I need a single value of a unique type, similar to C#'s DBNull.Value.
I'm experimenting with how I might implement this in PHP. Here's what I've come up with so far:
class Wild {
public static $value;
private function __construct() {}
}
call_user_func(function () {
$r = new ReflectionClass(Wild::class);
Wild::$value = $r->newInstanceWithoutConstructor();
});
Now I can access my singleton easily via Wild::$value. The problem is that anyone can re-assign Wild::$value to something else at any time, and that would break the entire API. Is there any way to prevent this?
N.B. The constructor is private to prevent accidental instantiation. The closure is prevent $r from leaking out because it's in global scope.
class Wild {
private function __construct() {}
public static function value() {
static $value;
if($value === null) $value = new self;
return $value;
}
}
It's not quite the same, but it's probably less hacky than using reflection anyway.
Related
It seems some people hate global variables, but if you can explain how to code without them, I'm all ears.
Otherwise, I have a few options and I'm curious which is the best long-term. Consider that I have a variable that won't change for the duration. It's a static global. I can use:
$_SESSION['var'] = constantval;
define('var', constantval);
var = constantval;
and the one I'm really curious about:
function my_constants($which)
{
switch ($which) {
case 'var':
return 'constantval';
}
}
In that last one, the goal is to keep variable out of global scope to save memory at the sacrifice of some processor cost. Is the memory saved worth the cycles? Is there a noteworthy difference between the various other types of global declaration?
Global variables are not considered a bad practice because of memory usage or processor cost. It's because of the problems that allowing any part of your program to modify them may cause. With the time, it becomes hard to understand which parts of the program read or write to your global variables.
Alternatives to globals (singetons).
It will give you a fine grained access control:
E.g.:
class ConfigParamSingelton {
private var $value;
private static $mInstance = null;
public function getValue() {
return $this->value;
}
public function getInstance() {
if(self::$mInstance == null) {
self::$mInstance = new ConfigParamSingelton();
}
return self::$mInstance;
}
So now you can either:
protected function setValue($val) { // is immuteable by clients of the object
$this->value = $val;
}
or
public function setValue($val) {// is muteable
$this->value = $val;
}
Well, this are singletons. You don't need globals in this case.
I'm trying to dynamically create the base for a DB entity generalization for a project I'm working on. I basically want to dynamically create a set of standard methods and tools for the properties in any class that extends this. Much like the tools you get for free with Python/Django.
I got the idea from this guy: http://www.stubbles.org/archives/65-Extending-objects-with-new-methods-at-runtime.html
So I've implemented the __call function as described in the post above,
public function __call($method, $args) {
echo "<br>Calling ".$method;
if (isset($this->$method) === true) {
$func = $this->$method;
$func();
}
}
I have a function which gives me the objects public/protected properties through get_object_vars,
public function getJsonData() {
$var = get_object_vars($this);
foreach($var as &$value) {
if (is_object($value) && method_exists($value, 'getJsonData')) {
$value = $value->getJsonData;
}
}
return $var;
}
and now I want to create some methods for them:
public function __construct() {
foreach($this->getJsonData() as $name => $value) {
// Create standard getter
$methodName = "get".$name;
$me = $this;
$this->$methodName = function() use ($me, $methodName, $name) {
echo "<br>".$methodName." is called";
return $me->$name;
};
}
}
Thanks to Louis H. which pointed out the "use" keyword for this down below.
This basically creates an anonymous function on the fly. The function is callable, but it is no longer within the context of it's object. It produces a "Fatal error: Cannot access protected property"
Unfortunately I'm bound to PHP version 5.3, which rules out Closure::bind. The suggested solution in Lazy loading class methods in PHP will therefore not work here.
I'm rather stumped here... Any other suggestions?
Update
Edited for brevity.
Try it like this (you have to make the variables you'll need available to the method)
$this->$methodName = function() use ($this, $methodName, $name){
echo "<br>".$methodName." is called";
return $this->$$name;
};
You should have access to the object context through $this.
Instead of updating the original question above, I include the complete solution here for anybody struggling with the same issues:
First of all, since the closure cannot have real object access, I needed to include the actual value with the "use" declaration when creating the closure function (see original __construct function above):
$value =& $this->$name;
$this->$methodName = function() use ($me, $methodName, &$value) {
return $value;
};
Secondly the __call magic method did not just need to call the closure function, it needed also to return any output from it. So instead of just calling $func(), I return $func();
This did the trick! :-)
I try to create some sort of setup class, like global values for the page.
The PHP-code
class globals
{
public $page;
public function __construct()
{
}
public function set_page($value)
{
$this->page = $value; // Maybe from a database
}
}
class get
{
public function page()
{
$globals = new globals();
return $globals->page;
}
}
$globals = new globals();
$globals->set_page('My value');
echo get::page(); // Short function to be in a template
Question
My class forget the value I set. Why is that?
Do I have to use global variables?
Is this the correct approach for the problem?
The variable is set on an object, not on a class.
For each class, you can instantiate multiple objects. Each of those have their own variable scope.
Edit:
I forgot to include the easiest, and least verbose solution to your problem. AFAIK, you're looking for a way to check what page you're on. Constants will do just that:
defined('MY_CURRENT_PAGE') || define('MY_CURRENT_PAGE','My Value');
//use anywhere like so:
echo 'Currently on page: '.MY_CURRENT_PAGE;
My class forget the value I set. Why is that?
Quite simple: your page member function isn't static, yet you call it as though it is: get::page(). Even if you were to fix this, you're creating a new instance in the page method, but you're not preserving a reference too it anywhere, so each page call will create a new globals instance, that has nothing set.
Do I have to use global variables?
No, unless you're Really desperate, never use globals
Is this the correct approach for the problem?
No, if it doesn't work, it's not correct (IMHO).
Well, what is, you might ask. There are several ways to go about this:
class globals
{
public static $page = null;//make this static, meaning all instances will share this var
public function set_page($value)
{
self::$page = $value; // Maybe from a database
}
}
class get
{
private $_globalsInstance = null;
public function __construct(globals $instance = null)
{
$this->_globalsInstance = $instance;
}
private function _getGlobals()
{
if (!$this->_globalsInstance instanceof globals)
{
$this->_globalsInstance = new globals();
}
return $this->_globalsInstance;
}
public function page()
{
return $this->_getGlobals()::$page;
}
}
Personally, however, I wouldn't work like this, I'd just pass my instances to wherever I need them (as arguments to functions/methods or just instantiate them in a scope that will be accessible:
class globals
{
public $page = null;//make this static, meaning all instances will share this var
public function set_page($value)
{
$this->page = $value; // Maybe from a database
}
}
$page = new globals();
$page->set_page('foobar');
someFunction($page);
$someObject->renderPage($page);
require_once('specificScript.php');
//inside required script:
echo $page->page;
Do I have to use global variables?
Not, if your can use PHP 5.3
Is this the correct approach for the problem?
Better to use a generic class for this, or use static properties of objects
<?php
class globals
{
public static $page;
public function __construct()
{
}
public function set_page($value)
{
self::$page = $value; // Maybe from a database
}
}
class get
{
public static function page()
{
return globals::$page;
}
}
$globals = new globals();
$globals->set_page('My value');
echo get::page(); // Short function to be in a template
P.S.
But this is not a nice approach
$globals there
class get
{
public function page()
{
$globals = new globals();
return $globals->page;
}
}
and there
$globals = new globals();
$globals->set_page('My value');
are different inctances of globals class.
One of the solutions is to make $page var static
public static $page;
I hope this helps
UPD:
Also you might apply Singleton to globals class and request for its insnance instead of creating new one directly:
globals::getInstance()->setPage('Page');
and
return globals::getInstance()->getPage();
In this case $page doesn't have to be static.
I'm not sure the other answers are very clear. You have created 2 classes. As such they have different scopes. As writen you can't access the original variable $page from the get class because it's outside the scope. Your page function in fact creates a new version of the object $globals without $page set. Normally you would place both your set and get functions in the initial object/class. Though it would be possible to use two class by calling the first class from the second and setting the page. Why you would want to do that I'm not sure.
if I were writing the class it would look like this.
class globals
{
public $page;
public function __construct()
{
}
public function set_page($value)
{
$this->page = $value; // Maybe from a database
}
public function get_page()
{
return $this->page;
}
}
Actually I would probably set page to private not public. As public I guess you don't need a get function.
for using methods of the class without object you must use static definition. but anyway you put value for one class object and try to get it from another...
Perhaps this will help you continue on your coarse:
class globals
{
public static $page;
public function set_page($value)
{
self::$page = $value; // Maybe from a database
}
}
class get extends globals
{
public function page()
{
$globals = new globals();
return parent::$page;
}
}
$globals = new globals();
$globals->set_page('My value');
echo get::page();
?>
I came to know about mixins.So my doubt is, is it possible to use mixins in php?If yes then how?
Use Trait introduced in PHP 5.4
<?php
class Base {
public function sayHello() {
echo 'Hello ';
}
}
trait SayWorld {
public function sayHello() {
parent::sayHello();
echo 'World!';
}
}
class MyHelloWorld extends Base {
use SayWorld;
}
$o = new MyHelloWorld();
$o->sayHello();
?>
which prints Hello World!
http://php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.traits.php
This answer is obsolete as of PHP 5.4. See Jeanno's answer for how to use traits.
It really depends on what level of mixins you want from PHP. PHP handles single-inheritance, and abstract classes, which can get you most of the way.
Of course the best part of mixins is that they're interchangeable snippets added to whatever class needs them.
To get around the multiple inheritance issue, you could use include to pull in snippets of code. You'll likely have to dump in some boilerplate code to get it to work properly in some cases, but it would certainly help towards keeping your programs DRY.
Example:
class Foo
{
public function bar( $baz )
{
include('mixins/bar');
return $result;
}
}
class Fizz
{
public function bar( $baz )
{
include('mixins/bar');
return $result;
}
}
It's not as direct as being able to define a class as class Foo mixin Bar, but it should get you most of the way there. There are some drawbacks: you need to keep the same parameter names and return variable names, you'll need to pass other data that relies on context such as func_get_args_array or __FILE__.
Mixins for PHP (PHP does not implement Mixins natively, but this library will help)
First google result for "php5 mixin": http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/php-application-design-147/ruby-like-mixins-php5-332491.html
First google result for "php mixin": http://www.advogato.org/article/470.html
Short answer: yes, but not natively (yet, evidently, as #mchl notes). Check those out.
Longer answer: if you're using runkit, checkout runkit_method_copy(): "Copies a method from class to another."
I based mixins functionality on the blog entry found at jansch.nl.
class Node
{
protected $__decorator_lookup = array();
public function __construct($classes = array())
{
foreach($classes as $class)
if (class_exists($class))
{
$decorator = new $class($this);
$methods = get_class_methods($decorator);
if (is_array($methods))
foreach($methods as $method)
$this->__decorator_lookup[strtolower($method)] = $decorator;
}
else
trigger_error("Tried to inherit non-existant class", E_USER_ERROR);
}
public function __get($name)
{
switch($name)
{
default:
if ($this->__decorator_lookup[strtolower($name)])
return $this->__call($name);
}
}
public function __call($method, $args = array())
{
if(isset($this->__decorator_lookup[strtolower($method)]))
return call_user_func_array(array($this->__decorator_lookup[strtolower($method)], $method), $args);
else
trigger_error("Call to undefined method " . get_class($this) . "::$method()", E_USER_ERROR);
}
public function __clone()
{
$temp = $this->decorators;
$this->decorators = array();
foreach($temp as $decorator)
{
$new = clone($decorator);
$new->__self = $this;
$this->decorators[] = $new;
}
}
}
class Decorator
{
public $__self;
public function __construct($__self)
{
$this->__self = $__self;
}
public function &__get($key)
{
return $this->__self->$key;
}
public function __call($method, $arguments)
{
return call_user_func_array(array($this->__self, $method), $arguments);
}
public function __set($key, $value)
{
$this->__self->$key = $value;
}
}
class Pretty extends Decorator
{
public function A()
{
echo "a";
}
public function B()
{
$this->b = "b";
}
}
$a = new Node(array("Pretty"));
$a->A(); // outputs "a"
$a->B();
echo($a->b); // outputs "b"
EDIT:
As PHP clone is shallow, added __clone support.
Also, bear in mind that unset WON'T work (or at least I've not managed to make it work) within the mixin. So - doing something like unset($this->__self->someValue); won't unset the value on Node. Don't know why, as in theory it should work. Funny enough unset($this->__self->someValue); var_dump(isset($this->__self->someValue)); will produce correctly false, however accessing the value from Node scope (as Node->someValue) will still produce true. There's some strange voodoo there.
Please excuse me if this question has been asked before, but I tried searching for it with no satisfactory results.
I'm learning PHP (coming from a C++ background) and have come across the following ambiguity. The following two bits of code work exactly the same:
class A
{
public $myInteger;
public function __get($name)
{
return $this->$name;
}
public function __set($name, $value)
{
$this->$name = $value;
}
}
and
class A
{
public $myInteger;
public function __get($name)
{
return $this->name;
}
public function __set($name, $value)
{
$this->name = $value;
}
}
that is, in the class methods $this->$name and $this->name have the exact same function. I'm finding this a bit confusing, especially when considering that if you add the following code,
$myA = new A();
$myA->myInteger = 5;
$hereInt = $myA->myInteger;
echo "<p>" . $hereInt . "</p>";
it only works if there is no $ before myInteger. Could someone please explain the rationale behind this?
$this->$name and $this->name do not mean the same thing. The first is using a locally scoped variable $name to access the field of $this whose name is whatever $name contains, while the second accesses the name field directly.
For example, the following will output something:
$foo = new stdClass;
$foo->bar = 'something';
$baz = 'bar';
echo $foo->$baz;
In the case of __get and __set, $name contains the name of the property that was accessed at the call site; in your case, myInteger.
In your example, the __get and __set methods are actually superfluous, since $myA->myInteger is public and can be accessed directly. __get and __set are only needed to catch access attempts to a property that is not declared explicitly in the class.
For example, you might have a backing array that allows arbitrary "properties" to be set dynamically:
class Foo
{
private $_values = array();
public function __get($key)
{
if (isset($this->_values[$key]))
{
return $this->_values[$key]
}
}
public function __set($key, $value)
{
$this->_values[$key] = $value;
}
}
One thing that's somewhat confusing about this aspect of PHP's syntax is that a $ precedes a field declaration in a class, but there is none when accessing that field. This is compounded by the syntax for accessing static fields, which does require a $!