I want to disable a class to be instantized by new operator, but lets suppose a getObject method what creates and returns an instance of it. Is it doable?
class C
{
protected function __construct()
{
}
public static function getObject()
{
return new self();
}
}
UPDATE:
The code above fulfills the requirement: the class cannot be instantiated using new, one needs to use the factory method getObject() to create an object. However, the OP did not specify the reason they need such a construct.
There are several reasons such a design emerges; one of them is when the creation of objects of type C needs to be completed with some initialization that, for whatever reason, cannot be done in the class' constructor.
Another reason for this way of constructing objects of class C is the Singleton design pattern; which in fact is an "anti-pattern", but this is another discussion; in order to implement a Singleton, class C should look like this:
class C
{
private static $instance = NULL;
protected function __construct()
{
}
public static function getObject()
{
if (! isset(self::$instance)) {
self::$instance = new self();
}
return self::$instance;
}
}
Singleton or not, because method getObject() is static it cannot be stubbed or mocked by the test frameworks and its original implementation have to be used. More, because it is the only way to create objects of class C, other classes that use this class cannot be tested in isolation.
All in all, even the construction is possible, it is not recommended. Enforcing the creation of objects of class C using language mechanisms made the class a nuisance for testing other classes that use it.
If the creation of objects of class C needs to be done by a certain method because of its complex initialization, a better way is use the Builder design pattern. Make it a non-static method of another class (the "builder") and instruct the programmers (using the class documentation) to not create objects of class C directly, using new. This way it does not affect the testability of other classes.
I want to disable a class to be instantized by new operator
A common approach is to privatize the constructor.
class Example {
private function __construct() {
}
}
The following would result in a fatal error.
$object = new Example();
While this will work, I would encourage you, and future readers, to review Design Patterns in PHP.
Related
I'm a bit lost here because I want to do something that is very easy in Java but seems a bit complicated in PHP.
We are building an SDK for our product and in Java, we have this one class that must not (!) be instantiated by the user (i.e. the coder), since there are several constraints regarding it's integrity. So we've built that as a nested class "X" inside of the "XFactory" and you will get an instance of X by calling XFactory.buildMeMyX(); - Easy...
Now PHP does not support nested classes at all, and I wonder how to apply the same here. In Java, X's constructor is hidden (private), so only XFactory can call it.
In PHP, it looks like I will have to make __construct() public and move the nested class X out of XFactory. Hence, the user will be able to create an instance without the Factory.
Now - I COULD move the factory functionality to X itself and move all the stuff there, but this would kind of break the design of the SDK. Is there a useful way to do such things in PHP after all?
For PHP 5.x you already described your options, there are no private/protected classes or inner classes at all, so there is no further way to restrict instantiation.
However, with PHP 7 this is going to change.
There are still no nested classes (although we might get them in the future, see: https://stackoverflow.com/a/31454435/664108), but you could instantiate an anonymous class and only provide the consumer with its interface like this:
class XFactory
{
public function buildMeMyX()
{
return new class() implements XInterface {
public function doWhatEverAnXCanDo()
{
// X X X
}
// ...
};
}
}
interface XInterface
{
function doWhatEverAnXCanDo();
}
As the others have said, there currently is no clean way to implement this behavior in PHP. In my opinion, the only valid use case for private constructors are factories inside the class that implement that factories.
Whenever you try to get around that use case it gets messy. No one should ever try to invent clever ways to bypass PHP's language limiations.
I just violated that rule by myself just to prove it is indeed possible. But please refrain from using that in production, or better: using it anywhere. I will try to find some bulletproof arguments for that suggestion and edit the answer afterwards.
<?php
class Dependency {}
class SomeClass {
protected $dep;
private function __construct(Dependency $dep)
{
$this->dep = $dep;
}
public function doSomething()
{
var_dump($this->dep);
echo "Doing Stuff and even having dependencies";
}
}
class SomeClassFactory {
public function buildSomeClass()
{
return $this->instantiateSomeClassWith(new Dependency);
}
protected function instantiateSomeClassWith()
{
$reflectionClass = new ReflectionClass('SomeClass');
$someClass = $reflectionClass->newInstanceWithoutConstructor();
$constructor = $reflectionClass->getConstructor();
$constructorClosure = $constructor->getClosure($someClass);
call_user_func_array($constructorClosure, func_get_args());
return $someClass;
}
}
$factory = new SomeClassFactory();
$someClass = $factory->buildSomeClass();
$someClass->doSomething();
?>
Output: object(Dependency)#2 (0) { } Doing Stuff and even having dependencies
The theory is simple. The constructor of the class that will be built via the Factory is made private. We make use of reflection within the factory to create an instance of the class without invoking the constructor.
Once we have an instance, we grab the closure of the constructor and invoke it via call_user_func_array(). That way you can make use of Dependency Injection just as you would if the constructor was public.
As I said before. That way is a single smell. By creating an object without invoking it's constructor, there is no real way to validate an objects state upon creation
This is a proof of concept, but the concept sucks.
There is no native way to do so, yet. However, if you really want to "enforce" that your class is only created from your factory class, there is a little "hackish" way to do so limiting the instantiation by inistantiating class.
class X
{
function __construct()
{
new Y();
}
}
class Y
{
function __construct()
{
$trace = debug_backtrace(DEBUG_BACKTRACE_PROVIDE_OBJECT, 2);
if (!isset($trace[1]['object']) || !($trace[1]['object'] instanceof X)) {
throw new \RuntimeException('This is a private class');
}
}
}
new X(); // All is fine
new Y(); // Exception
Please note that there is no "real" way to protect the class from being instantiated from elsewhere even using this approach - it still can be done via reflection by bypassing the constructor, or simply modifying your source.
Not sure if my title is correct cause I am not even sure I am using the correct terms.
I have a class that has a property that is an object. When setting this property the object has to be created. My question is how do I do this without tight coupling?
Example:
class A
{
protected $_depending;
protected $_somePropertyObject;
public function __construct(\Lib\Dependency $depending)
{
$this->_setDepending($depending);
}
protected function _setDepending(\Lib\Dependency $depending)
{
$this->_depending = $depending;
}
public function setSomeProperty($someProperty)
{
// I want to prevent this
$this->_somePropertyObject = new \Lib\some\Object($someProperty);
}
}
I could just pass the required object through the construct but what happens more are needed?
When if I understand correctly the factory pattern, what would this change? I would still need to create the object somewhere? Not the object itself but the factory. Again tight coupling? Seems endless to me. When re factoring class(es) it however is isolated where and how the class(es) are made.
If I set the setSomeProperty function to only accept \Lib\some\Object then is still needs to be created by the parent object that is passing it to begin with. Seems only to shift the placement of where it is created?
Hopefully I am clear enough in what I am trying to ask.
Thanks in advance!
EDIT What I am asking is the sequence of what is created when,where,why.
The purpose of a factory in dependency injection patterns is to produce instances for another instance, without that other instance needing to know how to produce it.
At its core, a "factory" is just an object-returner: something that returns an instance when invoked.
This is easier to see in more capable languages. For example in Python classes are callable (there is no new operator), and invoking a class produces an instance of the class. So classes can be their own factories if the class requires no arguments. Likewise any zero-argument function that returns an instance can be considered a factory. This makes dependency injection very clear and free-of-boilerplate.
In more rigid languages (Java/C++/C# static-typed tradition, or where classes or functions are not completely first-class like in PHP), you need to obscure dependency injection behind a "pattern", because "design patterns" are missing language features. In PHP 5.3+ you can use a closure as a factory, or you can go the Java/C# way and define a FactoryInterface and a new class per factory.
For example, with your class, you could do this:
class Aprime extends A
{
public function setSomeProperty($somePropertyFactory)
{
$this->_somePropertyObject = $somePropertyFactory();
}
}
In this class, setSomeProperty requires a zero-argument callable "factory", which you could produce like this:
$other_dep_factory = function(){ return new SomeOtherClass(); };
Or like this:
class ClassFactory {
function __construct($classname, $args=array()) {
$this->class = new ReflectionClass($classname);
$this->args = $args;
}
function __invoke() {
return $this->class->newInstanceArgs($this->args);
}
}
$other_dep_factory = new ClassFactory('SomeOtherClass');
Prior to PHP 5.3, you need to do it like Java would:
interface IObjectFactory {
function getObject();
}
// this B-and-D interface is optional
// it has no body because PHP doesn't support
// type-hinting return values
interface ISomeOtherClassFactory {}
class SomeOtherClassFactory implements ISomeOtherClassFactory {
function getObject() {
return new SomeOtherClass();
}
}
class Aprime extends A
{
public function setSomeProperty(ISomeOtherClassFactory $somePropertyFactory)
{
$this->_somePropertyObject = $somePropertyFactory->getObject();
}
}
$other_dep_factory = new SomeOtherClassFactory();
$myAprimeObject->setSomeProperty($other_dep_factory);
So when do you use a factory? Whenever an object needs to create another object. If the object just needs to use another object, just pass in an instance.
I like to use the Factory Pattern when you need to collect "information" to create the object that's stored in $_somePropertyObject. For instance let's say you have to assign values to some properties to instantiate it or run a couple of methods right after you instantiate it.
Also, you'll want to consider whether you might need to later change the inheritance tree. If you might be assigning $_somePropertyObject a \Lib\some\Object now, you might find yourself wishing you could easily swap it out for a \Lib\some\FancyObject later. If you use Dependency Injection, you can easily swap subtypes.
Here's a primer: http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/php/the-whens-and-whys-for-php-design-patterns/
Also, too: https://stackoverflow.com/a/2083455/1121827
Can we create an object of a class inside another class in php?I hav made a small application in php,now I am trying to convert the entire code in a class-methods-object fashion.I m now Confused.
You you can do that, but whether you should depends on the lifetime of the two classes and their relation to each other. Basically, you have the choice between Composition and Aggregation.
Composition
You use Composition when the created object has a lifetime equal or less than the object that will use it, e.g.
class A
{
private $belongsToAOnly;
public function __construct()
{
$this->belongsToAOnly = new IBelongToA;
}
}
In this case A "owns" IBelongToA. When A is destroyed, IBelongToA is destroyed too. It cannot live on it's own and is likely just an implementation detail of A. It could be a ValueObject like Money or some other Data Type.
From Craig Larman's "Applying UML and Patterns":
the composite is responsible for creation and deletion of it's parts - either by itself creating/deleting the parts, or by collaborating with other objects. Related to this constraint is that if the composite is destroyed, its parts must be destroyed, or attached to another composite"
Aggregation
You use Aggregation when the lifetime of the created object is longer:
class A
{
private $dbAdapter;
public function __construct(DbAdapter $dbAdapter)
{
$this->dbAdapter = $dbAdapter;
}
}
Unlike with Composition, there is no implication of ownership here. A uses DbAdapter but when A is destroyed DBAdapter lives on. It's a "uses" relationship instead of an "owns" relationship.
Creator Pattern (GRASP)
A good heuristic to decide when an object may create another object at runtime can be found in the Creator Pattern in GRASP which states that objects may create other objects when
Instances of B contains or compositely aggregates instances of A
Instances of B record instances of A
Instances of B closely use instances of A
Instances of B have the initializing information for instances of A and pass it on creation.
Alternatively, you can create Factories whenever you need to create instances of something and aggregate the factory instances, which will give you a cleaner separation of collaborators and creators.
Testability
An issue stemming from creating objects within objects is that they are difficult to test. When you do unit-testing, you usually do not want to recreate and bootstrap the entire system environment but concentrate on testing just that particular class in isolation. To do that, you swap out dependencies of that class with Mock Objects. You cannot do that when you use Composition.
So depending on what the collaborators of a class do, you might want to decide to always use Aggregation, because then you are effectively doing Dependency Injection all the way, which will allow you to swap out collaborators of a class easily, for instance to replace them with Mocks.
Yes you can, but that increases code coupling and makes testing harder.
I'd suggest creating it outside the class and pass it as an argument (it is called Dependency Injection).
class Foo
{
}
class Bar
{
public function __construct(Foo $foo)
{
$this->foo = $foo;
}
}
$foo = new Foo();
$bar = new Bar($foo);
yes you can do it ..
here is one example..
a.php
<?php
class a{
public function function_1(){
echo "b";
}
}
?>
b.php
<?php
include_once ("a.php");
class b{
public function function_b(){
$a = new a;
$a->function_1();
}
}
$b= new b;
$b->function_b();
?>
Yes, you can create an object from a specific class from inside another class.
class SomeClass{
}
class SomeOtherClass {
function hello(){
$o = new SomeClass;
}
}
Yes, you can also define a function in a class. You can do everything in a class in php, please post your code where you confused.
Examples:
Object in a class.
class Foo
{
public $bar; // another object!
public __construct()
{
$this->bar = new Bar();
}
}
(global)Function in a class
<?php
class Foo
{
public function __construct()
{
function __construct()
{
echo "Yes, I'm a global function!";
}
}
}
new Foo();
__construct();
?>
As the title says, I'm wanting to create an instance of a class from within a static method of the same class. I've figured out so far is that I can by doing something like this:
class Foo{
public $val;
public static function bar($val){
$inst = new Foo;
$inst->val = $val;
return $inst;
}
}
Which therefore lets me do this.
$obj = Foo::bar("some variable");
Which is great.
So now the questions. Is there an easier way of doing this that I'm not aware of, or any shortcuts to achieving the same result? Are there any advantages or disadvantages of creating an instance in this fashion?
Thanks.
They way you're doing it is fine. There are a few other things that can make your life easier that you can do as well.
Don't hardcode the class name. If you're on 5.3+, use the keyword static. That way, if you extend the class, the new function can instantiate that one as well:
public static function bar($var) {
$obj = new static();
$obj->var = $var;
return $obj;
}
Then you can use it in any extending class without needing to override anything.
Figure out if $var should be passed in through a constructor rather than set after construction. If the object depends upon it, you should require it.
public function __construct($var) {
$this->var = $var;
}
That way you can't instantiate the object without setting the variable.
Enforce the instantiation of the class through the static method. If you're doing anything in there that you need to do, then make the constructor either protected or private. That way, someone can't bypass the static method.
protected function __construct() {}
private function __construct() {}
Edit: Based on your comment above, it sounds to me like you're trying to implement the Singleton Design Pattern. There's tons of information out there about why it's not a great idea and the bad things it may do. It has uses as well.
But there are a few other patterns that may be of use to you depending on what you're doing exactly.
You can use the Factory Method if you're trying to create different objects using the same steps.
If all of the objects start off the same and then are customized, you could use the Prototype Pattern.
You could use an Object Pool if it's particularly expensive to create your object.
But one thing to consider, is that in PHP objects are pretty light weight. Don't try to avoid creating a new object just for that overhead. Avoid doing heavy things like database queries or filesystem accesses multiple times. But don't worry about calling new Foo() unless foo's constructor is particularly heavy...
This looks like a simple factory method pattern.
You have a nice advantage: suppose that in the future you want to start using a different implementation (but that does the same thing). Using a factory you can change all the objects that are created in many places of a complex system simply by changing the creator method. Note that this would work easier if you used an external class (as is in the first link below).
Keeping it as you have now, you can also subclass this class and override the method to create a more complex object. I don't think this is what you want to achieve in here.
Anyway, this is good to enable Test Driven Development, abstraction and lots of other good things.
links:
Php patterns
Factory method pattern on wikipedia
If you're just creating an object, this isn't very usefull. You could just call a constructor. But if you're doing something more complicated (like you're starting with some sort of singleton pattern but haven't included all the details in this example), then:
This sounds about right. If you want to prevent objects created in the default way like this:
$obj = new Foo("Some Variable");
You can add a private constructor:
class Foo{
public $val;
private __construct(){}
public static function bar($val){
$inst = new Foo;
$inst->val = $val;
return $inst;
}
}
Now you enforce people to use your static class. The need to set the val in the function might be gone, so you could even add the value-parameter to your private constructor but do the other things (that you presumably want to do, like check for some sort of singleton pattern) in your 'bar' function
Super late but found this useful.
A good example of this in the wild is this static method from Audi's UI library returning an Array of instantiated TextField classes from within TextField's static method upgradeElements.
/**
* Class constructor for Textfield AUI component.
* Implements AUI component design pattern defined at:
* https://github.com/...
*
* #param {HTMLElement} element The element that will be upgraded.
*/
export default class Textfield extends Component {
/**
* Upgrades all Textfield AUI components.
* #returns {Array} Returns an array of all newly upgraded components.
*/
static upgradeElements() {
let components = [];
Array.from(document.querySelectorAll(SELECTOR_COMPONENT)).forEach(element => {
if (!Component.isElementUpgraded(element)) {
components.push(new Textfield(element));
}
});
return components;
};
constructor(element) {
super(element);
}
...
See the rest in the repo
https://github.com/audi/audi-ui/blob/master/src/textfield/textfield.js#L25
According to the PHP manual, a class like this:
abstract class Example {}
cannot be instantiated. If I need a class without instance, e.g. for a registry pattern:
class Registry {}
// and later:
echo Registry::$someValue;
would it be considered good style to simply declare the class as abstract? If not, what are the advantages of hiding the constructor as protected method compared to an abstract class?
Rationale for asking: As far as I see it, it could a bit of feature abuse, since the manual refers to abstract classes more as like blueprints for later classes with instantiation possibility.
Update: First of all, thanks for all the answers! But many answers sound quite alike: 'You cannot instantiate an abstract class, but for a registry, why not using a singleton pattern?'
Unfortunately, that was more or less exactly a repeat of my question. What is the advantage of using a singleton pattern (a.k.a. hiding __construct()) compared to just declaring it abstract and not having to worry about that? (Like, e.g., it is a strong connotation between developers, that abstract classes are not actually used or so.)
If your class is not meant to define some super-type, it should not be declared as abstract, I'd say.
In your case, I would rather go with a class :
That defines __construct and __clone as private methods
so the class cannot be instanciated from outside
And, this way, your class could create an instance of itself
See the Singleton design pattern, about that, btw
Now, why use a Singleton, and not only static methods ? I suppose that, at least a couple of reasons can be valid :
Using a singleton means using an instance of the class ; makes it easier to transform a non-singleton class to a singleton one : only have to make __construct and __clone private, and add some getInstance method.
Using a singleton also means you have access to everything you can use with a normal instance : $this, properties, ...
Oh, a third one (not sure about that, but might have its importance) : with PHP < 5.3, you have less possibilities with static methods/data :
__callStatic has only been introduced in PHP 5.3
There is no __getStatic, __setStatic, ...
Same for a couple of other Magic methods !
Late Static Binding has only been added with PHP 5.3 ; and not having it often makes it harder, when working with static methods/classes ; especially when using inheritance.
This being said, yes, some code like this :
abstract class MyClass {
protected static $data;
public static function setA($a) {
self::$data['a'] = $a;
}
public static function getA() {
return self::$data['a'];
}
}
MyClass::setA(20);
var_dump(MyClass::getA());
Will work... But it doesn't feel quite natural... and this is a very simple example (see what I said earlier with Late Static Binding, and magic methods).
What you describe is permitted by the PHP language, but it's not the intended usage of an abstract class. I wouldn't use static methods of an abstract class.
Here's the downside of doing that: Another developer could extend your abstract class and then instantiate an object, which is what you want to avoid. Example:
class MyRegistry extends AbstractRegistry { }
$reg = new MyRegistry();
True, you only need to worry about this if you're handing off your abstract class to another developer who won't comply with your intended usage, but that's why you would make the class a singleton too. An uncooperative developer can override a private constructor:
class Registry
{
private function __construct() { }
}
class MyRegistry extends Registry
{
public function __construct() { } // change private to public
}
If you were using this class yourself, you would simply remember not to instantiate the class. Then you wouldn't need either mechanism to prevent it. So since you're designing this to be used by others, you need some way to prevent those people from circumventing your intended usage.
So I offer these two possible alternatives:
Stick with the singleton pattern and make sure the constructor is also final so no one can extend your class and change the constructor to non-private:
class Registry
{
private final function __construct() {
}
}
Make your Registry support both static and object usage:
class Registry
{
protected static $reg = null;
public static function getInstance() {
if (self::$reg === null) {
self::$reg = new Registry();
}
return self::$reg;
}
}
Then you can call Registry::getInstance() statically, or you can call new Registry() if you want an object instance.
Then you can do nifty things like store a new registry instance inside your global registry! :-)
I implemented this as part of Zend Framework, in Zend_Registry
As other guys said, you cannot instantiate an abstract class. You could use static methods in your class to prevent instantiating, but I'm not really a fan of doing so unless I have a proper reason.
I might be little bit off-topic now, but in your example you said you wanted this for Registry pattern class. What is the reason you don't want to instantiate it? Wouldn't it better to create an instance of Registry for each registry you want to use?
Something like:
class Registry {
private $_objects = array( );
public function set( $name, $object ) {
$this->_objects[ $name ] = $object;
}
public function get( $name ) {
return $this->_objects[ $name ];
}
}
I wouldn't even use Singleton in this case.
Setting a class to abstract that only defines static properties/methods won't have a real effect. You can extend the class, instantiate it, and call a method on it and it would change the static class properties. Obviously very confusing.
Abstract is also misleading. Abstract is ment to define an class that implements some functionality, but needs more behaviour (added via inheritance) to function properly. On top of that it's usually a feature that shouldn't be used with static at all. You are practically inviting programmers to use it wrong.
Short answer: A private constructor would be more expressive and fail safe.
There are patterns in OO that are common and well-recognized. Using abstract in an unconventional way may cause confusion (sorry, my some examples are in Java instead of PHP):
abstract class - a class meant to conceptualize a common ancestor, but of which actual instances are not meant to exist (e.g. shape is an abstract superclass for rectangle and triangle).
Commonly implemented by:
use abstract modifier on class to prevent direct instantiation, but allow deriving from the class
utility class - a class that does not represent an object in the solution space, but rather is a collection of useful static operations/methods, e.g. Math class in Java.
Commonly implemented by:
make class non-derivable, e.g. Java uses the final modifier on class, and
prevent direct instantiation - provide no constructors and hide or disable any implicit or default constructors (and copy constructors)
singleton class - a class that does represent an object in the solution space, but whose instantiation is controlled or limited, often to insure there is only one instance.
Commonly implemented by:
make class non-derivable, e.g. Java uses the final modifier on class, and
prevent direct instantiation - provide no constructors and hide or disable any implicit or default constructors (and copy constructors), and
provide a specific means to acquire an instance - a static method (often getInstance()) that returns the only instance or one of the limited number of instances
abstract really is meant to indicate a "blueprint", as you call it, for class inheritance.
Registries generally follow a singleton pattern, which means they it would instantiate itself in a private variable. Defining it as abstract would prevent this from working.
I wouldnt use an abstract class. Id use something more akin to a singleton with a protected/private constructor as you suggest. There should be very few static properties other than $instance which is the actual registry instance. Recently ive become a fan of Zend Frameworks typical pattern which is something like this:
class MyRegistry {
protected static $instance = null;
public function __construct($options = null)
{
}
public static function setInstance(MyRegistry $instance)
{
self::$instance = $instance;
}
public static function getInstance()
{
if(null === self::$instance) {
self::$instance = new self;
}
return self::$instance;
}
}
This way you get a singleton essentially but you can inject a configured instance to use. This is handy for testing purposes and inheritance.
The purpose of an abstract class is to define methods that are 1) meaningful to other classes and 2) not meaningful when not in the context of one of those classes.
To paraphase some of the php docs, imagine you are connecting to a database. Connecting to a database doesn't make much sense unless you have a particular kind of database to connect to. Yet connecting is something you will want to do regardless of the kind of database. Therefore, connecting can be defined in an abstract database class and inherited, and made meaningful by, say, a MYSQL class.
From your requirements, it sounds like you don't intend to do this but instead simply require a class without an instance. Whilst you could use an abstract class to enforce this behaviour, this seems hacky to me because it abuses the purpose of abstract classes. If I encounter an abstract class, I should be able to reasonably expect that this will have some abstract methods, for example, but your class will have none.
Therefore, a singleton seems like a better option.
However, if the reason you wish to have a class without an instance is simply so that you can call it anywhere then why do you even have a class at all? Why not just load every variable as a global and then you can just call it directly rather than through the class?
I think the best way to do this is to instantiate the class and then pass it around with dependency injection. If you are too lazy to do that (and fair enough if you are! Its your code, not mine.) then don't bother with the class at all.
UPDATE: It seems like you are conflicted between 2 needs: The need to do things quickly and the need to do things the right way. If you don't care about carrying a ton of global variables for the sake of saving yourself time, you will assumedly prefer using abstract over a singleton because it involves less typing. Pick which need is more important to you and stick with it.
The right way here is definitely not to use a Singleton or an abstract class and instead use dependency injection. The fast way is to have a ton of globals or an abstract class.
From my understanding, a class without instance is something you shouldn't be using in an OOP program, because the whole (and sole) purpose of classes is to serve as blueprints for new objects. The only difference between Registry::$someValue and $GLOBALS['Registry_someValue'] is that the former looks 'fancier', but neither way is really object-oriented.
So, to answer your question, you don't want a "singleton class", you want a singleton object, optionally equipped with a factory method:
class Registry
{
static $obj = null;
protected function __construct() {
...
}
static function object() {
return self::$obj ? self::$obj : self::$obj = new self;
}
}
...
Registry::object()->someValue;
Clearly abstract won't work here.
I would say it's a matter of coding habbits. When you think of an abstract class it is usually something you need to subclass in order to use. So declaring your class abstract is counter-intuitive.
Other than that is it just a matter of using self::$somevar in your methods if you make it abstract, rather than $this->somevar if you implement it as a singleton.