Scalable way of implementing the Registry pattern in PHP? - php

Question

I was wondering if there's a good way to implement the registry pattern in PHP, let me be more clear:
I do know that a Registry is used when you need to keep track of the object you instantiate in order to reuse them and not re-instantiate them again from script to script, e.g. I have a Database class that I want to instantiate only once and then use for all my scripts and I do not want to re-instantiate it again and again. Another example could be a User class that represents an instance of the currently logged in user. I could not use a Singleton in this case, cause e.g. I need another User instance for example when I want to retrieve a friend of the currently logged in user etc.
So I came up with the idea that the Registry better suits this kind of needs in such cases.
I also know that there are two ways of implementing it, or better two ways in order to access the stored instances:
Explicitly or externally, meaning that the Registry should be called every time you need to recover an instance inside your scripts or you need to put an instance inside of it;
Implicitly or internally, meaning that you make kind of an abstract class with a getInstance() method that returns an instance with the get_called_class() late static binding feature, adds it to the registry and then return that instance from the registry itself taking care that if a $label parameter is passed to the getInstance() method, then that particular instance from the registry will be returned. This approach is kinda transparent to the consumer and in my opinion is cleaner and neater (I'll show both implementations, though).
Let's take a basic Registry (really simple implementation, just an example took from a book):
class Registry {
static private $_store = array();
static public function set($object, $name = null)
{
// Use the class name if no name given, simulates singleton
$name = (!is_null($name)) ? $name: get_class($object);
$name = strtolower($name);
$return = null;
if (isset(self::$_store[$name])) {
// Store the old object for returning
$return = self::$_store[$name];
}
self::$_store[$name]= $object;
return $return;
}
static public function get($name)
{
if (!self::contains($name)) {
throw new Exception("Object does not exist in registry");
}
return self::$_store[$name];
}
static public function contains($name)
{
if (!isset(self::$_store[$name])) {
return false;
}
return true;
}
static public function remove($name)
{
if (self::contains($name)) {
unset(self::$_store[$name]);
}
}
}
I know, Registry could be a Singleton, so you never have two Registry at the same time (who needs them someone could think, but who knows).
Anyway the externally way of storing/accessing instances is like this:
$read = new DBReadConnection;
Registry::set($read);
$write = new DBWriteConnection;
Registry::set($write);
// To get the instances, anywhere in the code:
$read = Registry::get('DbReadConnection');
$write = Registry::get('DbWriteConnection');
And internally, inside the class (taken from the book) when getInstance is called:
abstract class DBConnection extends PDO {
static public function getInstance($name = null)
{
// Get the late-static-binding version of __CLASS__
$class = get_called_class();
// Allow passing in a name to get multiple instances
// If you do not pass a name, it functions as a singleton
$name = (!is_null($name)) ?: $class;
if (!Registry::contains($name)) {
$instance = new $class();
Registry::set($instance, $name);
}
return Registry::get($name);
}
}
class DBWriteConnection extends DBConnection {
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct(APP_DB_WRITE_DSN, APP_DB_WRITE_USER, APP_DB_WRITE_PASSWORD);
} }
class DBReadConnection extends DBConnection {
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct(APP_DB_READ_DSN, APP_DB_READ_USER,APP_DB_READ_PASSWORD);
}
}
Apparently referring to the registry indirectly (second case) seems more scalable for me, but what if some day I would need to change the registry and use another implementation, I would need to change that calls to Registry::get() and Registry::set() inside the getInstance() method in order to suit the changes or is there a smarter way?
Did someone of you came across this problem and found an easy way to interchange different registries depending on the type of application on the complexity etc.?
Should be a configuration class the solution? Or is there a smarter way to achieve a scalable registry pattern if it is possible?
Thanks for the attention! Hope for some help!

Answer 1

First of all. It's great that you spotted the problem of your approach by yourself. By using a registry you are tight coupling your classes to the registry where you pull your dependencies from. Not only that, but if your classes have to care about how they are stored in the registry and get grabbed from it (in your case every class would also implement a singleton), you also violate the Single-Responsibility-Principle.
As a rule of thumb keep in mind: Accessing objects globally from within a class from whatever storage will lead to tight coupling between the class and the storage.
Let's see what Martin Fowler has to say about this topic:
The key difference is that with a Service Locator every user of a service has a dependency to the locator. The locator can hide dependencies to other implementations, but you do need to see the locator. So the decision between locator and injector depends on whether that dependency is a problem.
and
With the service locator you have to search the source code for calls to the locator. Modern IDEs with a find references feature make this easier, but it's still not as easy as looking at the constructor or setting methods.
So you see it depends on what you are building. If you have a small app with a low amount of dependencies, to hell with it, go on with using a registry (But you absolutely should drop a classes behavior to store itself into or getting grabbed from the registry). If that's not the case and you are building complex services and want a clean and straightforward API define your dependencies explicitly by using Type Hints and Constructor Injection.
<?php
class DbConsumer {
protected $dbReadConnection;
protected $dbWriteConnection;
public function __construct(DBReadConnection $dbReadConnection, DBWriteConnection $dbWriteConnection)
{
$this->dbReadConnection = $dbReadConnection;
$this->dbWriteConnection = $dbWriteConnection;
}
}
// You can still use service location for example to grab instances
// but you will not pollute your classes itself by making use of it
// directly. Instead we'll grab instances from it and pass them into
// the consuming class
// [...]
$read = $registry->get('dbReadConnection');
$write = $registry->get('dbWriteConnection');
$dbConsumer = new DbConsumer($read, $write);
Should be a configuration class the solution? Or is there a smarter way to achieve a scalable registry pattern if it is possible?
That approach is encountered very often and you maybe have heard something about a DI-Container. Fabien Potencier writes the following:
A Dependency Injection Container is an object that knows how to instantiate and configure objects. And to be able to do its job, it needs to knows about the constructor arguments and the relationships between the objects.
The boundaries between a service locator and a DI-Container seem to be pretty blurry but I like the concept to think about it like that: A Service Locator hides the dependencies of a class while a DI-Container does not (which comes along with the benefit of easy unit testing).
So you see, there is no final answer and it depends on what you are building. I can suggest to dig more into the topic since how dependencies are managed is a core concern of every application.
Further Reading
Why Registry Pattern is antipattern. And what is alternative for it.
Service Locator is an Anti-Pattern
Do you need a Dependency Injection Container?