I am just starting with Dependency Injection Containers, and I am having a problem that makes my code messy. Let's take an example: I have a simple Container class that manages multiple services, a service can be "marked" as shared so it can only make one single instance.
So for example, I will make a simple (It's not the one I actually use) dependency injection container for, let's say, a User class, I would do so:
class Container
{
protected $parameters;
public function set($index, $value)
{
$this->parameters[$index] = $value;
}
public function getUser()
{
return new User($this->paramaters['id'], $this->parameters['nickname']);
}
}
$container = new Container();
$container->set('id', 1);
$container->set('nickname', 'Bob');
$container->getUser();
This works fine. But now, here is an other case: Let's say that now, instead of a User class, I want a Post class, for each post, I will need to set their title, text and date in the constructor, and each post shouldn't have the same parameters. In this case, is an dependency injection container adapted, if so, how should I achieve it without having a mess of a code?
Edit:
Will asked me my use case:
In my use case, I am actually doing this with a Router class that need to use Route instances. Each instantiated Route need to be passed two arguments: the pattern and the callback. So each time I ask my container to create a Route instance, it shouldn't use for all Routes the same pattern and callback, but a new pair of them (pattern + callback). How should I do so?
Your goal here is to create a Shared Abstraction which can be injected into the code that depends on its data. There's two approaches you can take, and I think you're mixing the two already.
A Generic Dependency-Injection Container - In this case, we make a very generic object that can store and retrieve other objects. An example is here:
<?php
class Container
{
protected $dependencies = array();
public function get($key)
{
return isset($this->dependencies[$key]) ? $this->dependencies[$key] : null;
}
public function register($key, $value)
{
$this->dependencies[$key] = $value;
}
}
You can then use the container like this:
$container = new Container();
$container->register('user', new User(1, 'Bob'));
$container->register('somethingElse', new SomethingElse(42));
And then you can just pass $container to another function, method, or object, where you can do:
$user = $container->get('user');
There are also many Open Source containers you can use like Pimple, or PHP-DI.
A Domain-Specific Shared Abstraction - Another approach is to make a specific shared abstraction, like, in your case, a UserPost perhaps:
<?php
class UserPost
{
protected $user;
protected $post;
public function __construct(User $user, Post $post)
{
$this->user = $user;
$this->post = $post;
}
public function getUser()
{
return $this->user;
}
public function getPost()
{
return $this->post;
}
}
You can then simply inject the UserPost and call $userPost->getUser() / $userPost->getPost(). The second method here is basically as simple as coming up with a name for the combination of data items you wish to pass. I prefer this approach, as it makes the code more readable, but this is a matter of opinion. I prefer to have my classnames correspond to "what I think of this object as" in plain English. This also aligns more closely with the core-OO principals of abstraction, in my opinion. But, the generic containers in Option 1 is an approach used successfully by many.
Related
Lately I have been trying to create my own PHP framework, just to learn from it (As we may look into some bigger and more robust framework for production). One design concept I currently have, is that most core classes mainly work on static functions within classes.
Now a few days ago, I've seen a few articles about "Static methods are death to testability". This concerned me as.. yeah.. my classes contain mostly static methods.. The main reason I was using static methods is that a lot of classes would never need more than one instance, and static methods are easy to approach in the global scope. Now I'm aware that static methods aren't actually the best way to do things, I'm looking for a better alternative.
Imagine the following code to get a config item:
$testcfg = Config::get("test"); // Gets config from "test"
echo $testcfg->foo; // Would output what "foo" contains ofcourse.
/*
* We cache the newly created instance of the "test" config,
* so if we need to use it again anywhere in the application,
* the Config::get() method simply returns that instance.
*/
This is an example of what I currently have. But according to some articles, this is bad.
Now, I could do this the way how, for example, CodeIgniter does this, using:
$testcfg = $this->config->get("test");
echo $testcfg->foo;
Personally, I find this harder to read. That's why I would prefer another way.
So in short, I guess I need a better approach to my classes. I would not want more than one instance to the config class, maintain readability and have easy access to the class. Any ideas?
Note that I'm looking for some best practice or something including a code sample, not some random ideas. Also, if I'm bound to a $this->class->method style pattern, then would I implement this efficiently?
In response to Sébastien Renauld's comments: here's an article on Dependency Injection (DI) and Inversion of Control (IoC) with some examples, and a few extra words on the Hollywood principle (quite important when working on a framework).
Saying your classes won't ever need more than a single instance doesn't mean that statics are a must. Far from it, actually. If you browse this site, and read through PHP questions that deal with the singleton "pattern", you'll soon find out why singletons are a bit of a no-no.
I won't go into the details, but testing and singletons don't mix. Dependency injection is definitely worth a closer look. I'll leave it at that for now.
To answer your question:
Your exaple (Config::get('test')) implies you have a static property in the Config class somewhere. Now if you've done this, as you say, to facilitate access to given data, imagine what a nightmare it would be to debug your code, if that value were to change somewhere... It's a static, so change it once, and it's changed everywhere. Finding out where it was changed might be harder than you anticipated. Even so, that's nothing compared to the issues someone who uses your code will have in the same situation.
And yet, the real problems will only start when that person using your code wants to test whatever it is he/she made: If you want to have access to an instance in a given object, that has been instantiated in some class, there are plenty of ways to do so (especially in a framework):
class Application
{//base class of your framework
private $defaulDB = null;
public $env = null;
public function __construct($env = 'test')
{
$this->env = $env;
}
private function connectDB(PDO $connection = null)
{
if ($connection === null)
{
$connection = new PDO();//you know the deal...
}
$this->defaultDB = $connection;
}
public function getDB(PDO $conn = null)
{//get connection
if ($this->defaultDB === null)
{
$this->connectDB($conn);
}
return $this->defaultDB;
}
public function registerController(MyConstroller $controller)
{//<== magic!
$controller->registerApplication($this);
return $this;
}
}
As you can see, the Application class has a method that passes the Application instance to your controller, or whatever part of your framework you want to grant access to scope of the Application class.
Note that I've declared the defaultDB property as a private property, so I'm using a getter. I can, if I wanted to, pass a connection to that getter. There's a lot more you can do with that connection, of course, but I can't be bothered writing a full framework to show you everything you can do here :).
Basically, all your controllers will extend the MyController class, which could be an abstract class that looks like this:
abstract class MyController
{
private $app = null;
protected $db = null;
public function __construct(Application $app = null)
{
if ($app !== null)
{
return $this->registerApplication($app);
}
}
public function registerApplication(Application $app)
{
$this->app = $app;
return $this;
}
public function getApplication()
{
return $this->app;
}
}
So in your code, you can easily do something along the lines of:
$controller = new MyController($this);//assuming the instance is created in the Application class
$controller = new MyController();
$controller->registerApplication($appInstance);
In both cases, you can get that single DB instance like so:
$controller->getApplication()->getDB();
You can test your framework with easily by passing a different DB connection to the getDB method, if the defaultDB property hasn't been set in this case. With some extra work you can register multiple DB connections at the same time and access those at will, too:
$controller->getApplication->getDB(new PDO());//pass test connection here...
This is, by no means, the full explanation, but I wanted to get this answer in quite quickly before you end up with a huge static (and thus useless) codebase.
In response to comments from OP:
On how I'd tackle the Config class. Honestly, I'd pretty much do the same thing as I'd do with the defaultDB property as shown above. But I'd probably allow for more targeted control on what class gets access to what part of the config:
class Application
{
private $config = null;
public function __construct($env = 'test', $config = null)
{//get default config path or use path passed as argument
$this->config = new Config(parse_ini_file($config));
}
public function registerController(MyController $controller)
{
$controller->setApplication($this);
}
public function registerDB(MyDB $wrapper, $connect = true)
{//assume MyDB is a wrapper class, that gets the connection data from the config
$wrapper->setConfig(new Config($this->config->getSection('DB')));
$this->defaultDB = $wrapper;
return $this;
}
}
class MyController
{
private $app = null;
public function getApplication()
{
return $this->app;
}
public function setApplication(Application $app)
{
$this->app = $app;
return $this;
}
//Optional:
public function getConfig()
{
return $this->app->getConfig();
}
public function getDB()
{
return $this->app->getDB();
}
}
Those last two methods aren't really required, you could just as well write something like:
$controller->getApplication()->getConfig();
Again, this snippet is all a bit messy and incomplete, but it does go to show you that you can "expose" certain properties of one class, by passing a reference to that class to another. Even if the properties are private, you can use getters to access them all the same. You can also use various register-methods to control what it is the registered object is allowed to see, as I've done with the DB-wrapper in my snippet. A DB class shouldn't deal with viewscripts and namespaces, or autoloaders. That's why I'm only registering the DB section of the config.
Basically, a lot of your main components will end up sharing a number of methods. In other words, they'll end up implementing a given interface. For each main component (assuming the classic MVC pattern), you'll have one abstract base-class, and an inheritance chain of 1 or 2 levels of child classes: Abstract Controller > DefaultController > ProjectSpecificController.
At the same time, all of these classes will probably expect another instance to be passed to them when constructed. Just look at the index.php of any ZendFW project:
$application = new Zend_Application(APPLICATION_ENV);
$application->bootstrap()->run();
That's all you can see, but inside the application, all other classes are being instantiated. That's why you can access neigh on everything from anywhere: all classes have been instantiated inside another class along these lines:
public function initController(Request $request)
{
$this->currentController = $request->getController();
$this->currentController = new $this->currentController($this);
return $this->currentController->init($request)
->{$request->getAction().'Action'}();
}
By passing $this to the constructor of a controller class, that class can use various getters and setters to get to whatever it needs... Look at the examples above, it could use getDB, or getConfig and use that data if that's what it needs.
That's how most frameworks I've tinkered or worked with function: The application is kicks into action and determines what needs to be done. That's the Hollywood-principle, or Inversion of Control: the Application is started, and the application determines what classes it needs when. In the link I provided I believe this is compared to a store creating its own customers: the store is built, and decides what it wants to sell. In order to sell it, it will create the clients it wants, and provide them with the means they need to purchase the goods...
And, before I forget: Yes, all this can be done without a single static variable, let alone function, coming into play. I've built my own framework, and I've never felt there was no other way than to "go static". I did use the Factory pattern at first, but ditched it pretty quickly.
IMHO, a good framework is modular: you should be able to use bits of it (like Symfony's components), without issues. Using the Factory pattern makes you assume too much. You assume class X will be available, which isn't a given.
Registering those classes that are available makes for far more portable components. Consider this:
class AssumeFactory
{
private $db = null;
public function getDB(PDO $db = null)
{
if ($db === null)
{
$config = Factory::getConfig();//assumes Config class
$db = new PDO($config->getDBString());
}
$this->db = $db;
return $this->db;
}
}
As opposed to:
class RegisteredApplication
{//assume this is registered to current Application
public function getDB(PDO $fallback = null, $setToApplication = false)
{
if ($this->getApplication()->getDB() === null)
{//defensive
if ($setToApplication === true && $fallback !== null)
{
$this->getApplication()->setDB($fallback);
return $fallback;//this is current connection
}
if ($fallback === null && $this->getApplication()->getConfig() !== null)
{//if DB is not set #app, check config:
$fallback = $this->getApplication()->getConfig()->getSection('DB');
$fallback = new PDO($fallback->connString, $fallback->user, $fallback->pass);
return $fallback;
}
throw new RuntimeException('No DB connection set #app, no fallback');
}
if ($setToApplication === true && $fallback !== null)
{
$this->getApplication()->setDB($fallback);
}
return $this->getApplication()->getDB();
}
}
Though the latter version is slightly more work to write, it's quite clear which of the two is the better bet. The first version just assumes too much, and doesn't allow for safety-nets. It's also quite dictatorial: suppose I've written a test, and I need the results to go to another DB. I therefore need to change the DB connection, for the entire application (user input, errors, stats... they're all likely to be stored in a DB).
For those two reasons alone, the second snippet is the better candidate: I can pass another DB connection, that overwrites the application default, or, if I don't want to do that, I can either use the default connection, or attempt to create the default connection. Store the connection I just made, or not... the choice is entirely mine. If nothing works, I just get a RuntimeException thrown at me, but that's not the point.
Magic methods would help you: see the examples about __get() and __set()
You should also take a look at namespaces: it may help you to get rid of some classes with static methods only.
The gist behind DI is to relieve a class from creating and preparing objects it depends on and pushing them in. This sounds very reasonable, but sometimes a class does not need all the objects, that are being pushed into it to carry out its function. The reason behind this is an "early return" that happens upon invalid user input or an exception thrown by one of the required objects earlier or the unavailability of a certain value necessary to instantiate an object until a block of code runs.
More practical examples:
injecting a database connection object that will never be used, because the user data does not pass validation (provided that no triggers are used to validate this data)
injecting excel-like objects (PHPExcel e.g.) that collect input (heavy to load and instantiate because a whole library is pulled in and never used, because validation throws an exception earlier than a write occurs)
a variable value that is determined within a class, but not the injector at runtime; for instance, a routing component that determines the controller (or command) class and method that should be called based on user input
although this might be a design problem, but a substantial service-class, that depends on a lot of components, but uses only like 1/3 of them per request (the reason, why i tend to use command classes instead of controllers)
So, in a way pushing in all necessary components contradicts "lazy-loading" in the way that some components are created and never used, that being a bit unpractical and impacting performance. As far as PHP is concerned - more files are loaded, parsed and compiled. This is especially painful, if the objects being pushed in have their own dependencies.
i see 3 ways around it, 2 of which don't sound very well:
injecting a factory
injecting the injector (an anti-pattern)
injecting some external function, that gets called from within the
class once a relevant point is reached (smtg like "retrieve a
PHPExcel instance once data validation finished"); this is what i
tend to use due to its flexibility
The question is what's the best way of dealing with such situations / what do you guys use?
UPDATE:
#GordonM here are the examples of 3 approaches:
//inject factory example
interface IFactory{
function factory();
}
class Bartender{
protected $_factory;
public function __construct(IFactory $f){
$this->_factory = $f;
}
public function order($data){
//validating $data
//... return or throw exception
//validation passed, order must be saved
$db = $this->_factory->factory(); //! factory instance * num necessary components
$db->insert('orders', $data);
//...
}
}
/*
inject provider example
assuming that the provider prepares necessary objects
(i.e. injects their dependencies as well)
*/
interface IProvider{
function get($uid);
}
class Router{
protected $_provider;
public function __construct(IProvider $p){
$this->_provider = $p;
}
public function route($str){
//... match $str against routes to resolve class and method
$inst = $this->_provider->get($class);
//...
}
}
//inject callback (old fashion way)
class MyProvider{
protected $_db;
public function getDb(){
$this->_db = $this->_db ? $this->_db : new mysqli();
return $this->_db;
}
}
class Bartender{
protected $_db;
public function __construct(array $callback){
$this->_db = $callback;
}
public function order($data){
//validating $data
//... return or throw exception
//validation passed, order must be saved
$db = call_user_func_array($this->_db, array());
$db->insert('orders', $data);
//...
}
}
//the way it works under the hood:
$provider = new MyProvider();
$db = array($provider, 'getDb');
new Bartender($db);
//inject callback (the PHP 5.3 way)
class Bartender{
protected $_db;
public function __construct(Closure $callback){
$this->_db = $callback;
}
public function order($data){
//validating $data
//... return or throw exception
//validation passed, order must be saved
$db = call_user_func_array($this->_db, array());
$db->insert('orders', $data);
//...
}
}
//the way it works under the hood:
static $conn = null;
$db = function() use ($conn){
$conn = $conn ? $conn : new mysqli();
return $conn;
};
new Bartender($db);
I've been thinking about this problem a lot lately in planning of a major project that I want to do as right as humanly possible (stick to LoD, no hard coded dependencies, etc). My first thought was the "Inject a factory" approach as well, but I'm not sure that's the way to go. The Clean Code talks from Google made the claim that if you reach through an object to get the object you really want then you're violating the LoD. That would seem to rule out the idea of injecting a factory, because you have to reach through the factory to get what you really want. Maybe I've missed some point there that makes it okay, but until I know for sure I'm pondering other approaches.
How do you do the function injection? I'd imagine you're passing in a callback that does the instantiation of the object you want, but a code example would be nice.
If you could update your question with code examples of how you do the three styles you mentioned it might be useful. I'm especially keen to see "injecting the injector" even if it is an antipattern.
One idea that did occur was that of a proxy object. It implements the same interface(s) as the actual object you want to pass in, but instead of implementing anything it just holds an instance of the real class and forwards method calls on to it.
interface MyInterface
{
public function doFoo ();
public function isFoo ();
// etc
}
class RealClass implements MyInterface
{
public function doFoo ()
{
return ('Foo!');
}
public function isFoo ()
{
return ($this -> doFoo () == 'Foo!'? true: false);
}
// etc
}
class RealClassProxy implements MyInterface
{
private $instance = NULL;
/**
* Do lazy instantiation of the real class
*
* #return RealClass
*/
private function getRealClass ()
{
if ($this -> instance === NULL)
{
$this -> instance = new RealClass ();
}
return $this -> instance;
}
public function doFoo ()
{
return $this -> getRealClass () -> doFoo ();
}
public function isFoo ()
{
return $this -> getRealClass () -> isFoo ();
}
// etc
}
Because the proxy has the same interface as the real class, you can pass it as an argument to any function/method that type hints for the interface. The Liskov Substitution Principle holds for the proxy because it responds to all the same messages as the real class and returns the same results (the interface enforces this, at least for method signitures). However, the real class doesn't get instantiated unless a message actually gets sent to the proxy, which does lazy instantiation of the real class behind the scenes.
function sendMessageToRealClass (MyInterface $instance)
{
$instance -> doFoo ();
}
sendMessageToRealClass (new RealClass ());
sendMessageToRealClass (new RealClassProxy ());
There is an extra layer of indirection involved with the proxy object, which obviously means that there is a small performance hit for every method call you make. However, it does allow you to do lazy instantiation, so you can avoid instantiating classes you don't need. Whether this is worth it depends on the cost of instantiating the real object versus the cost of the extra layer of indirection.
EDIT: I had originally written this answer with the idea of subclassing the real object so you could use the technique with objects that don't implement any interfaces such as PDO. I had originally thought that interfaces were the correct way to do this but I wanted an approach that didn't rely on the class being tied to an interface. On reflection that was a big mistake so I've updated the answer to reflect what I should have done in the first place. This version does mean, however, that you can't directly apply this technique to classes with no associated interface. You'll have to wrap such classes in another class that does provide an interface for the proxy approach to be viable, meaning yet another layer of indirection.
If you want to implement lazy loading you basically have two way to do it (as you have already written in the topic):
instead of injecting an instance of object you might need, you inject a Factory or a Builder. The difference between them is that instance of Builder is made for returning one type of object (maybe with different setups), while Factory makes different types of instances ( with same lifetime and/or implementing same interface ).
utilize anonymous function which will return you an instance. That would look something like this:
$provider = function() {
return new \PDO('sqlite::memory:');
};
Only when you call this anonymous function, the instance of PDO is created and connection to database established.
What I usually do in my code is combine both. You can equip the Factory with such provider. This, for example, lets you have a single connection for all the objects which where created by said factory, and the connection is create only, when you first time ask an instance from Factory.
The other way to combine both methods (which i have not used, though) would be to create full blow Provider class, which in constructor accepts an anonymous function. Then the factory could pass around this same instance of Provider and the expensive object (PHPExcel, Doctrine, SwiftMailer or some other instance) is only created once a Product from that Factory first time turns to the Provider (couldn't come up with better name to describe all objects created by same factory) and requests it. After that, this expensive object is shared between all Products of Factory.
... my 2 cents
I chose lazy-injection (i.e. injecting a Proxy class):
class Class1 {
/**
* #Inject(lazy=true)
* #var Class2
*/
private $class2;
public function doSomething() {
// The dependency is loaded NOW
return $this->class2->getSomethingElse();
}
Here, the dependency (class2) is not injected directly: a proxy class is injected. Only when the proxy class is used that the dependency is loaded.
This is possible in PHP-DI (dependency injection framework).
Disclaimer: I work in this project
I'm trying to get my head around Dependency Injection and I understand it, for the most part.
However, say if, for some reason, one of my classes was dependent on several classes, instead of passing all of these to this one class in the constructor, is there a better, more sensible method?
I've heard about DI Containers, is this how I would go about solving this problem? Where should I start with this solution? Do I pass the dependencies to my DIC, and then pass this to the class that needs these dependencies?
Any help that would point me in the right direction would be fantastic.
Dependency Injection !== DIC
People should really stop confusing them. Dependency Injection is idea that comes from Dependency Inversion principle.
The DIC is "magic cure", which promises to let you use dependency injection, but in PHP is usually implemented by breaking every other principle of object oriented programming. The worst implementations tend to also attach it all to global state, via static Registry or Singleton.
Anyway, if your class depends on too many other classes, then in general , it signifies a design flaw in the class itself. You basically have a class with too many reasons to change, thus, breaking the Single Responsibility principle.
In this case, then dependency injection container will only hide the underlaying design issues.
If you want to learn more about Dependency Injection, i would recommend for you to watch the "Clean Code Talks" on youtube:
The Clean Code Talks - Don't Look For Things!
The Clean Code Talks - "Global State and Singletons"
If you have several dependencies to deal with, then yes a DI container can be the solution.
The DI container can be an object or array constructed of the various dependent object you need, which gets passed to the constructor and unpacked.
Suppose you needed a config object, a database connection, and a client info object passed to each of your classes. You can create an array which holds them:
// Assume each is created or accessed as a singleton, however needed...
// This may be created globally at the top of your script, and passed into each newly
// instantiated class
$di_container = array(
'config' = new Config(),
'db' = new DB($user, $pass, $db, $whatever),
'client' = new ClientInfo($clientid)
);
And your class constructors accept the DI container as a parameter:
class SomeClass {
private $config;
private $db;
private $client;
public function __construct(&$di_container) {
$this->config = $di_container['config'];
$this->db = $di_container['db'];
$this->client = $di_container['client'];
}
}
Instead of an array as I did above (which is simple), you might also create the DI container as an class itself and instantiate it with the component classes injected into it individually. One benefit to using an object instead of an array is that by default it will be passed by reference into the classes using it, while an array is passed by value (though objects inside the array are still references).
Edit
There are some ways in which an object is more flexible than an array, although more complicated to code initially.
The container object may also create/instantiate the contained classes in its constructor as well (rather than creating them outside and passing them in). This can save you some coding on each script that uses it, as you only need to instantiate one object (which itself instantiates several others).
Class DIContainer {
public $config;
public $db;
public $client;
// The DI container can build its own member objects
public function __construct($params....) {
$this->config = new Config();
// These vars might be passed in the constructor, or could be constants, or something else
$this->db = new DB($user, $pass, $db, $whatever);
// Same here - the var may come from the constructor, $_SESSION, or somewhere else
$this->client = new ClientInfo($clientid);
}
}
I've wrote an article about this problem.
The ideea is to use a combination of abstract factory and dependency injection to achieve transparent dependency resolving of (possible nested) dependencies. I will copy/paste here the main code snippets:
namespace Gica\Interfaces\Dependency;
interface AbstractFactory
{
public function createObject($objectClass, $constructorArguments = []);
}
The abstract factory implementation is:
namespace Gica\Dependency;
class AbstractFactory implements \Gica\Interfaces\Dependency\AbstractFactory, \Gica\Interfaces\Dependency\WithDependencyInjector
{
use WithDependencyInjector;
/**
* #param string $objectClass
* #param array $constructorArguments
* #return object instanceof $class
*/
public function createObject($objectClass, $constructorArguments = [])
{
$instance = new $objectClass(...$constructorArguments);
$this->getDependencyInjector()->resolveDependencies($instance);
return $instance;
}
}
The dependency injector is this:
namespace Gica\Dependency;
class DependencyInjector implements \Gica\Interfaces\Dependency\DependencyInjector
{
use \Gica\Traits\WithDependencyContainer;
public function resolveDependencies($instance)
{
$sm = $this->getDependencyInjectionContainer();
if ($instance instanceof \Gica\Interfaces\WithAuthenticator) {
$instance->setAuthenticator($sm->get(\Gica\Interfaces\Authentication\Authenticator::class));
}
if ($instance instanceof \Gica\Interfaces\WithPdo) {
$instance->setPdo($sm->get(\Gica\SqlQuery\Connection::class));
}
if ($instance instanceof \Gica\Interfaces\Dependency\WithAbstractFactory) {
$instance->setAbstractFactory($sm->get(\Gica\Interfaces\Dependency\AbstractFactory::class));
}
//... all the dependency declaring interfaces go below
}
}
The dependency container is the standard one.
The client code could look something like this:
$abstractFactory = $container->get(\Gica\Interfaces\Dependency\AbstractFactory::class);
$someHelper = $abstractFactory->createObject(\Web\Helper\SomeHelper::class);
echo $someHelper->helpAction();
Notice that dependencies are hidden, and we can focus on the main bussiness. My client code doesn't care or know that $someHelper need an Authenticator or that helpAction need an SomeObject to do its work;
In the background a lot of things happen, a lot of dependencies are detected, resolved and injected.
Notice that I don't use the new operator to create $someObject. The responsability of actual creation of the object is passed to the AbstractFactory
P.S. Gica is my nickname :)
I recommend you to use Singltones or Mutlitones. In these cases you will be always able to get objects via static class' methods.
The other way (couldn't find a correct pattern name, but it could be Registry) is to use one global static object to store multiple objects' instances. E.g. (simplified code, without any checks):
class Registry {
private static $instances = array();
public static function add($k, $v) {
$this->instances[$k] = $v;
}
public static function get($k) {
return $this->instances[$k];
}
}
class MyClass {
public function __construct() {
Registry::add('myclass', $this);
}
}
An ethical question here.
I'm planning on using several manager classes in my new project that will be performing various tasks across the whole project. These classes are singletons, but require construction based on parameters.
As to when/where this construction has to happen, I have mixed feelings. I have these options so far:
Option A
It's easy to just pass these parameters to the getInstance method while having a default null value. On the very first call the parameters will be used, and any additional calls completely ignore them.
While this works, doing so feels rather unlogical, for the following reasons:
It makes documentation unclear. getInstance' first parameter must be of type Collection, but can be null... what's going on here?
You can argue that writing a line about this in the description will clear it up, but I'd prefer clarification to be unneccesary.
It feels faulty to pass getInstance any construction parameters. This is due to the fact that the method name does not explicity hint towards construction, making it unclear it will happen.
Option B
I'm thinking about a setup method. This method takes all parameters, calls the class constructor, and changes the internal class state to initialized.
When calling the getInstance method prior to setup, it will throw a NotInitializedException. After setup has been called, any additional calls to setup will result in a PreviouslyInitializedException.
After setup has been called, getInstance becomes available.
Personally, this option appeals more to me. But it feels excessive.
What option do you prefer? And why?
I would probably try and ditch the singleton approach and pass manager classes around to whatever needs them.
$manager = new Manager( $collection, $var, $var2 );
$other_class = New OtherClass( $manager );
//or
$other_class = New OtherClass;
$other_class->manager = $manager;
//or
$other_class = New OtherClass;
$other_class->setManager( $manager );
Use dependency injection to pass the Manager object around. Don't use Singleton pattern. It's a common consensus that using it creates a global state and makes your API deceptive.
PHP Global in functions (jump to answer)
Singletons are pathological liars
Inject the Manager instance to any class that needs it via the constructor. Each class should not try to instantiate Manager by themselves, the only way the classes get an instance of the Manager is by getting it from constructor.
class NeedsManager
{
protected $manager;
public function __construct(Manager $manager)
{
$this->manager = $manager;
}
}
You don't need to enforce one instance of Manager. Just don't instantiate it more than once. If all of your classes that need an instance of Manager get what they need from the constructor and never tries to instantiate it on their own, it will assure that there's just going to be one instance in your application.
How about option 3. If they are true singletons, set up properties files for their parameters for use with a no-arg getInstance.
If that doesn't fit, you might be misusing the singleton pattern.
You are looking at using a Factory design pattern. Factories are objects that act as fancy constructors for other objects. In your case, you will move setup and getInstance to the factory. The wiki article's pretty good- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_method_pattern
class SingletonFoo {
//properties, etc
static $singleton = NULL;
private function __constructor(){}
static function getInstance(){
if(NULL === self::$singleton) {
self::$singleton = new SingletonFoo();
}
return self::$singleton;
}
}
class FooFactory {
static $SingletonFoo = null;
static function setup($args){
if( !(NULL === self::$SingletonFoo)){
throw new AlreadyInstantiatedException();
}
self::$SingletonFoo = SingletonFoo::getInstance();
//Do stuff with $args to build SingletonFoo
return self::$SingletonFoo;
}
static function getInstance(){
if(NULL === self::$SingletonFoo) {
throw new NotInstantiatedException();
}
return self::$SingletonFoo;
}
}
Don't use Singleton, use Resources Manager (or Service Container, or DI Container):
class ResourceManager
{
protected static $resource;
public static function setResource($resource)
{
if (!empty(self::$resource)) //resource should not be overwritten
{
if ($resource!=self::$resource) return false;
else return true;
}
self::$resource = $resource;
return true;
}
public static function getResource()
{
return self::$resource;
}
}
Resource Manager allows you to set any custom classes for unit-testing (like dependency injection), you can just get needed resources without requesting them in constructor (I like DI, but sometimes it's just more handy to use empty constructors).
Ready-to-use variant: http://symfony.com/doc/current/book/service_container.html (I don't like to move logic from code to configs, but in stand-alone module it looks acceptable).
I'm trying to get my head round Unit Testing and there's one more piece of the jigsaw I need to find.
What I'm trying to do is write tests for the following code. In this case, I've got a really simple Front Controller (written in PHP).
class frontController
{
public function routeRequest($oRequest)
{
$sClassname = $oRequest->getController();
$sMethod = $oRequest->getAction();
$oController = new $sClassname();
$oResponse = $oController->{$sMethod}($oRequest);
return $oResponse;
}
}
The problem I have is because the code creates new objects. I can easily mock the request object so that I can tightly control what it will actually do within my test case. I'm not sure the best way to actually replace the controller with a test double.
This article from IBM suggests having a factory method for creating my controller and then overriding this with a specific class used for testing:
class frontController
{
public function routeRequest($oRequest)
{
$sMethod = $oRequest->getAction();
$oController = $this->createController($oRequest);
$oResponse = $oController->{$sMethod}($oRequest);
return $oResponse;
}
protected function createController($oRequest)
{
$sClassname = $oRequest->getController();
return new $sClassname();
}
}
and then for testing perhaps something like this:
class testFrontController extends frontController
{
public function setMockController($oMockController)
{
$this->oMc = $oMockController;
}
protected function createController($oRequest)
{
return $this->oMockController;
}
}
(note this isn't quite what the article says, but I'm thinking it would be most useful to me if it did this)
Another solution could be to have another class that creates the controller. This would then be a dependent class of the frontController. This way I can replace the factory/creation class during testing with a test double. Something like this:
class frontController
{
public function routeRequest($oRequest, $oControllerFactory)
{
$sMethod = $oRequest->getAction();
$oController = $oControllerFactory->create($oRequest);
$oResponse = $oController->{$sMethod}($oRequest);
return $oResponse;
}
}
class controllerFactory
{
public function create($oRequest)
{
$sClassname = $oRequest->getController();
return new $sClassname();
}
}
I guess the dependency injection could be taken care of in the front controller constructor or via a setter instead of a parameter to the actual "route" method.
I think I prefer option 2.
Is either of these two methods the right way of going about testing this kind of thing?
(perhaps "good way" would be better word here!)
Any thoughts or suggestions on option 1 vs option 2 appreciated or indeed any alternatives. Remember - the key thing is about how to test an object that itself creates other objects as part of its execution.
Thanks!
You might find this article handy.
It discusses how object creation should be separated from the actual running of the application.
I generally find factories to be a good thing to use for this scenario. In addition to the swappability aspect, it means that additional parameters, data, or dependencies required by the object being created can be stored by the factory, and so the object which actually requests the new object doesn't have to know anything about them...
You do not want to use the real controller but a mock, right ?
It seems to me the simplest way to achieve this would be to subclass the request so that it returns the name of a MockController.
I assume you have thought through your assertions so as to define the goal of what exactly you are testing. Keep in mind that unit tests are going to be testing the returns from your methods, which, in this case, is $oResponse (whatever this may be). As a result, your test assertions will be based on this return value. Since I don't know what that return value is from your code snippets, I can only demonstrate an example that you can complete.
I would recommend PHPUnit for your testing as it seems to be the most complete package for PHP imho (many are fans of SimpleTest, as well ... to each their own).
It would look something like this (Please note that I have left out includes for brevity. Read the PHPUnit documentation for more information):
class AimTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase{
private $_controller = null;
private $_request = null;
public function setUp(){
$this->_controller = new frontController();
//what does this object's type?
$this->_request = new requestObject();
}
public function testObjectCreation(){
/*
* note, that this is only one of several assertions that could
* be made depending on the return value
*/
$return = $this->_controller->routeRequest($this->_request);
//tailor to what you expect your output to be
$this->assertTrue($return == "my expected output");
}
Hope I didn't miss the mark completely on your stated purpose. Moral of the story is that you can only test what your methods return. If you want to test object instantiation from a method, use the instanceof PHP function against a method that returns that object after instantiation.