I am trying to figure out how to import a large number of PHP class functions on the fly. For example...
class Entity
{
public function __construct($type)
{
require_once $type."_functions.php"
}
// ...
}
$person = new Entity("human");
$person->sayhi();
$cow = new Entity("cow");
$cow->sayhi();
human_functions.php:
class Entity redefines Entity
{
public function sayhi()
{
echo "Hello world!";
}
}
cow_functions.php:
class Entity redefines Entity
{
public function sayhi()
{
echo "Moo!";
}
}
I have found a few possibilities like classkit_method_redefine() and runkit_method_redefine() (which are "experimental", and they cannot modify the currently running class anyway). I am on PHP 5.3.3 right now, so I can't use Traits (Not sure if that is what I am looking for anyways). I have had success redefining the handler variable like this:
// Example 2:
class OtherEntity { /* Code Here */ }
class Entity
{
public function __construct($type)
{
global $foo;
unset($foo);
$foo = new OtherEntity();
}
}
$foo = new Entity();
But, this feels like a very hacky method. More importantly, if I don't name every instance of the class $foo, then it will not work. Are there any workarounds for what I am trying to do?
Note: I am aware that I can extend a class, but in my case when the Entity class is initiated, there is no safe way to know in advance what subclass it would need to be initiated with. Perhaps there is a method I could write, such as:
public function changeClass
{
this->class = OtherEntity;
}
Thanks for your help!
Here's an idea of a possible solution you could try. Let the Cow and Human classes extend the Entity class. However, the Entity class would use a factory to instantiate the objects based on if the value was safe. Let's look at this in more detail:
/*
* Class Entity should not be able to be instantiated.
* It should contain a factory to instantiate the
* appropriate entity and an abstract function declaring
* the method that each entity will need to implement.
*/
abstract class Entity {
public static function factory($type) {
return (is_subclass_of($type, "Entity")) ? new $type() : FALSE;
}
abstract public function sayHi();
}
/*
* Human class extends Entity and implements the
* abstract method from Entity.
*/
class Human extends Entity {
public function sayHi() {
echo "Hello World!";
}
}
/*
* Cow class extends Entity and implements the
* abstract method from Entity.
*/
class Cow extends Entity {
public function sayHi() {
echo "Moo!";
}
}
Now to use this method, call the factory method and if all works well, it'll instantiate the proper class which will extend Entity.
$person = Entity::factory("Human");
$person->sayHi();
$cow = Entity::factory("Cow");
$cow->sayHi();
Using, is_subclass_of() will keep you safe because if the passed in value is not a class that extends Entity, you'll be returned a value of FALSE.
If you'd like to see the above code in action, copy the above php code and test it out on phpfiddle.org.
One thing you can do is create Human and Cow as subclasses of Entity. When you do new Entity("Human"), you can store a newly created Human object inside the Entity instance.
Then you can use __call to redirect method calls to the "child element".
class Entity{
private $child;
public function __construct($type){
$this->child = new $type;
}
public function __call($func, $params=array()){
$method = method_exists($this, $func)
? [$this, $func] : [$this->child, $func];
return call_user_func_array($method, $params);
}
}
class Human extends Entity{
public function __construct(){}
public function sayhi(){
echo "Hello world!";
}
}
class Cow extends Entity{
public function __construct(){}
public function sayhi(){
echo "Moo!";
}
}
$person = new Entity("Human");
$person->sayhi();
$cow = new Entity("Cow");
$cow->sayhi();
The only downside is that $person and $cow are both Entity objects.
Related
I've setup an abstract class that must execute methods from another instanciated class.
So I setup an anonymous class that extends my abstract class and in the implemented method, I want to access the methods of that "other instanciated class", but for my IDE to help me to find the correct name of the methods and arguments, I must write somewhere the type.
abstract class blah
{
protected object $reference;
public function __construct(object $reference)
{
$this->reference = $reference;
$this->hello();
}
abstract public function hello();
}
class world
{
public function __construct()
{
new class($this) extends blah {
public function hello()
{
$this->reference->display();
}
};
}
public function display()
{
echo 'hello world';
}
}
new world();
I can't change the type from "object" to something else to allow my IDE to show the methods
public function __construct()
{
new class($this) extends blah {
protected world $reference;
public function hello()
{
$this->reference->display();
}
};
}
this throws
Fatal error: Type of blah#anonymous::$reference must be object (as in class blah)
I could copy the attribute "reference" to another variable and set a typehint to "world", but that's not the best
public function __construct()
{
new class($this) extends blah {
protected world $reference;
public function hello()
{
/** #var world $hello */
$hello = $this->reference;
$hello->display();
}
};
}
what better solution do I have ?
edit: this seems to work, is it the best way ?
new class($this) extends blah {
/** #var world $reference */
protected object $reference;
public function hello()
{
$this->reference->display();
}
};
It's worth understanding why PHP is telling you that you can't change the property type.
Since this is a protected property, it can be read and written by either the parent or child class. For instance, the parent class might have methods like this, which would be inherited by the child class:
public function getReference(): object {
return $this->reference;
}
public function setReference(object $newReference): void {
$this->reference = $newReference;
}
public function setReferenceToDefault(): void {
$this->reference = new SomethingBoring;
}
If you specify world as the type of $reference in a child class, the getReference method will work fine - any instance of world is an object, so the return type is OK. But the setReference() and setReferenceToDefault() methods would fail, because they try to assign something that isn't of type world.
Essentially, by declaring a protected property on the base class, you are setting a contract for all child classes, and PHP is enforcing it for you. The technical term for this is "contravariance": a child class can be more generous in what it accepts, but it can't reject values the parent would accept. The opposite is "covariance", which applies to returning values: the child class can be more specific about what it will return, but can't return something the parent class never would. When something is both input and output, you get both restrictions, so can't vary the type at all.
Since you don't actually use the property on the base class, this restriction isn't actually needed, so in this case one option is simply not to define the property or constructor on the base class. In other cases, you might want to use traits, which are "compiler assisted copy-and-paste": they don't assert any relationship between two classes, but they save you writing the same code more than once.
If you want it only for IDE, then use documentation block to overwrite type declaration (if IDE supports it):
/**
* #property world $reference
*/
new class($this) extends blah {
public function hello()
{
$this->reference->display();
}
};
E.g. PHPStorm, while not supporting that for anonymous class, supports for normal class description:
Have a look at the following trait:
trait PrimaryModelRest {
use RestController;
protected $primaryModel;
public function __construct() {
$mc = $this->getPrimaryModelClass();
try {
$this->primaryModel = new $mc();
if(!($this->primaryModel instanceof Model)) {
throw new ClassNotFoundException("Primary Model fatal exception: The given Class is not an instance of Illuminate\Database\Eloquent\Model");
}
} catch (Exception $e) {
throw new WrongImplementationException("Primary Model Exception: Class not found.");
}
}
/**
* #return string: Classname of the primary model.
*/
public abstract function getPrimaryModelClass();
// various functions here
}
As you can see the trait makes sure that the using class holds a certain model instance and it implements certain methods. This works as long as the implementing class does not override the constructor.
So here is my question: I want to make sure that either the constructor is called or a better solution, such that I can instantiate this model on initialization.
Please make in answer which respects Multiple inheritance as well es Multi-Level inheritance.
I think you are trying to make the trait do a job it is not designed for.
Traits are not a form of multiple inheritance, but rather "horizontal reuse" - they're often described as "compiler-assisted copy-and-paste". As such, the job of a trait is to provide some code, so that you don't have to copy it into the class manually. The only relationship it has is with the class where the use statement occurs, where the code is "pasted". To aid in this role, it can make some basic requirements of that target class, but after that, the trait takes no part in inheritance.
In your example, you are concerned that a sub-class might try to access $primaryModel without running the constructor code which initialises it, and you are trying to use the trait to enforce that; but this is not actually the trait's responsibility.
The following definitions of class Sub are completely equivalent:
trait Test {
public function foo() {
echo 'Hello, World!';
}
}
class ParentWithTrait {
use Test;
}
class Sub inherits ParentWithTrait {
}
vs:
class ParentWithMethodDefinition {
public function foo() {
echo 'Hello, World!';
}
}
class Sub inherits ParentWithMethodDefinition {
}
In either case, class Sub could have its own definition of foo(), and by-pass the logic you'd written in the parent class.
The only contract that can prevent that is the final keyword, which in your case would mean marking your constructor as final. You can then provide an extension point that can be overridden for sub-classes to add their own initialisation:
class Base {
final public function __construct() {
important_things(); // Always run this!
$this->onConstruct(); // Extension point
}
protected function onConstruct() {
// empty default definition
}
}
class Sub {
protected function onConstruct() {
stuff_for_sub(); // Runs after mandatory important_things()
}
}
A trait can also mark its constructor as final, but this is part of the code being pasted, not a requirement on the class using the trait. You could actually use a trait with a constructor, but then write a new constructor as well, and it would mask the trait's version completely:
trait Test {
final public function __construct() {
echo "Trait Constructor";
}
}
class Noisy {
use Test;
}
class Silent {
use Test;
public function __construct() {
// Nothing
}
}
As far as the trait is concerned, this is like buying a bottle of beer and pouring it down the sink: you asked for its code and didn't use it, but that's your problem.
Crucially, though, you can also alias the methods of the trait, creating a new method with the same code but a different name and/or a different visibility. This means you can mix in code from traits which declare constructors, and use that code in a more complex constructor, or somewhere else in the class altogether.
The target class might also use the "final + hook" pattern:
trait TestOne {
final public function __construct() {
echo "Trait TestOne Constructor\n";
}
}
trait TestTwo {
final public function __construct() {
echo "Trait TestTwo Constructor\n";
}
}
class Mixed {
final public function __construct() {
echo "Beginning\n";
$this->testOneConstructor();
echo "Middle\n";
$this->testTwoConstructor();
echo "After Traits\n";
$this->onConstruct();
echo "After Sub-Class Hook\n";
}
use TestOne { __construct as private testOneConstructor; }
use TestTwo { __construct as private testTwoConstructor; }
protected function onConstruct() {
echo "Default hook\n";
}
}
class ChildOfMixed extends Mixed {
protected function onConstruct() {
echo "Child hook\n";
}
}
The trait hasn't forced the Mixed class to implement this pattern, but it has enabled it, in keeping with its purpose of facilitating code reuse.
Interestingly, the below code doesn't work, because the as keyword adds an alias, rather than renaming the normal method, so this ends up trying to override the final constructor from Mixed:
class ChildOfMixed extends Mixed {
use TestTwo { __construct as private testTwoConstructor; }
protected function onConstruct() {
$this->testTwoConstructor();
echo "Child hook\n";
}
}
Use a base class, this will let you handle the trait as a parent.
<?php
trait StorageTrait
{
public function __construct()
{
echo "Storage Trait";
}
}
class StorageAttempt
{
use StorageTrait;
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct();
echo " - Storage Attempt";
}
}
abstract class StorageBase
{
use StorageTrait;
}
class MyStorage extends StorageBase
{
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct();
echo ' - My Storage';
}
}
new StorageAttempt(); // won't work - will trigger error
new MyStorage(); // will display "Storage Trait - My Storage"
Also if you are using traits you can also work with properties and getters & setters.
Example: A Storage trait involves that a Storage Engine will be used. You can add the storageEngine property and its getters and setters. (with or without Type Hinting)
interface StorageEngineInterface{}
trait StorageTrait
{
/**
* #var StorageEngineInterface
*/
protected $storageEngine;
/**
* #return StorageEngineInterface
*/
public function getStorageEngine(): StorageEngineInterface
{
return $this->storageEngine;
}
/**
* #param StorageEngineInterface $storageEngine
*/
public function setStorageEngine(StorageEngineInterface $storageEngine)
{
$this->storageEngine = $storageEngine;
return $this;
}
}
Note: this is just an explanation so you can better understand how Traits work
UPDATE
To avoid conflict you can use aliases for trait methods. This way you can use both constructors (from trait and from extended class) you can do the following
class DifferentStorage
{
public function __construct()
{
echo ' diff ';
}
}
class MyDifferentStorage extends DifferentStorage
{
use StorageTrait {
StorageTrait::__construct as otherConstructor;
}
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct();
self::otherConstructor();
}
}
You could use the interface injection pattern: implement an interface iPrimaryModelRest into the same class that uses the trait PrimaryModelRest:
interface iPrimaryModelRest {
public function init();
public abstract function getPrimaryModelClass();
}
The class that uses the trait woud look like this:
class cMyClass implements iPrimaryModelRest {
use PrimaryModelRest;
}
Then, whenever the class is instantiated (not only autoloaded) you could call a special factory-like initialisation function like this:
class cMyApp {
public function start() {
/** #var cMyClass $oClass */ // enlighten IDE
$oClass = $this->init(new cMyClass);
}
public function init($oClass) {
if ($oClass instanceof iPrimaryModelRest) {$oClass->init();}
if ($oClass instanceof whateverinterface) {
// pass optional stuff, like database connection
}
}
}
The interface is used to determine the capabilities of the class, and sets data/runs corresponding functions. If I'm not mistaken then this pattern is called a Service Locator.
I needed a trait for database connection. To avoid using the __construct in a trait, I've used a magic getter instead:
trait WithDatabaseConnection
{
public function __get(string $name)
{
if ($name === 'pdo') {
return App::make(\PDO::class);
}
trigger_error("Property $name does not exist.");
return null;
}
}
class Foo {
use WithDatabaseConnection;
public function save() {
$this->pdo->query('...');
}
}
I have a Factory Method to instance a class. Is there a way to prevent this class from direct instancing?
The only option I see is to use an argument passed into the __construct(), but that's not something I'm looking for.
On the other hand, making the __construct() private would be ideal, but I don't want MyClass to extend the Factory without actual need.
What do you guys think?
Factory Method:
class Factory
{
public static function instance()
{
return new MyClass(true);
}
}
MyClass:
class MyClass
{
public function __construct($isFactory = false)
{
if (!$isFactory) {
throw new Exception('Use Factory::instance() to create an object');
}
}
}
There are hacks to do that:
abusing inheritance to use a protected constructor
putting the factory method inside the class so that it can call the private constructor, which is actually not a hack. But then why not using the constructor in the first place?
using reflection to access the private constructor
I'm not promoting anything of that. What I personally do is documenting the API with things like #internal and leave it to the client following that contract.
In essence, your code should have read something like this:
THE FACTORY
<?php
class Factory {
public static function instance(){
return new MyClass(true); //HERE YOU ARE INSTANTIATING
}
}
THE CLASS TO BE INSTANTIATED VIA THE FACTORY
<?php
//NOT MyClass() <--- YOU ARE DEFINING.... NOT INSTANTIATING...
class MyClass {
public function __construct($isFactory = false) {
if (!$isFactory) {
throw new Exception('Use Factory::instance() to create an object');
}
}
//...MORE METHODS
}
Could you try this instead?
<?php
class Factory
{
private static $FACTORY_GUARANTOR; //ONLY SET DURING INSTANTIATION
public static function instance($type) {
if (class_exists($type)) {
self::$FACTORY_GUARANTOR = 1;
$instance = new $type();
self::$FACTORY_GUARANTOR = null;
return $instance;
}
else {
throw new Exception("Class not found...");
}
}
//YOU CAN GET $FACTORYGUARANTOR EXTERNALLY BUT NEVER SET IT;
public static function getGuarantor(){
return self::$FACTORY_GUARANTOR;
}
}
class MyClass {
protected $property1;
protected $property3;
protected $property2;
public function __construct() {
// IF SOMEONE TRIES TO INSTANTIATE THE CLASS OUTSIDE OF THE FACTORY... BLOW A WHISTLE
if(!Factory::getGuarantor()){
throw new Exception('Use Factory::instance() to create an object');
}
// IF THE PROGRAM MADE IT TO THIS POINT;
// JUST INSTANTIATE THE CLASS BECAUSE MOST LIKELY IT IS COMING FROM THE FACTORY
var_dump($this); // A LITTLE CONFIRMATION....
}
//...MORE METHODS
}
// TRY IT OUT:
/*INSTANCE A: RIGHT*/ $theClass = Factory::instance("MyClass"); //INSTANTIATES THE CLASS
/*INSTANCE B: WRONG*/ $theClass = new MyClass(); //THROWS AN EXCEPTION
The easiest way is to define your base class as abstract. The abstract classes cannot be directly instanced, so you will have to redefine their abstract members in the inherited classes:
abstract class Factory
{
abstract public function foo();
}
class InheritedClass extends Factory
{
public function foo()
{
// Do something
}
}
// $obj1 = new Factory(); // Will produce an error
$obj1 = new InheritedClass(); // Will be executed successfully
You can read more for the abstract classes here: PHP: Class Abstraction - Manual.
For me, the best way is to use ReflectionClass:
class MyClass
{
public const FRIEND_CLASSES = [Factory::class];
protected function __construct() {}
}
trait Constructor
{
protected function createObject(string $className, array $args = [])
{
if (!in_array(static::class, $className::FRIEND_CLASSES)) {
throw new \Exception("Call to private or protected {$className}::__construct() from invalid context");
}
$reflection = new ReflectionClass($className);
$constructor = $reflection->getConstructor();
$constructor->setAccessible(true);
$object = $reflection->newInstanceWithoutConstructor();
$constructor->invokeArgs($object, $args);
return $object;
}
}
class Factory
{
use Constructor;
public function MyClass(): MyClass
{
return $this->createObject(MyClass::class);
}
}
In constant FRIEND_CLASSES you can define in which classes the class can be instanced.
trait is used because this functionality can be used in different factories that are not related.
If you need to put parameters into constructor of the class, put them as second parameter of createObject.
Details I described in the article "Forbidding of creating objects outside factory in PHP"
I have an abstract class that declares the methods required to its children. It also has a construstor that its children inherits. How can I make the abstract class affect the children of the classes that extends it. To further clarify my question, here is my case:
The Abstract Class (abstract.php):
<?php
include_once 'database.php';
include_once 'validation.php';
abstract class DataOperations extends DatabaseConnection {
//The error string shared by all children of DataOperations
//This will be the message to be displayed in case validation failure
public $validator;
public $err_valid_string;
/**
* The DataOperations' constructor ensures that all of its children can perform database operation
* by automatically starting it for them. In case a child overrides this constructor, this child
* must explicitly start the connection to prevent fatal errors. Also, $validator must be re-instantiated
*/
public function __construct() {
$this->startDBConnection();
$this->validator = new InputValidator();
}
public function __destruct() {
}
abstract public function validateData();
abstract public function loadRecord($key, $cascade);
abstract public function saveRecord();
abstract public function updateRecord();
abstract public function deleteRecord();
}
?>
Now, here is the child object that extends the DataOperations abstract class
class Guest extends DataOperations {
//some properties here
public function validateData() {
//implementation
}
public function newRecord(implementation) {
//implementation
}
public function loadRecord($key, $cascade){
//implementation
}
public function saveRecord() {
//implementation
}
public function updateRecord() {
//implementation
}
public function deleteRecord() {
//implementation
}
}
?>
And here is another class, which is a child of Guest
class Booking extends Guest {
//some properties here
public function validateData() {
//implementation
}
public function newRecord(implementation) {
//implementation
}
public function loadRecord($key, $cascade){
//implementation
}
public function saveRecord() {
//implementation
}
public function updateRecord() {
//implementation
}
public function deleteRecord() {
//implementation
}
}
?>
The problem is, if I remove a method in Booking, say deleteRecord(), PHP won't throw an error because I think abstract class doesn't affect its 'grandchildren'. How can I fix this? I thought of using interfaces but my system already has 11 classes that depends to some methods of the abstract class. It will require intensive refactoring.
As you himself stated interface is best suited solution. Like
include_once 'database.php';
include_once 'validation.php';
interface DbInterface {
abstract public function validateData();
abstract public function loadRecord($key, $cascade);
abstract public function saveRecord();
abstract public function updateRecord();
abstract public function deleteRecord();
}
class DataOperations extends DatabaseConnection {
//The error string shared by all children of DataOperations
//This will be the message to be displayed in case validation failure
public $validator;
public $err_valid_string;
/**
* The DataOperations' constructor ensures that all of its children can perform database operation
* by automatically starting it for them. In case a child overrides this constructor, this child
* must explicitly start the connection to prevent fatal errors. Also, $validator must be re-instantiated
*/
public function __construct() {
$this->startDBConnection();
$this->validator = new InputValidator();
}
public function __destruct() {
}
}
class Guest extends DataOperations implements DbInterface {
- - -
}
class Booking extends Guest implements DbInterface {
- - -
}
First as you see I removed abstract from parent class as I assuming only those methods are abstract. Second as per your problem of 11 classes depend on Abstract class, I would say As you only remove abstract methods, Class implementing abstract methods now should implement interface. It is one time needed task. While classes using other normal methods of abstract class work like previous.
The best and cleanest way would be to have your "BOOKING" class extend the "DATAOPERATIONS" class, instead of GUEST, because looks like you don't have any extra methods in the BOOKING class. other wise make and interface and implement it. That is not the preferred way but you would have to give more info your situation.
To be clear, re-declaring a method in a child class will overwrite the parent class's implementation of that method when called from the child class, while not affecting any additional functionality provided by extending the parent class:
class a
{
function hello()
{
echo "Hello";
}
function goodbye()
{
echo "Goodbye";
}
}
/**
* class b overwrites class a's implementation of method goodbye but will retain
* it's definition for method hello
*/
class b extends a
{
function goodbye()
{
echo "See ya!";
}
}
$object = new b();
$object->hello(); // Hello
$object->goodbye();// See ya!
It appears that you want to implement a consistent interface across multiple class definitions. If this is the case, you will likely want to explore using PHP's interfaces.
These allow you to specify the methods that must exist in your class definition along with their set of arguments (collectively known as the signature). Your class definitions will implement an interface and if your definition does not meet the interface implementation specification, a fatal error will be thrown.
From the PHP manual:
// Declare the interface 'iTemplate'
interface iTemplate
{
public function setVariable($name, $var);
public function getHtml($template);
}
// Implement the interface
// This will work
class Template implements iTemplate
{
private $vars = array();
public function setVariable($name, $var)
{
$this->vars[$name] = $var;
}
public function getHtml($template)
{
foreach($this->vars as $name => $value) {
$template = str_replace('{' . $name . '}', $value, $template);
}
return $template;
}
// This will not work
// Fatal error: Class BadTemplate contains 1 abstract methods
// and must therefore be declared abstract (iTemplate::getHtml)
class BadTemplate implements iTemplate
{
private $vars = array();
public function setVariable($name, $var)
{
$this->vars[$name] = $var;
}
}
You can find more information about interface in the PHP manual:
http://us2.php.net/interface
Finally, it looks like you are hoping to define a common constructor for the child classes. Your child classes can both extend the DataOperations class while implementing a separate interface:
class Guest extends DataOperations implements DatabaseWriter
...
Consider the following code:
class Vehicle {
/**
* Create a new instance of Vehicle
*
* #return Vehicle
*/
public static function create(){
return eval( "return new " . get_called_class() . '();' );
// return self(); would always return Vehicle reg ardless
}
public function drive(){
echo "I am a Vehicle!";
}
}
class Bus extends Vehicle {
public function drive(){
parent::drive();
echo "\nSpecifically, a bus!";
}
}
class Car extends Vehicle {
public function drive(){
parent::drive();
echo "\nSpecifically, a car!";
}
}
// Drive a car
Car::create()->drive();
// Drive a bus
Bus::create()->drive();
I've implemented a factory "create" method in the Vehicle class that allows me to get an instance of the class that I want to use.
I tried using "return new self();" but that always returns an instance of Vehicle, so I resorted to using eval.
question: Is there a non-eval way to implement the create() method so that:
it returns an instance of the class you're using
it doesn't require implementing create() on each of the extending classes
Use static instead of self, e.g.
<?php
class Vehicle {
public static function create(){
return new static();
}
public function drive(){
echo "I am a Vehicle!";
}
}
class Bus extends Vehicle {
public function drive(){
parent::drive();
echo "\nSpecifically, a bus!";
}
}
$b = Bus::create();
$b->drive();
prints
I am a Vehicle!
Specifically, a bus!
(VolkerK beat me, but this has a slight variation)
Wait, why do you need to eval() at all? Wouldn't:
public static function create() {
$class = get_called_class();
return new $class();
}
work?
The best way is to move the factory method out of the concrete type and into a factory class of it's own. You can then not only handle this more easily but you can also replace the factory with another factory easily.
I assume you know how inheritance with objects work, so you don't have to deal with anything static which is less straight forward and starts to stand in someones way pretty fast.