Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Consider the following code:
class CategoryController
{
private $model;
public function __construct()
{
$this->model = new CategoryModel();
}
}
You will see that Controller depends on the Model. I've heard that doing so is not desirable and Model should be injected instead.
I question why. In my case, I build CategoryModel specifically for CategoryController and I don't see a problem leaving it like this inside the class. I mean, I can't inject SomeOtherModel that's not compatible in there anyway... or can I?
Using Dependency Injection to instead inject it into the Controller seems like waste of code.
Hence, is there any reason to use DI here?
answer
Actually in that example, the big question is what is that for?! No methods just an object holder without any way to get it!?
Yea I know, it's just an example, but thats the problem, in that example you don't need DI, actually you not even need the class at all!
Has #Mark Baker said, without the DI/IoC you can't easily test, since it's tightly cupelled. If you take sometime to read about testing and for this case also Mockery
extra
Using Dependency Injection to instead inject it into the Controller seems like waste of code.
When in cases where you don't have something that does the DI for you, it's easy to allow the objects to pass from constructor or make the default ones, in your example would be something like:
use CategoryModelInterface;
class CategoryController
{
private $model;
public function __construct(CategoryModelInterface $categoty = null)
{
$this->model = $category
? $category
: new CategoryModel();
}
}
This way you don't lose much time, and when/if/maybe you'll do some testing, or change the model completely for another, it's actually possible to do it.
I don't think you'll need DI here. However Mark Baker's comment about testing is valid. But you can get around that by using a getter method for the model. That method can then be mocked in tests:
class CategoryController
{
private $model;
public function __construct()
{
...
}
public function getModel() {
if(!$this->model) {
$this->model = new CategoryModel();
}
return $this->model;
}
}
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm new in PHP OOP and curious about method. How to make method inside method (I dont know what its name)?
For example, I can access like this
<?php
$myClass = new CarClass;
$myClass->createNew->bodySection->setColor("red");
Just like Codeigniter for calling a Models or Library using this.
<?php
$this->myLibrary->getData()
It's different from method chaining where between method call there is no parameter, its like javascript.
Can I achieve that? Or any alternative?
Thank you
Given the code,
$myClass = new myCar;
$myClass->createNew->bodySection->setColor("red");
we can make the following statements:
myCar has a property named “createNew”.
createNew holds some unknown object
The unknown object has a property called bodySection
The property named bodySection contains an unknown object that has a method named setColor()
Clear as mud?
There are several ways this could be illustrated; here’s one:
class myCar {
public createNew;
public function __construct() {
$this->createNew = new Foo;
}
}
class Foo {
public bodySection;
public function __construct() {
$this->bodySection = new Bar;
}
}
class Bar {
public function setColor($color) {
echo "Color is $color";
}
}
$myClass = new MyClass;
$myClass->createNow->bodySection->setColor('red');
// output: Color is red
The first problem here is that “createNow” doesn’t make sense as a property; it’s an action, not something that a myCar would own or do.
Likewise, a bodySection would probably have a color as a property, to be set with its own setter method, not some external object.
Bottom line, making long chains of pointers is not something to seek after; rather, they’re probably better kept as short as possible. Otherwise your object probably knows too much about to many things.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
Is it a good practice to create query function inside Database class (which must be created with singletone pattern). Or better create another class with database interface, or something like that, and get database instance in constructor? (Sorry for my English :)
<?php
class Database
{
private static $_pdo = null;
private static function getDatabase() {
if (self::$_pdo === null) {
self::$_pdo = new PDO("mysql:host=localhost;dbname=contact_manager", 'root', '');
}
return self::$_pdo;
}
public static function query($query, $parameters) {
Database::_toArray($parameters);
$query = self::getDatabase()->prepare($query);
$query->execute($parameters);
$result = $query->fetchAll(PDO::FETCH_ASSOC);
return $result;
}
private static function _toArray(&$parameters) {
if (!is_array($parameters)) {
$parameters = array($parameters);
}
}
private function __construct() { }
private function __clone() { }
private function __wakeup() { }
}
?>
This is very wide theme is it good practice or not. As for me there're can be some points of view.
If you don't plan extend your project with another databases which queries should be called via same interface - this solution is OK
If we look at this from SOLID's point of view this is bad decision. According to SOLID you have to separate DB connection from queries. This is because of D-principle (dependency inversion) + S-principle (single responsibility). Also you have to define your own DatabaseInterface which you will use for injection your connection into Repositories - classes which encapsulate your DB queries.
However, this decision also depends on size of your project and your goal. If you just want to make everything right instead of inventing your own brand new bicycle, just take some framework like Symfony or Laravel and forget about this low-level stuff.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Is it bad to use public static function in laravel controllers
In my Product model I have a function that look like this:
public static function setEndDate($time)
{
if ($time == 2)
{
return Carbon::now()->addMonths(2)->toDateTimeString();
}
else
{
return Carbon::now()->addDays($time)->toDateTimeString();
}
}
And then in my controller I use that function like this:
//Validation etc..
$time = Input::get('end_date'); //To transform end-time
$newProduct = new Product();
$newProduct->some_value = Input::get('some_value');
$newProduct->some_value = Input::get('some_value');
$newProduct->end_date = Product::setEndDate($time); //Using my static function like this
newProduct->save();
Is it bad to use static functions like above?
The question per se is pretty opinion-based. I won't say it's necessarily bad to have methods like these in your model, although I also don't recommend doing it. (For more information about that check out #Colin Schoen's answer)
Anyways, Eloquent offers a much nicer solution for this specific problem of yours: Mutators!
They are kind of "setter methods" in where you can modify or mutate the value that will be assigned to the property. Here's an example:
public function setEndDateAttribute($time){
if ($time == 2)
{
$this->attributes['end_date'] = Carbon::now()->addMonths(2)->toDateTimeString();
}
else
{
$this->attributes['end_date'] = Carbon::now()->addDays($time)->toDateTimeString();
}
}
And you use it like this:
$newProduct->end_date = $time;
There isn't anything that will inherently break when you create static methods, but as in all documentation, it isn't recommended. Why?
Static state is omnipresent and entirely destroys testability since you can't just reset the state. Additionally, anything could affect the state in ways that other aspects of the code can't predict, resulting in the potential for wildly unpredictable behavior.
Laravel 4 prevents this by using static 'facades'. These facades are "syntactic short-hand for IoC resolution". They provide both syntactic sugar and prevent tightly coupled code.
The classes that are resolved by the facades can be changed and allow you to inject mock systems or whatever you wish.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
Which design concept is better in PHP; passing variable to the function myFunct() or not passing the variable?
<?php
class A{
public $myvar=1;
public function myFunc($myvar){
$this->myvar=$myvar+1;
}
}
$myA=new A();
$myA->myFunc($myA->myvar);
// OR THIS ONE
class A{
public $myvar=1;
public function myFunc(){
$this->myvar=$this->myvar+1;
}
}
$myA=new A();
$myA->myFunc();
?>
Here is maybe a better example of what I am trying to understand:
class PhotosBasicClasses{
protected $srcImage;
protected $fileImageTypeFlag;
public function createThumb($srcImage,$fileImageTypeFlag){
$this->srcImage=$srcImage;
$this->fileImageTypeFlag=$fileImageTypeFlag;
$resourceNewImage=$this->imageCreateFromFormat($srcImage,$fileImageTypeFlag); //with or without the parameters is better?!
}
protected function imageCreateFromFormat($srcImage,$fileImageTypeFlag){
switch($fileImageTypeFlag){ //this is my problem: would be better to use the class variable or the internal variable($fileImageTypeFlag or $this->fileImageTypeFlag )
case 'jpeg': return imagecreatefromjpeg($srcImage);break;
case 'png': return imagecreatefrompng($srcImage);break;
case 'gif': return imagecreatefromgif($srcImage);break;
default: return "error source file format";
}
}
Generally keep at class scope variables describing your class and usually required by most of your "important"(methods tha also describe what the class can do or has) methods.
At first glance, in your case the method imageCreateFromFormat($srcImage,$fileImageTypeFlag) looks fine and self contained . But the method createThumb if all it does is what you posted then remove it along with the two class variables and rename the other method to createThumb.
If it is unfinished and after calling the method imageCreateFromFormat is going to crop the image and create a thumbnail, then there is no reason to have class scope variables you can remove them unless you plan to rename the class and add a bunch of methods that use these two variables.
Finally, care must be taken with class names, it is not good practice to use plural and the word class.
Neither of this examples is good. If you want to have object variable it's better to make it private.
By the way, your examples is doing differnt tasks, becouse first gets variable through function params increments it by one and save to object variable and second example only increments object variable by one.
Instead of "$this->myvar = $this->myvar+1;" you can use "$this->myvar++;"
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
When declaring an array as a class member, which way should it be done?
class Test1 {
private $paths = array();
public function __construct() {
// some code here
}
}
or
class Test2 {
private $paths;
public function __construct() {
$this->paths = array();
// some code here
}
}
Which one is better in terms of good practices and performance? What would you recommend?
I'd suggest doing this when declaring a class variable. A constructor can be overriden in extending classes, which might result in E_NOTICEs or even E_WARNINGs if any of your functions depend on this variable being an array (even an empty one)
If you are going to populate your array dynamically during initialization, do it in the constructor. If it contains fixed values, do it in the property declaration.
Trying to populate an array dynamically (e.g. by using the return value of a certain function or method) within the declaration results in a parse error:
// Function call is not valid here
private $paths = get_paths();
Performance is not a real concern here as each has its own use case.
In general, because I write mostly in other languages besides PHP, I like to declare my instance variables outside of the constructor. This let's me look at the top of a class and get an idea for all properties and their access modifiers without having to read the code.
For example, I really don't like methods like this
// ...
// whole bunch of code
// ...
public function initialize() {
$this->foo = array();
// some other code to add some stuff to foo
}
Now, if I just look at the class, I can't be sure there is a variable foo even available. If there is, I don't know if I have access to it from anywhere outside the instance.
If instead I have:
public $foo = array();
at the top of my class, I know that foo is an instance property, and that I can access it from elsewhere.
There are no performance implications. Stop obsessing over things that don't matter - concentrate on performance problems that ARE there: measure first, optimize only the top offenders.