Call a method after __construct in finished - php

Basically I have a method which I need to run when the constructor is finished (the method is called persist() and it simply saves a key which was generated during the constructor into the session). It seems simple enough, and it works - at the end of __construct I make the call to $this->persist().
The problem is that this class is subclassed many times. This causes two issues.
One, that I must remember to make the call to persist() at the end of every single subclass's __construct method. Not a huge issue but it doesn't feel very OOP, I feel like I could be dealing with this in the parent class some how and that this would be better.
Two, if a subclass is subclassed (which it is), and the __construct methods chained (i.e. parent::__construct called), the persist() method will be getting fired multiple times, once for each time the class has been subclassed. It only needs to be called once, when all construction is complete. In this scenario it doesn't really break anything because when the persist method is called for the 2nd, 3rd time etc., it simply overwrites what was persisted before. But that isn't the point, because I just feel like there must be a better way and that there are scenarios out there that would not allow for the method to be called multiple times.
Is a factory method which constructs the object and then makes the call to persist on it the only way? I can go down this route but I am just wondering if there is a way to do it without, so that the method from the parent is always called after construction.
Here is some example code:
session_start();
is(!isset($_SESSION["Component"])) $_SESSION["Component"] = [];
abstract Class Component
{
private $id;
protected $key;
function __construct($id = NULL)
{
$this->id = $id;
$this->key = [];
$this->key["something"] = "SomeValue";
$this->persist(); // First call
}
protected function persist()
{
if($this->id !== NULL) $_SESSION["Component"][$this->id] = $this->key;
}
}
Class SomeComponent extends Component
{
function __construct($id = NULL)
{
parent::__construct($id);
$this->key["something-else"] = "SomeOtherValue";
$this->persist(); // Second call
}
}
Class SomeSpecialistComponent extends SomeComponent
{
function __construct($id = NULL, $key = [])
{
parent::__construct($id);
$this->key = array_merge($this->key, $key);
$this->persist(); // Third call
}
}
$my_component = new SomeSpecialistComponent(1, ["example" => true]);

Only trick I found to get something similar (except I wanted to execute things before and not after) is using a parent class with an abstract method as a new constructor :
abstract class RequireThings {
public function __construct() {
$this->constructAndPersist();
$this->persist();
}
abstract function constructAndPersist();
// You could also set this function in your children classes by the way.
public function persist() {
echo ' Then I persist!';
}
}
class UsingPersist extends RequireThings {
public function constructAndPersist() {
echo 'I do my things first.';
}
}
$class = new UsingPersist();
Would output :
I do my things first. Then I persist!
If I got your problem right, it should be enough to avoid problems you are facing.
The main downside of this solution is that you have to use a new function which is supposed to be your new constructor for this type of classes. That's why I set the __constructPersist as abstract, it forces the behavior as wanted.

I would argue in favor of the factory method, mostly because you're doing real work in the constructor. Remove the call where work is being done in the constructors ($this->persist) and place it in the factory:
class ComponentFactory
{
const SOME_COMPONENT = 'component';
const SOME_SPECIALIST_COMPONENT = 'specialist_component';
public static function make($type, $id, $key = null)
{
switch($type) {
case self::SOME_COMPONENT:
$component = new SomeComponent($id);
break;
case self::SOME_SPECIALIST_COMPONENT:
$component = new SomeSpecialistComponent($id, $key);
break;
}
$component->persist();
return $component;
}
}
$component = ComponentFactory::make(ComponentFactory::SOME_COMPONENT, 42);
$specialist = ComponentFactory::make(
ComponentFactory::SOME_SPECIALIST_COMPONENT,
43,
[
'something' => 'SomeValue',
'something-else' => 'SomeOtherValue',
]
);
According to Miško Hevery (author of AngularJS and agile coach at Google) these are the warning signs of doing too much work in the constructor:
new keyword in a constructor or at field declaration
Static method calls in a constructor or at field declaration
Anything more than field assignment in constructors
Object not fully initialized after the constructor finishes (watch
out for initialize methods)
Control flow (conditional or looping logic) in a constructor
CL does complex object graph construction inside a constructor
rather than using a factory or builder
Adding or using an initialization block

just create another function that you'll call before $this->persist and override that in your subclasses instead of the constructor

Related

PHP OOP - Pass data between classes through the calling class?

I'm struggling to find a correct approach to pass data between classes, which do not directly call each other, and are only related through a parent class (which I now use, but I consider it a dirty workaround rather than anything near a solution).
I have 3 classes both able to read input and write output, and based on configuration I set one to read, another one to write. It may even be the same class, they all share a parent class, but they are always two separate instances called from a controller class.
Currently I use this sort of functionality:
class daddy {
public static $data;
}
class son extends daddy {
public function setData() {
parent::$data = "candy";
}
}
class daughter extends daddy {
public function getData() {
echo parent::$data;
}
}
while($processALineFromConfig)
$son = new son;
$son->setData();
$daughter = new daughter;
$daughter->getData();
daddy::$data = null; //reset the data, in the actual code $daughter does that in parent::
}
Instantination of these classes runs in a loop, therefore I always need to reset the data after $daughter receives them, 'cos otherwise it would stay there for another pass through the loop.
I'm absolutely sure it's not how class inheritance is supposed to be used, however I'm struggling to find a real solution. It only makes sense the data should be stored in the controller which calls these classes, not the parent, but I already use return values in the setter and getter functions, and I am not passing a variable by reference to store it there to these functions 'cos I have optional parameters there and I'm trying to keep the code clean.
What would be the correct approach to pass data through the controller then?
Thanks!
The best option would be for two object share some other, third object. This would be the class for "third object" which will ensure the exchage:
class Messenger
{
private $data;
public function store($value)
{
$this->data = $value;
}
public function fetch()
{
return $this->data;
}
}
Then a class for both instance, that will need to share some state:
class FooBar
{
private $messenger;
private $name = 'Nobody';
public function __construct($messenger, $name)
{
$this->messenger = messenger;
$this->name = $name;
}
public function setSharedParam($value)
{
$this->messenger->store($value);
}
public function getSharedParameter()
{
return $this->name . ': ' . $this->messenger->fetch();
}
}
You utilize the classes like this:
$conduit = new Messenger;
$john = new FooBar($conduit, 'Crichton');
$dominar = new FooBar($conduit, 'Rygel');
$dominar->setSharedParameter('crackers');
echo $john->getSharedParameter();
// Crichton: crackers
Basically, they both are accessing the same object. This also can be further expanded by making both instance to observe the instance of Messenger.

PropelORM, Symfony 2 and Unit testing

I'm used to the habit of writing like this:
$results = SomeModelQuery::create()->filterByFoo('bar')->find();
However this does not scale for unit testing because I can't inject a mock object, i.e. I can't affect what data is returned. I'd like to use fixture data, but I can't.
Nor does it seem great to inject an object:
class Foo
{
public __construct($someModelQuery)
{
$this->someModelQuery = $someMOdelQuery;
}
public function doSthing()
{
$results = $this->someModelQuery->filterByFoo('bar')->find();
}
}
DI feels horrible. I have tens of query objects to mock and throw. Setting through constructor is ugly and painful. Setting using method is wrong because it can be forgotten when calling. And it feels painful to always for every single lib and action to create these query objects manually.
How would I elegantly do DI with PropelORM query classes? I don't want to call a method like:
$oneQuery = OneQuery::create();
$anotherQuery = AnotherQuery::create();
// ... 10 more ...
$foo = new Foo($oneQuery, $anotherQuery, ...);
$foo->callSomeFunctionThatNeedsThose();
In my opinion (and Martin Folowers's) there is a step between calling everything statically and using Dependency Injection and it may be what you are looking for.
Where I can't do full DI (Zend Framework MVC for example) I will use a Service Locator. A Service Layer will be the place that all your classes go to get there dependencies from. Think of it as a one layer deep abstraction for your classes dependencies. There are many benefits to using a Service Locator but I will focus on testability in this case.
Let's get into some code, here is are model query class
class SomeModelQuery
{
public function __call($method, $params)
{
if ($method == 'find') {
return 'Real Data';
}
return $this;
}
}
All it does is return itself unless the method 'find' is called. Then is will return the hard-coded string "Real Data".
Now our service locator:
class ServiceLocator
{
protected static $instance;
protected $someModelQuery;
public static function resetInstance()
{
static::$instance = null;
}
public static function instance()
{
if (self::$instance === null) {
static::$instance = new static();
}
return static::$instance;
}
public function getSomeModelQuery()
{
if ($this->someModelQuery === null) {
$this->someModelQuery = new SomeModelQuery();
}
return $this->someModelQuery;
}
public function setSomeModelQuery($someModelQuery)
{
$this->someModelQuery = $someModelQuery;
}
}
This does two things. Provides a global scope method instance so you can always get at it. Along with allowing it to be reset. Then providing get and set methods for the model query object. With lazy loading if it has not already been set.
Now the code that does the real work:
class Foo
{
public function doSomething()
{
return ServiceLocator::instance()
->getSomeModelQuery()->filterByFoo('bar')->find();
}
}
Foo calls the service locator, it then gets an instance of the query object from it and does the call it needs to on that query object.
So now we need to write some unit tests for all of this. Here it is:
class FooTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase
{
protected function setUp()
{
ServiceLocator::resetInstance();
}
public function testNoMocking()
{
$foo = new Foo();
$this->assertEquals('Real Data', $foo->doSomething());
}
public function testWithMock()
{
// Create our mock with a random value
$rand = mt_rand();
$mock = $this->getMock('SomeModelQuery');
$mock->expects($this->any())
->method('__call')
->will($this->onConsecutiveCalls($mock, $rand));
// Place the mock in the service locator
ServiceLocator::instance()->setSomeModelQuery($mock);
// Do we get our random value back?
$foo = new Foo();
$this->assertEquals($rand, $foo->doSomething());
}
}
I've given an example where the real query code is called and where the query code is mocked.
So this gives you the ability to inject mocks with out needing to inject every dependency into the classes you want to unit test.
There are many ways to write the above code. Use it as a proof of concept and adapt it to your need.

Best practices for static constructors

I want to create an instance of a class and call a method on that instance, in a single line of code.
PHP won't allow calling a method on a regular constructor:
new Foo()->set_sth(); // Outputs an error.
So I'm using, if I can call it that, a static constructor:
Foo::construct()->set_sth();
Here's my question:
Is using static constructors like that considered a good practice and if yes, how would you recommend naming the methods for these static constructors?
I've been hesitating over the following options:
Foo::construct();
Foo::create();
Foo::factory()
Foo::Foo();
constructor::Foo();
Static constructors (or "named constructors") are only beneficial to prove an intention, as #koen says.
Since 5.4 though, someting called "dereferencing" appeared, which permits you to inline class instantiation directly with a method call.
(new MyClass($arg1))->doSomething(); // works with newer versions of php
So, static constructors are only useful if you have multiple ways to instantiate your objects.
If you have only one (always the same type of arguments and number of args), there is no need for static constructors.
But if you have multiple ways of instantiations, then static constructors are very useful, as it avoids to pollute your main constructor with useless argument checking, weakening languages constraints.
Example:
<?php
class Duration
{
private $start;
private $end;
// or public depending if you still want to allow direct instantiation
private function __construct($startTimeStamp = null, $endTimestamp = null)
{
$this->start = $startTimestamp;
$this->end = $endTimestamp;
}
public static function fromDateTime(\DateTime $start, \DateTime $end)
{
return new self($start->format('U'), $end->format('U'));
}
public static function oneDayStartingToday()
{
$day = new self;
$day->start = time();
$day->end = (new \DateTimeImmutable)->modify('+1 day')->format('U');
return $day;
}
}
As you can see in oneDayStartingToday, the static method can access private fields of the instance! Crazy isn't it ? :)
For a better explanation, see http://verraes.net/2014/06/named-constructors-in-php/
The naming of any method should be with intention revealing names. I can't tell what 'Foo::factory' does. Try to build to a higher level language:
User::with100StartingPoints();
This would be the same as:
$user = new User();
$user->setPointsTo(100);
You could also easily test whether User::with100StartingPoints() is equal to this.
If you don't need a reference to the newly constructed Foo, why don't you simply make set_sth a static function (and have it create a new Foo internally if required)?
If you do need to get hold of the reference, how would you do it? return $this in set_sth? But then set_sth can be made into a factory function anyway.
The only situation I can think of is if you want to call chainable methods (like in a fluent interface) on a newly constructed instance all in one expression. Is that what you are trying to do?
Anyway, you can use a general-purpose factory function for all types of objects, e.g.
function create_new($type) {
return new $type;
}
create_new('Foo')->set_sth();
It's probably not quite a best practice, but you could use the fact that functions and classes have two different namespaces : you can have a function that have the same name as a class.
This allows one to write this kind of code, for example :
function MyClass() {
return new MyClass();
}
class MyClass {
public function __construct() {
$this->a = "plop";
}
public function test() {
echo $this->a;
}
protected $a;
}
Note that I have defined a function called MyClass, and a class with the same name.
Then, you can write this :
MyClass()->test();
Which will work perfectly, and not get you any error -- here, you'll get the following output :
plop
Addition to Jon's answer: To allow constructor arguments use the following:
function create($type) {
$args = func_get_args();
$reflect = new ReflectionClass(array_shift($args));
return $reflect->newInstanceArgs($args);
}
create('Foo', 'some', 'args')->bar();
Documentation: ReflectionClass->newInstanceArgs
These are called creation methods, and I typically name them createXXX() such as createById() or createEmptyCatalog(). Not only do they provide a nice way to reveal the different intentions of an object's constructors, but they enable immediate method chaining in a fluent interface.
echo Html_Img::createStatic('/images/missing-image.jpg')
->setSize(60, 90)
->setTitle('No image for this article')
->setClass('article-thumbnail');
Propel uses a static method "create". I'd go with that. This method makes the code easier to test rather than just using static methods to perform business logic.
<?php
class MyClass
{
public static function create()
{
return new MyClass();
}
public function myMethod()
{
}
}
Besides, you can also pass parameters to the constructor. For instance:
<?php
class MyClass
{
public function __construct($param1, $param2)
{
//initialization using params
}
public static function create($param1, $param2)
{
return new MyClass($param1, $param2); // return new self($param1, $param2); alternative ;)
}
public function myMethod()
{
}
}
In either case, you'd be able to invoke myMethod right after the create method
<?php
MyClass::create()->myMethod();
// or
MyClass::create($param1, $param2)->myMethod();
A bit late to the party but I think this might help.
class MyClass
{
function __construct() {
// constructor initializations here
}
public static myMethod($set = null) {
// if myclass is not instantiated
if (is_null($set)) {
// return new instance
$d = new MyClass();
return $d->Up('s');
} else {
// myclass is instantiated
// my method code goes here
}
}
}
this can then be used as
$result = MyClass::myMethod();
optional parameters can be passed through either the __constructor or myMethod.
This is my first post and I hope I got the gimmicks right

PHP isset($this) and using the same object method in a static and object context

I'm working on a class which needs to be accessible via static function calls as well as object methods. One thing I have found is that I'm duplicating logic across multiple functions.
Simplified example:
class Configurable{
protected $configurations = array();
protected static $static_configurations = array();
public function configure($name, $value){
// ...lots of validation logic...
$this->configurations[$name] = $value;
}
public static function static_configure($name, $value){
// ...lots of validation logic (repeated)...
self::$static_configurations[$name] = $value;
}
}
I've found a solution to this, but it feels really dirty:
class Configurable{
protected $configurations = array();
protected static $static_configurations = array();
public function configure($name, $value){
// ...lots of validation logic...
if (isset($this)){
$this->configurations[$name] = $value;
}
else{
self::$static_configurations[$name] = $value;
}
}
}
I need the static function as well so that I can set configurations throughout the application. Also, the nice thing with this technique is that I can use the same method names in both scopes.
Are there any problems with testing scope like this? Performance issues, forward compatibility issues, etc. It all works for me on PHP 5.2, and I don't need to support <5.
The issue with the second method is that it will result in an error when error reporting is set to E_STRICT. For example:
Strict standards: Non-static method Foo::bar() should not be called statically in /home/yacoby/dev/php/test.php on line 10
A point with PHP6 is that the E_STRICT errors are moved to E_ALL. In other words E_ALL will cover all errors including not allowing you to call non static methods statically.
An alternative method may be to move the validation logic to a static function. That way the non static function and the static function can call the validation logic.
Static methods would require a different number of arguments than their objective counterpart - the additional argument would be an execution context. If there's no execution context, then it only makes sense to call it statically.
My preferred approach given that I'm building a library with multiple interfaces like this, is to create a static class and a dynamic class. Have one proxy the calls to the other. For example:
class DynamicClass {
protected $foo;
protected $bar;
public function baz($arg1) {
return StaticClass::bar($this->foo, $arg1);
}
public function zop($arg1, $arg2) {
return StaticClass::zop($this->foo, $this->bar, $arg1, $arg2);
}
// Context-less helper function
public function womp($arg1) {
return StaticClass::womp($arg1);
}
}
class StaticClass {
public static function baz(&$fooContext, $arg1) { ... }
public static function zop(&$fooContext, &$barContext, $arg1, $arg2) { ... }
public static function womp($arg1) { ... }
}
It's up to you exactly how you pass context to the static class - you'll have to do whatever makes sense for you. The work done in most functions should be pretty minor (if you're doing a lot, then you probably should be breaking the work up into smaller functions as a rule), and so should only require a handful of context arguments. Or you could create a full context array and pass that around everywhere (either populating it in DynamicClass just before each call, or else track all DynamicClass properties in that array so you can quickly & easily pass it around.
Though actually it looks like you might benefit from a Singleton design pattern. From what I can see, you're trying to create a global Configurable, and also have the option to create individual local Configurables. With the singleton design pattern, you create a globally accessible version of a class that you can guarantee you only have one of (without breaking OOP design principles and having to rely on $_GLOBALS etc). For example:
class DynamicClass {
protected $foo;
protected $bar;
public function baz($arg1) { ... }
public function zop($arg1, $arg2) { ... }
public static function getSingleton() {
static $instance = null;
if ($instance === null) $instance = new DynamicClass();
return $instance;
}
}
No matter where in your code you are, you can get access to the same instance with DynamicClass::getSingleton(). You also have the option of creating one-off non-singleton versions. You essentially get the best of both worlds while only having to write all your methods with dynamic access in mind exclusively.
I don't find it so absurd to allow calling a method on an instance and statically as well. My case:
TestRecord::generateForm(); // Generate an empty form.
$test = new TestRecord( $primaryKey );
[...]
$test->generateForm(); // Generate an edit form with actual $test values.
Static side of my class deals with blank/new logics,
while instance side means live data are used.
PHP 5.3 allows to achieve this by using __call, __callStatic and static:: :
public function __call( $name, $args )
{
if ( $name == 'generateForm' ) {
$this->fields = static::createFields(); // Action 1 : static.
$this->fillFields(); // Action 2 : instance.
static::renderForm( $this->fields ); // Action 3 : static.
}
}
public static function __callStatic( $name, $args )
{
if ( $name == 'generateForm' ) {
$fields = static::createFields(); // Action 1 : static.
// Action 2 : none.
static::renderForm( $fields ); // Action 3 : static.
}
}
Note: The static:: late binding qualifier is used because my 3 action methods (createFields, fillFields and rendreForm) are implemented as protected in the subclasses of this one, which is abstract. This is possible because PHP let protected members be accessed in both directions: from base to subclass, but from subclass to superclass as well. Which is different from other OO languages, as far as I know.
as in core php we use index.php?var=, so to do the same thing in oop php what should we use.

How to remove multiple instances and just have one instance while multiple function calls in php?

public function getHelperInstance()
{
$user = new Helper();
$user->set($result['data']);
return $user;
}
I am calling getHelper() class multiple times and if $user is not empty than am calling getHelperInstance(), now in my case getHelperInstance() always creates a new instance of Helper() class and so every time I call getHelperInstance() function am creating a new instance of Helper() so is there any way where can I can just create one instance of Helper() and use it multiple times instead of creating a new instance everytime. Any suggestions !!!
public function getHelper()
{
$user = array();
if (!empty($user))
{
$user = $this->getHelperInstance();
}
return $user;
}
Here is what Erich Gamma, one of the Singleton pattern's inventors, has to say about it:
"I'm in favor of dropping Singleton. Its use is almost always a design smell"
So, instead of a Singleton, I suggest to use Dependency Injection.
Create the Helper instance before you create what is $this. Then set the helper instance to the $this instance from the outside, either through a setter method or through the constructor.
As an alternative, create a Helper broker that knows how to instantiate helpers by name and pass that to the $this instance:
class HelperBroker
{
protected $helpers = array();
public function getHelper($name)
{
// check if we have a helper of this name already
if(!array_key_exists($name, $this->helpers)) {
// create helper and store for later subsequent calls
$this->helpers[$name] = new $name;
}
return $this->helpers[$name];
}
}
This way you can lazy load helpers as needed and will never get a second instance, without having to use Singleton. Pass an instance of the broker to every class that needs to use helpers.
Example with a single helper
$helper = new Helper;
$someClass = new Something($helper);
and
class Something
{
protected $helper;
public function __construct($helper)
{
$this->helper = $helper;
}
public function useHelper()
{
$return = $this->helper->doSomethingHelpful();
}
}
Inside $something you can now store and access the helper instance directly. You don't need to instantiate anything. In fact, $something doesn't even have to bother about how a helper is instantiated, because we give $something everything it might need upfront.
Now, if you want to use more than one helper in $someClass, you'd use the same principle:
$helper1 = new Helper;
$helper2 = new OtherHelper;
$something = new Something($helper1, $helper2);
This list will get rather long the more dependencies you insert upfront. We might not want to instantiate all helpers all the time as well. That's where the HelperBroker comes into play. Instead of passing every helper as a ready instance to the $something, we inject an object that knows how to create helpers and also keeps track of them.
$broker = new HelperBroker;
$something = new Something($broker);
and
class Something
{
protected $helperBroker;
public function __construct($broker)
{
$this->helperBroker = $broker;
}
public function doSomethingHelpful()
{
$return = $this->getHelper('foo')->doSomethingHelpful();
}
public function doSomethingElse()
{
$return = $this->getHelper('bar')->doSomethingElse();
}
}
Now $something can get the helpers it needs, when it needs them from the broker. In addition, any class that needs to access helpers does now no longer need to bother about how to create the helper, because this logic is encapsulated inside the broker.
$broker = new HelperBroker;
$something = new Something($broker);
$other = new Other($broker);
The broker also makes sure that you only have one helper instance, because when a helper was instantiated, it is stored inside the broker and returned on subsequent calls. This solves your initial problem, that you don't want to reinstance any helpers. It also doesn't force your helpers to know anything about how to manage themselves in the global state, like the Singleton does. Instead you helpers can concentrate on their responsibility: helping. That's clean, simple and reusable.
It sounds like you are interested in the singleton pattern. If you are using PHP5+, you should be able to take advantage of PHP's OOP stuff.
Here's an article on how to implement a singleton in php4. (But I would strongly suggest updating to php5 if that is an option at all)
class Singleton {
function Singleton() {
// Perform object initialization here.
}
function &getInstance() {
static $instance = null;
if (null === $instance) {
$instance = new Singleton();
}
return $instance;
}
}
PHP 4 Singleton Pattern
FYI, if you have any control over which PHP version you use you really should migrate to PHP 5.

Categories