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.
I have the following OOP structure:
<?php
interface AnimalInterface
{
public function getName();
}
class Dog implements AnimalInterface
{
public function getName() {
return 'dog';
}
public function makeFriends()
{
echo 'I have friends now :)';
}
}
class Cat implements AnimalInterface
{
public function getName() {
return 'cat';
}
public function hateFriends()
{
echo 'I cant make friends :(';
}
}
interface AnimalDoInterface
{
public function makeFriend(AnimalInterface $animal);
}
class DogFriend implements AnimalDoInterface
{
public function makeFriend(Dog $dog)
{
$dog->makeFriends();
}
}
class CatFriend implements AnimalDoInterface
{
public function makeFriend(Cat $cat)
{
$cat->hateFriends();
}
}
Now PHP's manual on Object Interfaces says:
The class implementing the interface must use the exact same method signatures as are defined in the interface. Not doing so will result in a fatal error.
Why is this the case? Am I misunderstanding interfaces completely? Surely I should be able to declare AnimalDoInterface::makeFriend with anything that is the interface or an implementation of that interface? In this case it should technically be compatible as Cat implements AnimalInterface, which is what it's expecting.
Regardless of whether I am getting my OOP wrong, is there a way to implement this in PHP?
So it seems I wasn't clear enough, my bad for that. However, basically what I'm trying to achieve is to have the implementations of AnimalDoInterface to be more restrictive than it's interface says. So in this case, I'd like DogFriend::makeFriend to only allow the Dog class as it's argument, which in my mind should be acceptable as it implements the AnimalInterface, and the CatFriend to allow a Cat class, which again, same thing.
EDIT: fixed the classes, also added what I'm trying to achieve.
EDIT 2:
So at the moment, the way I'd have to implement it is as following:
class DogFriend implements AnimalDoInterface
{
public function makeFriend(AnimalInterface $dog)
{
if(!($dog instanceof Dog)) {
throw new \Exception('$dog must be of Dog type');
}
$dog->makeFriends();
}
}
class CatFriend implements AnimalDoInterface
{
public function makeFriend(AnimalInterface $cat)
{
if(!($dog instanceof Cat)) {
throw new \Exception('$dog must be of Cat type');
}
$cat->hateFriends();
}
}
I'd like to have to avoid this extra check for the class type.
An interface's only job is to enforce the fact that two objects behave in an identical way, regardless of how they implement that behaviour. It is a contract stating that two objects are interchangeable for certain specific purposes.
(Edit: This part of the code has been corrected, but serves as a good introduction.) The interface AnimalInterface defines the behaviour (function) getAnimalName(), and any class claiming to implement that interface must implement that behaviour. class Dog is declared with implements AnimalInterface, but doesn't implement the required behaviour - you can't call getAnimalName() on instances of Dog. So we already have a fatal error, as we have not met the "contract" defined by the interface.
Fixing that and proceeding, you then have an interface AnimalDoInterface which has the defined behaviour (function) of makeFriend(AnimalInterface $animal) - meaning, you can pass any object which implements AnimalInterface to the makeFriend method of any object which implements AnimalDoInterface.
But you then define class DogFriend with a more restrictive behaviour - its version of makeFriend can only accept Dog objects; according to the interface it should also be able to accept Cat objects, which also implement AnimalInterface, so again, the "contract" of the interface is not met, and we will get a fatal error.
If we were to fix that, there is a different problem in your example: you have a call to $cat->hateFriends(); but if your argument was of type AnimalInterface or AnimalDoInterface, you would have no way to know that a hateFriends() function existed. PHP, being quite relaxed about such things, will let you try that and blow up at runtime if it turns out not to exist after all; stricter languages would only let you use functions that are guaranteed to exist, because they are declared in the interface.
To understand why you can't be more restrictive than the interface, imagine you don't know the class of a particular object, all you know is that it implements a particular interface.
If I know that object $a implements AnimalInterface, and object $b implements AnimalDoInterface, I can make the following assumptions, just by looking at the interfaces:
I can call $a->getName(); (because AnimalInterface has that in its contract)
I can call $b->makeFriend($a); (because AnimalDoInterface has in its contract that I can pass anything that implements AnimalInterface)
But with your code, if $a was a Cat, and $b was a DogFriend, my assumption #2 would fail. If the interface let this happen, it wouldn't be doing its job.
The reason all classes implementing an interface must have the same methods is so that you can call that method on the object regardless of which subtype is instantiated.
In this case, you have a logical inconsistency because two subtypes, Cat and Dog, have different methods. So you can't call makeFriends() on the object, because you don't know that the object has that method.
That's the point of using interfaces, so you can use different subtypes, but at the same time you can be sure of at least some common methods.
One way to handle this in your case is to make sure Cat implements the same method, but make the method throw an exception at runtime, indicating that it's not possible. This allows the interface to be satisfies at compile time (I know PHP doesn't have a compiler, but this is mimicking languages like Java that do the interface checking at compile time).
class Cat implements AnimalInterface
{
public function makeFriends()
{
throw new RuntimeException('I cant make friends :(');
}
}
A class which implements AnimalDoInterface must have a makeFriend method which takes any object which implements AnimalInterface. In your case, trying to declare
class DogFriend implements AnimalDoInterface {
public function makeFriend(Dog $foo) { }
}
will not accurately implement this, since it should always be safe to pass anything which implements AnimalInterface to the makeFriend method of anything which implements AnimalDoInterface.
I'm setting up a new section of a framework I've inherited. It's a chance to really enforce some best practice, so I'm trying to do as much as possible.
The framework is running in php5.4 (windows environment).
I've set up an abstract class, BaseModel. In this I define several core bits of functionality, for example: common accessors and common db interaction.
I then extend this to create the models I'll be using. In the test case the file "UserModel" creates a class called "User" .
In BaseModel I'm creating the following abstract function:
abstract public function getById($id);
Within the UserModel I then define this function
public function getById($id)
{
// just a test!
return 'this works!';
}
I would like to enforce typesafeing. However I get errors if I do anything like this:
public function getById(User $id)
{
// just a test!
return 'this works!';
}
I can do the following
abstract public function getById(BaseModel $id);
public function getById(BaseModel $id)
{
// just a test!
return 'this works!';
}
Which works, but is also a bit less useful to be honest. A User is of type BaseModel, but so would every other extended class be. What I want to do is this:
abstract public function getById(BaseModel $id);
public function persist(User $item)
{
// just a test!
return 'this works!';
}
I know I can add in a line doing manual typesafing, along these lines (pseudocode)
if ($item instanceof User)
{
//do stuff
}
However - this seems to be a bit of a work around, as opposed to finding the true approach.
I have a sinking feeling that this kind of "smart/aware class" feature isn't available in php.
Can anyone confirm/deny this or provide a more elegant work around?
Having done a bit more digging around, and thanks to a helpful post from deceze, I think this idea hasn't been implemented. He has pointed out a similar answer it to which breaks the rules of SOLID.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOLID
Basically - This says that I cannot change the parent class: this is the point of "extend".
I can only extend, not modify the parent class.
Changing the typesafeing is modifying the class.
HOWEVER - I would argue that this example doesn't break the rules of SOLID.
Typesafing with class that is extended from the base class should be allowed: You can never have a "User" that is not a "BaseModel"... so it is not modifying the parent class.
It looks like the only way to truly do this is
if ($item instanceof User)
{
// logic
}
In my case the parent class is probably enough to catch most issues, but it's a shame I can't typesafe it the way I intended.
[Thanks to deceze. Upvoted.]
I've been trying to study up on PHP lately, and I find myself getting hung up on traits. I understand the concept of horizontal code reuse and not wanting to necessarily inherit from an abstract class. What I don't understand is: What is the crucial difference between using traits versus interfaces?
I've tried searching for a decent blog post or article explaining when to use one or the other, but the examples I've found so far seem so similar as to be identical.
Public Service Announcement:
I want to state for the record that I believe traits are almost always a code smell and should be avoided in favor of composition. It's my opinion that single inheritance is frequently abused to the point of being an anti-pattern and multiple inheritance only compounds this problem. You'll be much better served in most cases by favoring composition over inheritance (be it single or multiple). If you're still interested in traits and their relationship to interfaces, read on ...
Let's start by saying this:
Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) can be a difficult paradigm to grasp.
Just because you're using classes doesn't mean your code is
Object-Oriented (OO).
To write OO code you need to understand that OOP is really about the capabilities of your objects. You've got to think about classes in terms of what they can do instead of what they actually do. This is in stark contrast to traditional procedural programming where the focus is on making a bit of code "do something."
If OOP code is about planning and design, an interface is the blueprint and an object is the fully constructed house. Meanwhile, traits are simply a way to help build the house laid out by the blueprint (the interface).
Interfaces
So, why should we use interfaces? Quite simply, interfaces make our code less brittle. If you doubt this statement, ask anyone who's been forced to maintain legacy code that wasn't written against interfaces.
The interface is a contract between the programmer and his/her code. The interface says, "As long as you play by my rules you can implement me however you like and I promise I won't break your other code."
So as an example, consider a real-world scenario (no cars or widgets):
You want to implement a caching system for a web application to cut
down on server load
You start out by writing a class to cache request responses using APC:
class ApcCacher
{
public function fetch($key) {
return apc_fetch($key);
}
public function store($key, $data) {
return apc_store($key, $data);
}
public function delete($key) {
return apc_delete($key);
}
}
Then, in your HTTP response object, you check for a cache hit before doing all the work to generate the actual response:
class Controller
{
protected $req;
protected $resp;
protected $cacher;
public function __construct(Request $req, Response $resp, ApcCacher $cacher=NULL) {
$this->req = $req;
$this->resp = $resp;
$this->cacher = $cacher;
$this->buildResponse();
}
public function buildResponse() {
if (NULL !== $this->cacher && $response = $this->cacher->fetch($this->req->uri()) {
$this->resp = $response;
} else {
// Build the response manually
}
}
public function getResponse() {
return $this->resp;
}
}
This approach works great. But maybe a few weeks later you decide you want to use a file-based cache system instead of APC. Now you have to change your controller code because you've programmed your controller to work with the functionality of the ApcCacher class rather than to an interface that expresses the capabilities of the ApcCacher class. Let's say instead of the above you had made the Controller class reliant on a CacherInterface instead of the concrete ApcCacher like so:
// Your controller's constructor using the interface as a dependency
public function __construct(Request $req, Response $resp, CacherInterface $cacher=NULL)
To go along with that you define your interface like so:
interface CacherInterface
{
public function fetch($key);
public function store($key, $data);
public function delete($key);
}
In turn you have both your ApcCacher and your new FileCacher classes implement the CacherInterface and you program your Controller class to use the capabilities required by the interface.
This example (hopefully) demonstrates how programming to an interface allows you to change the internal implementation of your classes without worrying if the changes will break your other code.
Traits
Traits, on the other hand, are simply a method for re-using code. Interfaces should not be thought of as a mutually exclusive alternative to traits. In fact, creating traits that fulfill the capabilities required by an interface is the ideal use case.
You should only use traits when multiple classes share the same functionality (likely dictated by the same interface). There's no sense in using a trait to provide functionality for a single class: that only obfuscates what the class does and a better design would move the trait's functionality into the relevant class.
Consider the following trait implementation:
interface Person
{
public function greet();
public function eat($food);
}
trait EatingTrait
{
public function eat($food)
{
$this->putInMouth($food);
}
private function putInMouth($food)
{
// Digest delicious food
}
}
class NicePerson implements Person
{
use EatingTrait;
public function greet()
{
echo 'Good day, good sir!';
}
}
class MeanPerson implements Person
{
use EatingTrait;
public function greet()
{
echo 'Your mother was a hamster!';
}
}
A more concrete example: imagine both your FileCacher and your ApcCacher from the interface discussion use the same method to determine whether a cache entry is stale and should be deleted (obviously this isn't the case in real life, but go with it). You could write a trait and allow both classes to use it to for the common interface requirement.
One final word of caution: be careful not to go overboard with traits. Often traits are used as a crutch for poor design when unique class implementations would suffice. You should limit traits to fulfilling interface requirements for best code design.
An interface defines a set of methods that the implementing class must implement.
When a trait is use'd the implementations of the methods come along too--which doesn't happen in an Interface.
That is the biggest difference.
From the Horizontal Reuse for PHP RFC:
Traits is a mechanism for code reuse in single inheritance languages such as PHP. A Trait is intended to reduce some limitations of single inheritance by enabling a developer to reuse sets of methods freely in several independent classes living in different class hierarchies.
A trait is essentially PHP's implementation of a mixin, and is effectively a set of extension methods which can be added to any class through the addition of the trait. The methods then become part of that class' implementation, but without using inheritance.
From the PHP Manual (emphasis mine):
Traits are a mechanism for code reuse in single inheritance languages such as PHP. ... It is an addition to traditional inheritance and enables horizontal composition of behavior; that is, the application of class members without requiring inheritance.
An example:
trait myTrait {
function foo() { return "Foo!"; }
function bar() { return "Bar!"; }
}
With the above trait defined, I can now do the following:
class MyClass extends SomeBaseClass {
use myTrait; // Inclusion of the trait myTrait
}
At this point, when I create an instance of class MyClass, it has two methods, called foo() and bar() - which come from myTrait. And - notice that the trait-defined methods already have a method body - which an Interface-defined method can't.
Additionally - PHP, like many other languages, uses a single inheritance model - meaning that a class can derive from multiple interfaces, but not multiple classes. However, a PHP class can have multiple trait inclusions - which allows the programmer to include reusable pieces - as they might if including multiple base classes.
A few things to note:
-----------------------------------------------
| Interface | Base Class | Trait |
===============================================
> 1 per class | Yes | No | Yes |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Define Method Body | No | Yes | Yes |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Polymorphism | Yes | Yes | No |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Polymorphism:
In the earlier example, where MyClass extends SomeBaseClass, MyClass is an instance of SomeBaseClass. In other words, an array such as SomeBaseClass[] bases can contain instances of MyClass. Similarly, if MyClass extended IBaseInterface, an array of IBaseInterface[] bases could contain instances of MyClass. There is no such polymorphic construct available with a trait - because a trait is essentially just code which is copied for the programmer's convenience into each class which uses it.
Precedence:
As described in the Manual:
An inherited member from a base class is overridden by a member inserted by a Trait. The precedence order is that members from the current class override Trait methods, which in return override inherited methods.
So - consider the following scenario:
class BaseClass {
function SomeMethod() { /* Do stuff here */ }
}
interface IBase {
function SomeMethod();
}
trait myTrait {
function SomeMethod() { /* Do different stuff here */ }
}
class MyClass extends BaseClass implements IBase {
use myTrait;
function SomeMethod() { /* Do a third thing */ }
}
When creating an instance of MyClass, above, the following occurs:
The Interface IBase requires a parameterless function called SomeMethod() to be provided.
The base class BaseClass provides an implementation of this method - satisfying the need.
The trait myTrait provides a parameterless function called SomeMethod() as well, which takes precedence over the BaseClass-version
The class MyClass provides its own version of SomeMethod() - which takes precedence over the trait-version.
Conclusion
An Interface can not provide a default implementation of a method body, while a trait can.
An Interface is a polymorphic, inherited construct - while a trait is not.
Multiple Interfaces can be used in the same class, and so can multiple traits.
I think traits are useful to create classes that contain methods that can be used as methods of several different classes.
For example:
trait ToolKit
{
public $errors = array();
public function error($msg)
{
$this->errors[] = $msg;
return false;
}
}
You can have and use this "error" method in any class that uses this trait.
class Something
{
use Toolkit;
public function do_something($zipcode)
{
if (preg_match('/^[0-9]{5}$/', $zipcode) !== 1)
return $this->error('Invalid zipcode.');
// do something here
}
}
While with interfaces you can only declare the method signature, but not its functions' code. Also, to use an interface you need to follow a hierarchy, using implements. This is not the case with traits.
It is completely different!
For beginners above answer might be difficult, this is the easiest way to understand it:
Traits
trait SayWorld {
public function sayHello() {
echo 'World!';
}
}
so if you want to have sayHello function in other classes without re-creating the whole function you can use traits,
class MyClass{
use SayWorld;
}
$o = new MyClass();
$o->sayHello();
Cool right!
Not only functions you can use anything in the trait(function, variables, const...). Also, you can use multiple traits: use SayWorld, AnotherTraits;
Interface
interface SayWorld {
public function sayHello();
}
class MyClass implements SayWorld {
public function sayHello() {
echo 'World!';
}
}
So this is how interfaces differ from traits: You have to re-create everything in the interface in an implemented class. Interfaces don't have an implementation and interfaces can only have functions and constants, it cannot have variables.
I hope this helps!
Traits are simply for code reuse.
Interface just provides the signature of the functions that is to be defined in the class where it can be used depending on the programmer's discretion. Thus giving us a prototype for a group of classes.
For reference-
http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.traits.php
An often-used metaphor to describe Traits is Traits are interfaces with implementation.
This is a good way of thinking about it in most circumstances, but there are a number of subtle differences between the two.
For a start, the instanceof operator will not work with traits (ie, a trait is not a real object), therefore you can't use that to see if a class has a certain trait (or to see if two otherwise unrelated classes share a trait). That's what they mean by it being a construct for horizontal code re-use.
There are functions now in PHP that will let you get a list of all the traits a class uses, but trait-inheritance means you'll need to do recursive checks to reliably check if a class at some point has a specific trait (there's example code on the PHP doco pages). But yeah, it's certainly not as simple and clean as instanceof is, and IMHO it's a feature that would make PHP better.
Also, abstract classes are still classes, so they don't solve multiple-inheritance related code re-use problems. Remember you can only extend one class (real or abstract) but implement multiple interfaces.
I've found traits and interfaces are really good to use hand in hand to create pseudo multiple inheritance. Eg:
class SlidingDoor extends Door implements IKeyed
{
use KeyedTrait;
[...] // Generally not a lot else goes here since it's all in the trait
}
Doing this means you can use instanceof to determine if the particular Door object is Keyed or not, you know you'll get a consistent set of methods, etc, and all the code is in one place across all the classes that use the KeyedTrait.
You can consider a trait as an automated "copy-paste" of code, basically.
Using traits is dangerous since there is no mean to know what it does before execution.
However, traits are more flexible because of their lack of limitations such as inheritance.
Traits can be useful to inject a method which checks something into a class, for example, the existence of another method or attribute. A nice article on that (but in French, sorry).
For French-reading people who can get it, the GNU/Linux Magazine HS 54 has an article on this subject.
If you know English and know what trait means, it is exactly what the name says. It is a class-less pack of methods and properties you attach to existing classes by typing use.
Basically, you could compare it to a single variable. Closures functions can use these variables from outside of the scope and that way they have the value inside. They are powerful and can be used in everything. Same happens to traits if they are being used.
Other answers did a great job of explaining differences between interfaces and traits. I will focus on a useful real world example, in particular one which demonstrates that traits can use instance variables - allowing you add behavior to a class with minimal boilerplate code.
Again, like mentioned by others, traits pair well with interfaces, allowing the interface to specify the behavior contract, and the trait to fulfill the implementation.
Adding event publish / subscribe capabilities to a class can be a common scenario in some code bases. There's 3 common solutions:
Define a base class with event pub/sub code, and then classes which want to offer events can extend it in order to gain the capabilities.
Define a class with event pub/sub code, and then other classes which want to offer events can use it via composition, defining their own methods to wrap the composed object, proxying the method calls to it.
Define a trait with event pub/sub code, and then other classes which want to offer events can use the trait, aka import it, to gain the capabilities.
How well does each work?
#1 Doesn't work well. It would, until the day you realize you can't extend the base class because you're already extending something else. I won't show an example of this because it should be obvious how limiting it is to use inheritance like this.
#2 & #3 both work well. I'll show an example which highlights some differences.
First, some code that will be the same between both examples:
An interface
interface Observable {
function addEventListener($eventName, callable $listener);
function removeEventListener($eventName, callable $listener);
function removeAllEventListeners($eventName);
}
And some code to demonstrate usage:
$auction = new Auction();
// Add a listener, so we know when we get a bid.
$auction->addEventListener('bid', function($bidderName, $bidAmount){
echo "Got a bid of $bidAmount from $bidderName\n";
});
// Mock some bids.
foreach (['Moe', 'Curly', 'Larry'] as $name) {
$auction->addBid($name, rand());
}
Ok, now lets show how the implementation of the Auction class will differ when using traits.
First, here's how #2 (using composition) would look like:
class EventEmitter {
private $eventListenersByName = [];
function addEventListener($eventName, callable $listener) {
$this->eventListenersByName[$eventName][] = $listener;
}
function removeEventListener($eventName, callable $listener) {
$this->eventListenersByName[$eventName] = array_filter($this->eventListenersByName[$eventName], function($existingListener) use ($listener) {
return $existingListener === $listener;
});
}
function removeAllEventListeners($eventName) {
$this->eventListenersByName[$eventName] = [];
}
function triggerEvent($eventName, array $eventArgs) {
foreach ($this->eventListenersByName[$eventName] as $listener) {
call_user_func_array($listener, $eventArgs);
}
}
}
class Auction implements Observable {
private $eventEmitter;
public function __construct() {
$this->eventEmitter = new EventEmitter();
}
function addBid($bidderName, $bidAmount) {
$this->eventEmitter->triggerEvent('bid', [$bidderName, $bidAmount]);
}
function addEventListener($eventName, callable $listener) {
$this->eventEmitter->addEventListener($eventName, $listener);
}
function removeEventListener($eventName, callable $listener) {
$this->eventEmitter->removeEventListener($eventName, $listener);
}
function removeAllEventListeners($eventName) {
$this->eventEmitter->removeAllEventListeners($eventName);
}
}
Here's how #3 (traits) would look like:
trait EventEmitterTrait {
private $eventListenersByName = [];
function addEventListener($eventName, callable $listener) {
$this->eventListenersByName[$eventName][] = $listener;
}
function removeEventListener($eventName, callable $listener) {
$this->eventListenersByName[$eventName] = array_filter($this->eventListenersByName[$eventName], function($existingListener) use ($listener) {
return $existingListener === $listener;
});
}
function removeAllEventListeners($eventName) {
$this->eventListenersByName[$eventName] = [];
}
protected function triggerEvent($eventName, array $eventArgs) {
foreach ($this->eventListenersByName[$eventName] as $listener) {
call_user_func_array($listener, $eventArgs);
}
}
}
class Auction implements Observable {
use EventEmitterTrait;
function addBid($bidderName, $bidAmount) {
$this->triggerEvent('bid', [$bidderName, $bidAmount]);
}
}
Note that the code inside the EventEmitterTrait is exactly the same as what's inside the EventEmitter class except the trait declares the triggerEvent() method as protected. So, the only difference you need to look at is the implementation of the Auction class.
And the difference is large. When using composition, we get a great solution, allowing us to reuse our EventEmitter by as many classes as we like. But, the main drawback is the we have a lot of boilerplate code that we need to write and maintain because for each method defined in the Observable interface, we need to implement it and write boring boilerplate code that just forwards the arguments onto the corresponding method in our composed the EventEmitter object. Using the trait in this example lets us avoid that, helping us reduce boilerplate code and improve maintainability.
However, there may be times where you don't want your Auction class to implement the full Observable interface - maybe you only want to expose 1 or 2 methods, or maybe even none at all so that you can define your own method signatures. In such a case, you might still prefer the composition method.
But, the trait is very compelling in most scenarios, especially if the interface has lots of methods, which causes you to write lots of boilerplate.
* You could actually kinda do both - define the EventEmitter class in case you ever want to use it compositionally, and define the EventEmitterTrait trait too, using the EventEmitter class implementation inside the trait :)
The main difference is that, with interfaces, you must define the actual implementation of each method within each class that implements said interface, so you can have many classes implement the same interface but with different behavior, while traits are just chunks of code injected in a class; another important difference is that trait methods can only be class-methods or static-methods, unlike interface methods which can also (and usually are) be instance methods.
The trait is same as a class we can use for multiple inheritance purposes and also code reusability.
We can use trait inside the class and also we can use multiple traits in the same class with 'use keyword'.
The interface is using for code reusability same as a trait
the interface is extend multiple interfaces so we can solve the multiple inheritance problems but when we implement the interface then we should create all the methods inside the class.
For more info click below link:
http://php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.traits.php
http://php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.interfaces.php
An interface is a contract that says “this object is able to do this thing”, whereas a trait is giving the object the ability to do the thing.
A trait is essentially a way to “copy and paste” code between classes.
Try reading this article, What are PHP traits?
Working with a PHP library class, and I'd like to wrap all of its public functions in a subclass... Something along the lines of:
class BaseClass
{
function do_something()
{
some;
stuff;
}
function do_something_else()
{
other;
stuff;
}
/*
* 20-or-so other functions here!
*/
}
class SubClass extends BaseClass
{
function magicalOverrideEveryone()
{
stuff-to-do-before; // i.e. Display header
call_original_function(); // i.e. Display otherwise-undecorated content
stuff-to-do-after; // i.e. Display footer
}
}
Boiling it down, I'd prefer not to have to override every superclass method with the same wrapper code, if there's a [somewhat elegant / clean] way to do it all in one place.
Is this possible? I suspect I'm in metaprogramming land here, and don't even know if PHP offers such a beast, but figured I'd ask...
You could do this easily with the __call magic method and a generic "proxy" class which doesn't inherit directly from the base class.
Here is a (near) complete implementation of a proxying class which wraps whatever object you pass it. It will invoke some "before" and "after" code around each method call.
class MyProxy {
function __construct($object) {
$this->object = $object;
}
function __call($method, $args) {
// Run before code here
// Invoke original method on our proxied object
call_user_func_array(array($this->object, $method), $args);
// Run after code here
}
}
$base = new BaseClass();
$proxy = new MyProxy($base);
$proxy->doSomething(); // invoke $base->doSomething();
You would of course want to add a bit of error handling, like asking the proxied object if it responds to the given method in __call and raising an error if it doesn't. You could even design the Proxy class to be a base-class for other proxies. The child proxy classes could implement before and after methods.
The downside is that your "child class" no longer implements BaseClass, meaning if you're using type-hinting and want to demand that only objects of type BaseClass are passed into a function, this approach will fail.
If the method names of SubClass may differ slightly from the original method names of BaseClass, you could write a generic wrapper with __call(). If the method names must match, I don't see how you could achieve your goal without manually overwriting each method. Maybe you could use the funcall PECL to do this - but you'd have to be able to load that PECL in the first place.
If you can make the methods of BaseClass protected, the __call() approach in SubClass will work.
If you do not need to extend the class, #meager's approach is perfectly fine. Please note that __call() and call_user_func_array() do impose a certain overhead.
If I understand you right, you want to extend a class, but not allow any of methods from the parent to be called. Instead, you want to call all of the methods yourself in one method in the new class.
So why do you even want to inherit in the first place? It sounds a lot like you should just create an adapter/decorator for your BaseClass.
class SubClass
{
function magicalOverrideEveryone()
{
BaseClass bc = new BaseClass();
bc.do_something();
bc.do_something_else();
}
}
you might be looking for the decorator pattern:
class A
{
function do1(){
}
}
class DecoratorForA extends A
{
private A original;
public DecoratorForA( A original )
{
this.original = original;
}
function do1(){ //<-- override keyword in php?
stuffBefore();
original->do1();
stuffAfter();
}
}
since this is not what you want, maybe this link is of help?
http://code.google.com/p/php-aop/