit tests on these objects.
None of the above.
All the mysql functions take the database connection argument optionally. If you leave that argument out, the last connection by mysql_connect() is assumed.
function usingFunc() {
$connection = getConnection();
...
}
function getConnection() {
static $connectionObject = null;
if ($connectionObject == null) {
$connectionObject = connectFoo("whatever","connection","method","you","choose");
}
return $connectionObject;
}
This way, the static $connectionObject is preserved between getConnection calls.

Categories