Here's an example
class derp {
public static $importantVariable = "default";
public function doSomethingImportant() {
echo self::$importantVariable;
}
}
class fancy extends derp {
public static $importantVariable = "special";
}
$fancyInstance = new fancy();
$fancyInstance->doSomethingImportant();
Ok so, I want to override the static member "importantVariable" and make it so that inherited functions use the overriden value instead of the base class value.
In this case it says "default" but I want it to say "special", how do I make it refer to the overriden value?
<?php
class derp {
public static $importantVariable = "default";
public function doSomethingImportant() {
echo static::$importantVariable; //HERE
}
}
class fancy extends derp {
public static $importantVariable = "special";
}
$fancyInstance = new fancy();
$fancyInstance->doSomethingImportant();
http://php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.late-static-bindings.php
Instead of self, use static:
class derp {
public static $importantVariable = "default";
public function doSomethingImportant() {
echo static::$importantVariable;
}
}
The static keyword takes advantage of late static binding so that it will take on the value defined in the concrete class being used at runtime rather than the class that the reference just happens to be made from, as is the case with the self keyword.
Related
Is there any way to define abstract class properties in PHP?
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public $tablename;
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' $property
public $tablename = 'users';
}
There is no such thing as defining a property.
You can only declare properties because they are containers of data reserved in memory on initialization.
A function on the other hand can be declared (types, name, parameters) without being defined (function body missing) and thus, can be made abstract.
"Abstract" only indicates that something was declared but not defined and therefore before using it, you need to define it or it becomes useless.
No, there is no way to enforce that with the compiler, you'd have to use run-time checks (say, in the constructor) for the $tablename variable, e.g.:
class Foo_Abstract {
public final function __construct(/*whatever*/) {
if(!isset($this->tablename))
throw new LogicException(get_class($this) . ' must have a $tablename');
}
}
To enforce this for all derived classes of Foo_Abstract you would have to make Foo_Abstract's constructor final, preventing overriding.
You could declare an abstract getter instead:
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public function get_tablename();
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
protected $tablename = 'tablename';
public function get_tablename() {
return $this->tablename;
}
}
Depending on the context of the property, if I want to force declaration of an abstract class property in an extended class, I like to use a constant with the static keyword for the property in the abstract object constructor or setter/getter methods. You can optionally use final to prevent the method from being overridden in extended classes.
Example: https://3v4l.org/WH5Xl
abstract class AbstractFoo
{
public $bar;
final public function __construct()
{
$this->bar = static::BAR;
}
}
class Foo extends AbstractFoo
{
//const BAR = 'foobar'; //uncomment to prevent exception
}
$foo = new Foo();
//Fatal Error: Undefined class constant 'BAR'
However, the extended class overrides the parent class properties and methods if redefined.
For example; if a property is declared as protected in the parent and redefined as public in the extended class, the resulting property is public. Otherwise, if the property is declared private in the parent it will remain private and not available to the extended class.
http://www.php.net//manual/en/language.oop5.static.php
As stated above, there is no such exact definition.
I, however, use this simple workaround to force the child class to define the "abstract" property:
abstract class Father
{
public $name;
abstract protected function setName(); // now every child class must declare this
// function and thus declare the property
public function __construct()
{
$this->setName();
}
}
class Son extends Father
{
protected function setName()
{
$this->name = "son";
}
function __construct(){
parent::__construct();
}
}
The need for abstract properties can indicate design problems. While many of answers implement kind of Template method pattern and it works, it always looks kind of strange.
Let's take a look at the original example:
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public $tablename;
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' $property
public $tablename = 'users';
}
To mark something abstract is to indicate it a must-have thing. Well, a must-have value (in this case) is a required dependency, so it should be passed to the constructor during instantiation:
class Table
{
private $name;
public function __construct(string $name)
{
$this->name = $name;
}
public function name(): string
{
return $this->name;
}
}
Then if you actually want a more concrete named class you can inherit like so:
final class UsersTable extends Table
{
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct('users');
}
}
This can be useful if you use DI container and have to pass different tables for different objects.
I've asked myself the same question today, and I'd like to add my two cents.
The reason we would like abstract properties is to make sure that subclasses define them and throw exceptions when they don't. In my specific case, I needed something that could work with statically.
Ideally I would like something like this:
abstract class A {
abstract protected static $prop;
}
class B extends A {
protected static $prop = 'B prop'; // $prop defined, B loads successfully
}
class C extends A {
// throws an exception when loading C for the first time because $prop
// is not defined.
}
I ended up with this implementation
abstract class A
{
// no $prop definition in A!
public static final function getProp()
{
return static::$prop;
}
}
class B extends A
{
protected static $prop = 'B prop';
}
class C extends A
{
}
As you can see, in A I don't define $prop, but I use it in a static getter. Therefore, the following code works
B::getProp();
// => 'B prop'
$b = new B();
$b->getProp();
// => 'B prop'
In C, on the other hand, I don't define $prop, so I get exceptions:
C::getProp();
// => Exception!
$c = new C();
$c->getProp();
// => Exception!
I must call the getProp() method to get the exception and I can't get it on class loading, but it is quite close to the desired behavior, at least in my case.
I define getProp() as final to avoid that some smart guy (aka myself in 6 months) is tempted to do
class D extends A {
public static function getProp() {
// really smart
}
}
D::getProp();
// => no exception...
As you could have found out by just testing your code:
Fatal error: Properties cannot be declared abstract in ... on line 3
No, there is not. Properties cannot be declared abstract in PHP.
However you can implement a getter/setter function abstract, this might be what you're looking for.
Properties aren't implemented (especially public properties), they just exist (or not):
$foo = new Foo;
$foo->publicProperty = 'Bar';
PHP 7 makes it quite a bit easier for making abstract "properties". Just as above, you will make them by creating abstract functions, but with PHP 7 you can define the return type for that function, which makes things a lot easier when you're building a base class that anyone can extend.
<?php
abstract class FooBase {
abstract public function FooProp(): string;
abstract public function BarProp(): BarClass;
public function foo() {
return $this->FooProp();
}
public function bar() {
return $this->BarProp()->name();
}
}
class BarClass {
public function name() {
return 'Bar!';
}
}
class FooClass extends FooBase {
public function FooProp(): string {
return 'Foo!';
}
public function BarProp(): BarClass {
// This would not work:
// return 'not working';
// But this will!
return new BarClass();
}
}
$test = new FooClass();
echo $test->foo() . PHP_EOL;
echo $test->bar() . PHP_EOL;
if tablename value will never change during the object's lifetime, following will be a simple yet safe implementation.
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract protected function getTablename();
public function showTableName()
{
echo 'my table name is '.$this->getTablename();
}
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' getTablename()
protected function getTablename()
{
return 'users';
}
}
the key here is that the string value 'users' is specified and returned directly in getTablename() in child class implementation. The function mimics a "readonly" property.
This is fairly similar to a solution posted earlier on which uses an additional variable. I also like Marco's solution though it can be a bit more complicated.
Just define the property in the base class without assigning it a (default) value.
Getting the property value without redefining it with a default value or assigning it a value will throw an Error.
<?php
class Base {
protected string $name;
public function i_am() : string {
return $this->name;
}
}
class Wrong extends Base {
...
}
class Good extends Base {
protected string $name = 'Somebody';
}
$test = new Good();
echo $test->i_am(), '<br>'; // Will show "Nobody"
$test = new Wrong();
echo $test->i_am(), '<br>'; // Will throw an Error:
// Error: Typed property Base::$name must not be accessed before initialization in ....
?>
You can define a static property in an abstract class.
<?php
abstract class Foo {
private static $bar = "1234";
public static function func() {
echo self::$bar;
}
}
Foo::func(); // It will be printed 1234
Too late to answer the question, but you may use the difference between self and static as follows
<?php
class A { // Base Class
protected static $name = 'ClassA';
public static function getSelfName() {
return self::$name;
}
public static function getStaticName() {
return static::$name;
}
}
class B extends A {
protected static $name = 'ClassB';
}
echo A::getSelfName(); // ClassA
echo A::getStaticName(); // ClassA
echo B::getSelfName(); // ClassA
echo B::getStaticName(); // ClassB
I have an abstract class that has a number of static functions (which return a new instance of itself by using new static($args) which works fine), but I can't work out how to get the class name. I am trying to avoid putting
protected static $cn = __CLASS__;
but if unavoidable, then its not the end of the world
abstract class ExtendableObject {
static function getObject() {
return new static($data);
}
static function getSearcher() {
return new ExtendableObjectFinder(/* CLASS NAME CLASS */);
}
}
class ExtendableObjectFinder {
private $cn;
function __construct($className) {
$this->cn = $className;
}
function where($where) { ... }
function fetch() { ... }
}
To get the name of the class you can use get_class and pass $this.
Alternatively, there is get_called_class which you can use within static methods.
You don't need to use the class name explicitly, you can use self.
class SomeClass {
private static $instance;
public static function getInstance() {
if (self::$instance) {
// ...
}
}
}
CodePad.
Is there any way to define abstract class properties in PHP?
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public $tablename;
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' $property
public $tablename = 'users';
}
There is no such thing as defining a property.
You can only declare properties because they are containers of data reserved in memory on initialization.
A function on the other hand can be declared (types, name, parameters) without being defined (function body missing) and thus, can be made abstract.
"Abstract" only indicates that something was declared but not defined and therefore before using it, you need to define it or it becomes useless.
No, there is no way to enforce that with the compiler, you'd have to use run-time checks (say, in the constructor) for the $tablename variable, e.g.:
class Foo_Abstract {
public final function __construct(/*whatever*/) {
if(!isset($this->tablename))
throw new LogicException(get_class($this) . ' must have a $tablename');
}
}
To enforce this for all derived classes of Foo_Abstract you would have to make Foo_Abstract's constructor final, preventing overriding.
You could declare an abstract getter instead:
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public function get_tablename();
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
protected $tablename = 'tablename';
public function get_tablename() {
return $this->tablename;
}
}
Depending on the context of the property, if I want to force declaration of an abstract class property in an extended class, I like to use a constant with the static keyword for the property in the abstract object constructor or setter/getter methods. You can optionally use final to prevent the method from being overridden in extended classes.
Example: https://3v4l.org/WH5Xl
abstract class AbstractFoo
{
public $bar;
final public function __construct()
{
$this->bar = static::BAR;
}
}
class Foo extends AbstractFoo
{
//const BAR = 'foobar'; //uncomment to prevent exception
}
$foo = new Foo();
//Fatal Error: Undefined class constant 'BAR'
However, the extended class overrides the parent class properties and methods if redefined.
For example; if a property is declared as protected in the parent and redefined as public in the extended class, the resulting property is public. Otherwise, if the property is declared private in the parent it will remain private and not available to the extended class.
http://www.php.net//manual/en/language.oop5.static.php
As stated above, there is no such exact definition.
I, however, use this simple workaround to force the child class to define the "abstract" property:
abstract class Father
{
public $name;
abstract protected function setName(); // now every child class must declare this
// function and thus declare the property
public function __construct()
{
$this->setName();
}
}
class Son extends Father
{
protected function setName()
{
$this->name = "son";
}
function __construct(){
parent::__construct();
}
}
The need for abstract properties can indicate design problems. While many of answers implement kind of Template method pattern and it works, it always looks kind of strange.
Let's take a look at the original example:
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public $tablename;
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' $property
public $tablename = 'users';
}
To mark something abstract is to indicate it a must-have thing. Well, a must-have value (in this case) is a required dependency, so it should be passed to the constructor during instantiation:
class Table
{
private $name;
public function __construct(string $name)
{
$this->name = $name;
}
public function name(): string
{
return $this->name;
}
}
Then if you actually want a more concrete named class you can inherit like so:
final class UsersTable extends Table
{
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct('users');
}
}
This can be useful if you use DI container and have to pass different tables for different objects.
I've asked myself the same question today, and I'd like to add my two cents.
The reason we would like abstract properties is to make sure that subclasses define them and throw exceptions when they don't. In my specific case, I needed something that could work with statically.
Ideally I would like something like this:
abstract class A {
abstract protected static $prop;
}
class B extends A {
protected static $prop = 'B prop'; // $prop defined, B loads successfully
}
class C extends A {
// throws an exception when loading C for the first time because $prop
// is not defined.
}
I ended up with this implementation
abstract class A
{
// no $prop definition in A!
public static final function getProp()
{
return static::$prop;
}
}
class B extends A
{
protected static $prop = 'B prop';
}
class C extends A
{
}
As you can see, in A I don't define $prop, but I use it in a static getter. Therefore, the following code works
B::getProp();
// => 'B prop'
$b = new B();
$b->getProp();
// => 'B prop'
In C, on the other hand, I don't define $prop, so I get exceptions:
C::getProp();
// => Exception!
$c = new C();
$c->getProp();
// => Exception!
I must call the getProp() method to get the exception and I can't get it on class loading, but it is quite close to the desired behavior, at least in my case.
I define getProp() as final to avoid that some smart guy (aka myself in 6 months) is tempted to do
class D extends A {
public static function getProp() {
// really smart
}
}
D::getProp();
// => no exception...
As you could have found out by just testing your code:
Fatal error: Properties cannot be declared abstract in ... on line 3
No, there is not. Properties cannot be declared abstract in PHP.
However you can implement a getter/setter function abstract, this might be what you're looking for.
Properties aren't implemented (especially public properties), they just exist (or not):
$foo = new Foo;
$foo->publicProperty = 'Bar';
PHP 7 makes it quite a bit easier for making abstract "properties". Just as above, you will make them by creating abstract functions, but with PHP 7 you can define the return type for that function, which makes things a lot easier when you're building a base class that anyone can extend.
<?php
abstract class FooBase {
abstract public function FooProp(): string;
abstract public function BarProp(): BarClass;
public function foo() {
return $this->FooProp();
}
public function bar() {
return $this->BarProp()->name();
}
}
class BarClass {
public function name() {
return 'Bar!';
}
}
class FooClass extends FooBase {
public function FooProp(): string {
return 'Foo!';
}
public function BarProp(): BarClass {
// This would not work:
// return 'not working';
// But this will!
return new BarClass();
}
}
$test = new FooClass();
echo $test->foo() . PHP_EOL;
echo $test->bar() . PHP_EOL;
if tablename value will never change during the object's lifetime, following will be a simple yet safe implementation.
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract protected function getTablename();
public function showTableName()
{
echo 'my table name is '.$this->getTablename();
}
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' getTablename()
protected function getTablename()
{
return 'users';
}
}
the key here is that the string value 'users' is specified and returned directly in getTablename() in child class implementation. The function mimics a "readonly" property.
This is fairly similar to a solution posted earlier on which uses an additional variable. I also like Marco's solution though it can be a bit more complicated.
Just define the property in the base class without assigning it a (default) value.
Getting the property value without redefining it with a default value or assigning it a value will throw an Error.
<?php
class Base {
protected string $name;
public function i_am() : string {
return $this->name;
}
}
class Wrong extends Base {
...
}
class Good extends Base {
protected string $name = 'Somebody';
}
$test = new Good();
echo $test->i_am(), '<br>'; // Will show "Nobody"
$test = new Wrong();
echo $test->i_am(), '<br>'; // Will throw an Error:
// Error: Typed property Base::$name must not be accessed before initialization in ....
?>
You can define a static property in an abstract class.
<?php
abstract class Foo {
private static $bar = "1234";
public static function func() {
echo self::$bar;
}
}
Foo::func(); // It will be printed 1234
Too late to answer the question, but you may use the difference between self and static as follows
<?php
class A { // Base Class
protected static $name = 'ClassA';
public static function getSelfName() {
return self::$name;
}
public static function getStaticName() {
return static::$name;
}
}
class B extends A {
protected static $name = 'ClassB';
}
echo A::getSelfName(); // ClassA
echo A::getStaticName(); // ClassA
echo B::getSelfName(); // ClassA
echo B::getStaticName(); // ClassB
I have two static values: "type" and "typeID". Type is human readable and constant, and typeID needs to be looked up from the database, based on the value of type. I need the lookup to happen once, when the class definition is first loaded
To illustrate, here is some code that doesn't work because you can't call functions in the declaration space.
MyClass extends BaseClass {
protected static $type = "communities";
protected static $typeID = MyClass::lookupTypeID(self::$type);
}
Is there a magic method that is called exactly once when the class definition is loaded? If there is something obvious I'm missing it.
shamelessly pulled from the php manual's static keyword comments:
Because php does not have a static constructor and you may want to initialize static class vars, there is one easy way, just call your own function directly after the class definition.
for example.
<?php
function Demonstration()
{
return 'This is the result of demonstration()';
}
class MyStaticClass
{
//public static $MyStaticVar = Demonstration(); //!!! FAILS: syntax error
public static $MyStaticVar = null;
public static function MyStaticInit()
{
//this is the static constructor
//because in a function, everything is allowed, including initializing using other functions
self::$MyStaticVar = Demonstration();
}
} MyStaticClass::MyStaticInit(); //Call the static constructor
echo MyStaticClass::$MyStaticVar;
//This is the result of demonstration()
?>
Simple and no magic needed, don't forget you can always define a variable as null and test that it is null (doing the db call only then). Then it's just a matter if you want that to happen when the class is constructed or included (include_once etc...)
MyClass extends BaseClass {
protected static $type = "communities";
protected static $typeID = null;
public function __construct(){
if(is_null(self::$typeID)){
self::lookupTypeID(self::$type);
}
}
public static lookupTypeID($type){
self::$typeID = //result of database query
}
}
or
MyClass::lookupTypeID(); //call static function when class file is included (global space)
MyClass extends BaseClass {
protected static $type = "communities";
protected static $typeID = null;
public function __construct(){
}
public static lookupTypeID($type=null){
if(is_null($type)){
$type = self::$type;
}
self::$typeID = //result of database query (SELECT somefield FROM sometable WHERE type=$type) etc..
}
}
a static constructor is more like a factory method
if(!function_exists(build_myclass)){
function build_myclass(){
return MyClass::build();
}
}
MyClass extends BaseClass {
protected static $type = "communities";
protected static $typeID = null;
public function __construct(){
}
public static function build(){
return new self(); //goes to __construct();
}
}
$class = new MyClass(); //or
$class = MyClass::build(); //or
$class = build_myclass();
Such a thing would normally be called a "static constructor", but PHP lacks such things. You might want to consider one of the workarounds suggested in the PHP manual comments, e.g. http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.static.php#95217
I have the following setup:
<?php
class core {
static $var1;
}
class parent extends core {
function getStatic() {
return parent::$var1;
}
}
class child extends parent {
function getStatic() {
// I want to access core static var, how can i do it?
//return parent::$var1;
}
}
?>
I need to be able to use parent::$var1 but from within class child.. is this possible? Am I missing something?
Just reference it as self... PHP will automatically go up the chain of inheritance until it finds a match
class core {
protected static $var1 = 'foo';
}
class foo extends core {
public static function getStatic() {
return self::$var1;
}
}
class bar extends foo {
public static function getStatic() {
return self::$var1;
}
}
Now, there will be an issue if you don't declare getStatic in bar. Let's take an example:
class foo1 extends core {
protected static $var1 = 'bar';
public static function getStatic() {
return self::$var1;
}
}
class bar1 extends foo1 {
protected static $var1 = 'baz';
}
Now, you'd expect foo1::getStatic() to return bar (and it will). But what will Bar1::getStatic() return? It'll return bar as well. This is called late static binding. If you want it to return baz, you need to use static::$var1 instead of self::$var1 (PHP 5.3+ only)...
core::$var1 seems best for your needs...
The biggest problem here is that you're using the keyword parent as a class name. This makes it completely ambiguous whether your calls to parent::$var1 are intended to point to that class, or to the parent of the calling class.
I believe, if you clean this up, you can achieve what you want. This code prints 'something', for example.
class core {
static $var1 = 'something';
}
class foo extends core {
function getStatic() {
return parent::$var1;
}
}
class bar extends foo {
function getStatic() {
// I want to access core static var, how can i do it?
return parent::$var1;
}
}
$b = new bar ();
echo $b->getStatic ();
It also works if you use core:: instead of parent::. Those two will behave differently, though, if you declare a static $var1 inside of the foo class as well. As is it's a single, inherited variable.