Singleton v Single Instance DB Connection in PHP - php

I'm moving onto teaching myself OOP in PHP.
I'm creating a couple of little web apps and have followed a lot of tutorials that either create the database (using PDO) via a Singleton, or via passing the global around. I've read that these are pretty much the same thing and are both to be avoided like the plague.
So I've watched the Google Tech Talks on clean code, and read almost every SO article on dependency injection and the like. I have a couple of questions.
The clean code videos suggest you shouldn't do 'work' in your constructors. Is this 'work' in reference to business logic. Ie. If my class's job is to create another object, is that an OK kind of 'work'?
For example, in trying to conform to single repsonibility classes I created three.
Class DB - which actually connects to the database.
Class DBFactory - which creates the DB object which connects to the database.
Class DBInstance - which returns a single instance of the DBFactory created PDO object.
Please note that I'm trying to create a single instance, without creating a Singleton pattern.
So I try and pass my dependencies for each class up the chain. I find myself in a position where I have to create all of the objects (from DB down) so I can inject the dependencies. For some reason I thought it would work the other way, I'd create the first object, which would create the second for me etc. I'm clearly missing something?
Hopefully this helps others as well - there seems to be a myriad of questions relating to this stuff and databases but very little good examples.
(I should mention this does work, I do get a list of hotel names out of the database!)
TestCode.php
include './classes/DB.php';
include './classes/DBFactory.php';
include './classes/DBInstance.php';
include './classes/Location.php';
$db = new DB;
$dbfactory = new DBFactory($db);
$dbinstance = new DBInstance($dbfactory);
$dbh = $dbinstance->getDbInstance();
//Example business logic
$location_names = Location::getLocationNames($dbh);
print_r($location_names);
Class DB.php:
class DB {
private $_dbhost = 'myhost';
private $_dbname = 'myname';
private $_dbuser = 'myuser';
private $_dbpass = 'mypass';
private $_error;
public function connect() {
try {
return new PDO("mysql:host=$this->_dbhost;dbname=$this->_dbname",
$this->_dbuser, $this->_dbpass);
}
catch (PDOException $e) {
$this->_error = 'Error! ' . $e->getMessage() . '<br />';
die();
}
}
public function getError() {
if (isset($this->_error)) {
return $this->_error;
}
}
}
Class DBFactory.php
class DBFactory {
private $_dbh;
public function __construct(DB $db) {
$this->_dbh = $db;
}
public function Create() {
return $this->_dbh->Connect();
}
}
Class DBInstance.php
class DBInstance {
private static $_dbinstance;
public function __construct(DBFactory $dbfactory) {
if (!isset(self::$_dbinstance)) {
self::$_dbinstance = $dbfactory->Create();
}
}
public function getDbInstance() {
return self::$_dbinstance;
}
}

Your code seems to do what you want it to.. but maybe we can use less object instantiation using inheritance and maybe we can avoid static properties in instanciated classes.
Also in regard to using a pattern of dependency injection that is able to handle multiple connections, but support using a single instance of it. exemple first, classes after
$params = array
('host'=>'localhost',
'db'=>'ice',
'user'=>'kopitar',
'pass'=>'topnet',
'charset'=>'utf8'); // passing the charset explicitely is great
$handle = new handle($params);
$db = $handle->getInstance();
we can either pass the $db to our functions
$location_names = Location::getLocationNames($db);
or the whole $handle. as long as $handle is not reconstructed, it will always return the same database connection.
$location_names = Location::getLocationNames($handle);
if I want to reconstruct I need the whole $handle
$handle->__construct(/* params but with another database infos */);
$db2 = $handle->getInstance();
As for the classes, I think we want the params to arrive from the instanciated class, so we can change them later.
class db {
function __construct($params) {
foreach ($params as $param => $value) {
$this->{$param} = $value; // assigns the connections infos
}
}
protected function connect() {
$dsn = 'mysql:host='.$this->host.';dbname='.$this->db.';charset='.$this->charset;
return new PDO($dsn,$this->user,$this->pass);
}
}
the factory creates a connection from params and passes it to something else, good factory
class factory extends db {
protected function create() {
return $this->connect();
}
}
now we want to have our object to keep it's connection as long as we do not rebuild it. so we give it to instance
class instance extends factory {
function instantiate() {
$this->instance = $this->create();
}
}
and last but not least, our handle which returns the instance. it could be in instance class.....................
but I feel like having four and find no real reason not to.
class handle extends instance {
function __construct($params) {
db::__construct($params);
$this->instantiate(); // when we construct a handle, we assign an instance to the instance property
}
function getInstance() {
return $this->instance;
}
}

KISS
Don't make things more complex than they are, of course this is just my opinion, but as I see it you are building a complex solution for a problem that someone else says might exist is some cases.
Php is not multi threaded so there goes one of the biggest arguments overboard. (in very rare-occasions it might be)
I'm using singletons for my database connections for about 15 years now and never ever had a problem with them, I do play around with different connections having one singleton handle several connection instances, but whatever... it works great and everyone that looks at the code.. understands it directly.
I'm not using globals because they can be overwritten and are kind of hard to predict (when it holds the correct object, and when/why they don't)
Use OOP to make your code cleaner, easier to work with and more flexible.
Don't use it to fix problems that aren't there and make your code more complex because others tell you to.
An very simple example of a db-connection singleton class handling several different connections.
class singleton{
private static $_instances=array();
public static function getInstance($connectionName){
if(!isset(self::$_instance[$connectionName]){
self::$_instance[$connectionName]=self::_getConnection($connectionName);
}
return self::$_instance[$connectionName];
}
}
just my 2 cents

Why do you have a factory if you have a singleton? This is needless.
This is a never-ending debate, but I'm advocate of do not use singletons for database connections.
As far as in most applications, you have only one data channel, you can consider your database connection unique, but this might not be always true.
In deed, the effort made to create a singleton database connection is even bigger than just create a regular one.
Also, your class DB is not configurable, therefore, you need to change it when your connection parameters change. And I think DB is a very bad name for this.
I'd rather call this Storage and do something like:
inteface Storage {
public function insert($container, array $data);
public function update($container, array $data, $where);
public function delete($container, $where);
public function getAll($container);
public function getOne($identifier);
}
final class PdoStorage implements Storage {
private $dbh;
private $dsn;
private $user;
private $pswd;
public function __construct($dsn, $user, $pswd) {
$this->dsn = $dsn;
$this->user = $user;
$this->pswd = $pswd;
}
// Lazy Initialization
private function connect() {
if ($this->dbh === null)
$this->dbh = new PDO($this->dsn, $this->user, $this->pswd);
}
public function insert($container, array $data) {
$this->connect();
// ... omitted for brevity
}
}
Now, when you need a database storage, you do:
$someObj = new SomeClass(new PdoStorage(...));
Now you might be wondering if you will need to create an PdoStorage for each single object that depends on it.
The answer is: no!
Now you can use a factory to simplify your life.
class SomeFactory {
private $defaultStorage;
public function __construct(Storage $storage) {
$this->defaultStorage = $storage;
}
public function create($type) {
// Somehow fetches the correct class to instantiate and put it into $class variable , for example... and then
return new $class($this->defaultStorage); // Or you'd better do this with reflection
}
}
$factory = new SomeFactory(new PdoStorage(...));
$factory->create('SomeClass');
This way, you can have just one database connector or more if you need.

Related

database connection is not recognized in my functions [duplicate]

A couple of the options are:
$connection = {my db connection/object};
function PassedIn($connection) { ... }
function PassedByReference(&$connection) { ... }
function UsingGlobal() {
global $connection;
...
}
So, passed in, passed by reference, or using global. I'm thinking in functions that are only used within 1 project that will only have 1 database connection. If there are multiple connections, the definitely passed in or passed by reference.
I'm thining passed by reference is not needed when you are in PHP5 using an object, so then passed in or using global are the 2 possibilities.
The reason I'm asking is because I'm getting tired of always putting in $connection into my function parameters.
I use a Singleton ResourceManager class to handle stuff like DB connections and config settings through a whole app:
class ResourceManager {
private static $DB;
private static $Config;
public static function get($resource, $options = false) {
if (property_exists('ResourceManager', $resource)) {
if (empty(self::$$resource)) {
self::_init_resource($resource, $options);
}
if (!empty(self::$$resource)) {
return self::$$resource;
}
}
return null;
}
private static function _init_resource($resource, $options = null) {
if ($resource == 'DB') {
$dsn = 'mysql:host=localhost';
$username = 'my_username';
$password = 'p4ssw0rd';
try {
self::$DB = new PDO($dsn, $username, $password);
} catch (PDOException $e) {
echo 'Connection failed: ' . $e->getMessage();
}
} elseif (class_exists($resource) && property_exists('ResourceManager', $resource)) {
self::$$resource = new $resource($options);
}
}
}
And then in functions / objects / where ever:
function doDBThingy() {
$db = ResourceManager::get('DB');
if ($db) {
$stmt = $db->prepare('SELECT * FROM `table`');
etc...
}
}
I use it to store messages, error messages and warnings, as well as global variables. There's an interesting question here on when to actually use this type of class.
Try designing your code in an object-oriented fashion. Methods that use the database should be grouped in a class, and the class instance should contain the database connection as a class variable. That way the database connection is available to the functions that need it, but it's not global.
class MyClass {
protected $_db;
public function __construct($db)
{
$this->_db = $db;
}
public function doSomething()
{
$this->_db->query(...);
}
}
I see that a lot of people have suggested some kind of static variable.
Essentially, there is very little difference between a global variable and a static variable. Except for the syntax, they have exactly the same characteristics. As such, you are gaining nothing at all, by replacing a global variable with a static variable. In most examples, there is a level of decoupling in that the static variable isn't referred directly, but rather through a static method (Eg. a singleton or static registry). While slightly better, this still has the problems of a global scope. If you ever need to use more than one database connection in your application, you're screwed. If you ever want to know which parts of your code has side-effects, you need to manually inspect the implementation. That's not stuff that will make or break your application, but it will make it harder to maintain.
I propose that you chose between one of:
Pass the instance as arguments to the functions that needs it. This is by far the simplest, and it has all the benefits of narrow scope, but it can get rather unwieldy. It is also a source for introducing dependencies, since some parts of your code may end up becoming a middleman. If that happens, go on to ..
Put the instance in the scope of the object, which has the method that needs it. Eg. if the method Foo->doStuff() needs a database connection, pass it in Foo's constructor and set it as a protected instance variable on Foo. You can still end up with some of the problems of passing in the method, but it's generally less of a problem with unwieldy constructors, than with methods. If your application gets big enough, you can use a dependency injection container to automate this.
My advice is to avoid global in the bulk of the code - it's dangerous, hard to track and will bite you.
The way that I'd do this is to have a function called getDB() which can either be at class level by way of a constructor injection or static within a common class.
So the code becomes
class SomeClass {
protected $dbc;
public function __construct($db) {
$this->dbc = $db;
}
public function getDB() {
return $this->dbc;
}
function read_something() {
$db = getDB();
$db->query();
}
}
or using a common shared class.
function read_something() {
$db = System::getDB();
$db->query();
}
No matter how much elegant system design you do, there are always a few items that are necessarily global in scope (such as DB, Session, Config), and I prefer to keep these as static methods in my System class.
Having each class require a connection via the constructor is the best way of doing this, by best I mean most reliable and isolated.
However be aware that using a common shared class to do this can impact on the ability to isolate fully the objects using it and also the ability to perform unit tests on these objects.
None of the above.
All the mysql functions take the database connection argument optionally. If you leave that argument out, the last connection by mysql_connect() is assumed.
function usingFunc() {
$connection = getConnection();
...
}
function getConnection() {
static $connectionObject = null;
if ($connectionObject == null) {
$connectionObject = connectFoo("whatever","connection","method","you","choose");
}
return $connectionObject;
}
This way, the static $connectionObject is preserved between getConnection calls.

OOP efficiency when using a class in another class

I have a class called DB (class.pdo.php) that does all the handling on mysql queries using PDO and another class called user that I use to manage a login system.
My question relates to always having to instantiate the $db in every public function of users so I can use DB. Is this efficient? Shouldn't I be instantiating DB inside the __construct() of users?
This is my code
require_once("../../class.pdo.php");
class user {
private $db = null;
public function __construct(){
/* Empty? */
}
public function find_by_email($email){
$db = new db();
$db->query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE email = :email LIMIT 1');
$db->bind(':email',$email);
$result = $db->single();
return $result;
}
public function create($email,$password,$first_name,$last_name){
$db = new db();
$db->query("INSERT INTO users(email,password,first_name,last_name,created_at) VALUES (:email,:password,:first_name,:last_name,NOW())");
$db->bind(':email',$email);
$db->bind(':password',$password);
$db->bind(':first_name',$first_name);
$db->bind(':last_name',$last_name);
$result = $db->execute();
return $db->lastInsertId();
}
[more similar functions ommited]
Well, despite of some comments suggesting the use of the Singleton pattern, I totaly disagree in using it for this purpose.
Your application will not always use a single connection to just one database.
Let me show you how I'd do this:
class DbConnector {
private $dbh;
private $dsn;
public function __construct($dsn) {
$this->dsn = $dsn;
}
private function connect() {
if($this->dbh === null) {
$this->dbh = new PDO($this->dsn);
}
}
public function disconnect {
if($this->dbh !== null) {
$this->dbh = null;
}
}
public function query($sql) {
$this->connect();
//... do the rest
}
public function fetchAll($sql) {
$this->connect();
//... do the rest
}
public function insert($table, $values) {
$this->connect();
//... do the rest
}
public function update($table, $values, $cond) {
$this->connect();
//... do the rest
}
public function delete($table, $cond) {
$this->connect();
//... do the rest
}
}
class User {
private $dbConn;
public function __construct(DbConnector $dbConn) {
$this->dbConn = $dbConn;
}
public function create($email,$password,$first_name,$last_name){
$this->dbConn->query("INSERT INTO users(email,password,first_name,last_name,created_at VALUES (:email,:password,:first_name,:last_name,NOW())");
$this->dbConn->bind(':email',$email);
$this->dbConn->bind(':password',$email);
$this->dbConn->bind(':first_name',$email);
$this->dbConn->bind(':last_name',$email);
$this->dbConn->execute();
return $this->dbConn->lastInsertId();
}
// ...
}
Results:
No singleton used = testable.
Connection to the database is just openned when needed
Your connection is persistent. If you open and close connections in every method, you loose the capability of creating transactions.
What about using the Singleton pattern to create one object for the connection and use it everytime you need it, instead of creating new objects all the time?
I would do something similar with lazy loading: don't initiate in the constructor unless you're sure you actually need the connection every time an object is created but absolutly don't create a new object on each method call. Instead, save the resulting object into an object var which is checked on each method call and initiates the connection if missing.
class user {
protected $_db = null;
private function _init_db() { $this->_db = new XXX; }
public function create( $x, $y, $z ) {
if ( ! $this->_db ) $this->_init_db();
# use $this->_db ..
}
public function find_by_email( $x, $y, $z ) {
if ( ! $this->_db ) $this->_init_db();
# etc
}
}
This has the advantages of avoiding global static state (singletons..) and only creates the connection / object at the very last moment so you're sure you actually need it and it's not just a useless connection.
Speaking of efficiency, the main problem with your code is that it establishes new connection for the every method called. This one is indeed inefficient to the point of killing your database server. And it's incomparable to the other problem you have.
So, in general, you can have whatever way you want - either get somehow an instance of db class in the every function or use a class variable - but either way have to use single PDO instance throughout whole application.
Also I find your functions quite inefficient from the amount of code point of view, and would have optimized them this way
public function create($email,$password,$first_name,$last_name){
$sql = "INSERT INTO users(email,password,first_name,last_name,created_at) VALUES (?,?,?,?,NOW())";
$this->db->query($sql);
$result = $db->execute(func_get_args());
return $db->lastInsertId();
}
From a object point of view, I'd leave database instantiating within the methods, rather than an entire class.
Each method should only see the variables and data it needs, in order to perform its function.
For instance, a createUser() method would need to see variables or properties such as $username, $usergroupId, as well as $database etc.
However, you may have a function which is called randomPassword(), which generates a random password from numbers and letter.
This randomPassword() function doesn't need the database object and therefore, an already initialised database connection in the object scope would be wasteful.
It would be better only to create the new database object in methods that required it.
In addition, in my application, I don't create a new database connection each time I used new database. Instead, I've opted for a singleton PDO database object which keeps the connection active.
I can then just call the database object statically to retrieve an existing connection. Therefore, if, in the process of running my application I need to have 20 database objects, my application then only returns the same object, and the same connection.

PDO statement property stored as object property and accessed by object methods

I know the title doesn't give much clues about what I'm asking for, so here's the simplified situation:
class MyPDO extends PDO
{
private $stmt;
function __construct($dsn...)
{
parent:__construct($dsn...);
}
function myQuery($sql)
{
$this->stmt = $this->query($query);
}
function myFetchAll()
{
return $this->stmt->fetchAll($mode);
}
function myFetchRow()
{
return $this->stmt->fetch();
}
}
Throughout the application I have a base instance of MyPDO and pass it to different objects, mappers.
$adapter = new MyPDO($dsn...);
$adapter->myQuery('SELECT * FROM table');
$rows = $adapter->myFetchAll();
$another_object = new ObjectThatNeedsPDO($adapter);
$another_object->adapter->myQuery('SELECT * from another_table');
$rows = $another_object->adapter->myFetchAll();
Is this approach safe, especially from the MyPDO::stmt perspective? Can the application flow mess things up so I can end up fetching data from another $stmt than expected?
Personally, I would not take your approach. The reason being that I would not want the possibility of a statement object created by one class being exposed to another unrelated class. Additionally, each implementing class may have different sorts of parameter binding which it needs to perform, ways in which it needs to access the data (i.e. fetch all rows, fetch each row, fetch as objects vs. arrays, etc.), ways in which to handle errors in a class-specific way, and so forth.
To me you are gaining nothing by having this logic inside of some child of the base PDO class. I mean is it really much harder to do:
$stmt = $this->pdo->query(...)
$data = $stmt->fetchAll();
than:
$this->myPDO->query(...);
$data = $this->myPDO->myFetchAll();
What do you gain other than a unnecessary coupling of this additional class to all the classes which will consume it? Really, the statement interactions are always going to be very class specific with really the only common functionality (the DB connection) being provided by the base PDO instance.
As such, certainly feel free to pass around a common PDO instance amongst classes, this is definitely a good practice (i.e. dependency injection).
Just think really hard about whether you want to potentially change every single implementing class when you make changes to your proposed myPDO class, or whether you want to change your myPDO class every time some implementing class needs some custom means to interact with the statement object.
Based on discussions below, it seems you may want to consider extending PDOStatement to give you the maximum flexibility.
This might look like this:
class myPDOFactory {
public static function getInstance($dsn, $pdo_statement_class = 'myPDOStatement', $pdo_constructor_args = NULL);
$pdo = new PDO($dsn);
if (empty($pdo_statement_class)) {
$pdo_statement_class = 'PDOStatement';
}
if (empty($pdo_constructor_args) || !is_array($pdo_constructor_args)) {
$pdo_constructor_args = array();
}
$config_array = array($pdo_statement_class, $pdo_constructor_args);
$pdo->setAttribute(PDO::ATTR_STATEMENT_CLASS, $config_array);
return $pdo;
}
}
class myPDOStatement extends PDO Statement {
public function __construct(<any custom parameters you may need to have passed - items in $pdo_constructor_args from myPDOFactory class>) {
parent::__construct();
// any special stuff you want to do with any passed parameters here
}
public function fetchAll() {
// override any functionality you desire here
}
public function fetchAllObjects() {
return $this->fetchAll(PDO::FETCH_OBJ);
}
}
class someClassThatNeedsPDO {
protected $pdo = NULL;
public function __construct($pdo) {
if($pdo instanceof PDO) {
$this->pdo = $pdo;
} else {
throw new Exception('Ooops!');
}
}
public function doSomethingWithPDO() {
$stmt = $this->PDO->prepare('SELECT * FROM sometable');
$stmt = execute();
return $stmt->fetchAllObjects();
}
}
Usage example:
$pdo = myPDOFactory::getInstance($dsn, 'myPDOStatement', $constructor_args);
$consuming_class = new someClassThatNeedsPDO($pdo);
$object_array = $consuming_class->doSomethingWithPDO();
You're approach looks like a needless layer of obstraction, but this should work fine. I'd add a check in your fetch methods to ensure a valid PDOstatement exists before calling the native fetch/fetchall.
Also, I'd recommend not creating a new connection for every MyPDO object. Pass in a PDO connection.
I always use a singleton pattern when dealing with PDO (and previously with a mysqli wrapper). This means you only ever have one instance and you don't have to pass it to other classes. The way you're doing it is okay and safe, but using a singleton is better.
Making a singleton is really easy:
class myClass{
private static $instance;
public static function singleton()
{
if (!self::$instance) {
return self::$instance = new myClass();
} else {
return self::$instance;
}
}
public static function myQuery($query)
{
#Do stuff
}
}
When you create the instance, just call:
myClass::singleton()
And then if you want to use the methods, just use this:
myClass::myQuery($query)
IF you're using namespaces, you'll need to use the fully qualified name, e.g. my\namespace\myClass
Hope that makes sense!

PHP OOP database design

OK, this is just a quick question and I might take some slack for this but I'm just looking for a little guidance as I am completely self taught. I do a lot of reading and try to do a lot of building--I'd say I'm coming into a nice intermediate stage of php, mysql, and web knowledge in general--by no means advanced or overly confident--still learning.
I'm really trying to tackle OOP in PHP and so I want to create a good lean database wrapper for MySQL, just MySQL, I'm most comfortable with MySQL and I dont see any reason to use any other database. I dont want to create any sort of portability in the design--I want it to be specific to my database; so I dont want to use PDO.
So the question I have as of right now in the beginning is should I create a class that EXTENDS mysqli and then have create model classes for my database tables that extend that base database class? so class->child = mysqli->DbBase->UsersModel ? This would require a lot of $this statements inside the class, would it not?
Or should I instantiate a mysqli class and pass it to DbBase?
Classes kind of represent things in the real world (or even imaginary "things"), right? An instance of a DB represents a connection to that db. Has a model something in common with a database connection? Not really. I would suggest to include instances of your database class in those models classes you're going to write, because a model uses a database connection to access it's data but is not a kind of database connection.
Concerning Mysqli <-> DBClass: That really depends on what you're trying to achieve with that DBClass - does it extend Mysqli with some extra functions or anything? If it doesn't, don't use inheritance there, otherwise you can use it.
A very basic example, just to give you the idea: (it is actually a simplified but definitely not complete version of the ActiveRecord pattern)
abstract class DbTable {
/* An instance of your DBClass (=Database Connection), to be used if no
* other connection is specified. */
protected static $_defaultDbAdapter = null;
/* The db connection to be used by this instance. */
protected $_dbAdapter = null;
/* The name of the table in the database. */
protected $_tableName = '';
public static function setDefaultDbAdapter(DbClass $db) {
self::$_defaultDbAdapter = $db;
}
public function setDbAdapter(DbClass $db) {
$this->_dbAdapter = $db;
}
public function getDbAdapter() {
if (null === $this->_dbAdapter) {
$this->setDbAdapter(self::$_defaultDbAdapter);
}
return $this->_dbAdapter;
}
public function insert(array $data) { /*...*/ }
public function update(array $data, $where) { /*...*/ }
public function delete($where) { /*...*/ }
public function select($where) { /* may e.g. return an array of DbTableRow childclass instances */ }
// ...
}
class Users extend DbTable {
protected $_tableName = 'my_users_table';
}
abstract class DbTableRow {
/* The row itself (may be not yet saved to the db!) */
protected $_data = array();
/* The row as it is in the database (to find differences, when calling save()). */
protected $_cleanData = array();
/* An instance of the table that this row belongs to. */
protected $_table = null;
public function __construct(DbTable $table, array $data = array()) { /*...*/ }
public function save() { /* uses $this->_table->insert()/update() */ }
public function __get($key) { /*...*/ }
public function __set($key, $value) { /*...*/ }
// ...
}
class User extends DbTableRow { }
Usage:
// Make a new connection to the database
$db = new DbClass('...'); // or whatever you name that class...
// Set this connection to be the default connection
DbTable::setDefaultDbAdapter($db);
// Create a new user
$users = new Users();
$user = new User($users);
$user->email = 'test#example.com';
$user->save();
If you're going to work with OOP, I'd strongly recommend using PDO, because it's the most updated and OO implementation of the MySQL library. I don't think PDO-MySQL is any less MySQL-specific than MySQLi.
In any case, you shouldn't extend PHP's class in this case, you should keep an object with the database connection as a property of your class.
You should also look into the Singleton design pattern, which is really useful in these cases. Take a look at this post from today: Move out mysql connection into another class
If you really want to learn and understand OOP then I think you should start to learn some PHP frameworks (like Zend Framework) and read it's source codes. I learned lots of things from them.

What is the best method for getting a database connection/object into a function in PHP?

A couple of the options are:
$connection = {my db connection/object};
function PassedIn($connection) { ... }
function PassedByReference(&$connection) { ... }
function UsingGlobal() {
global $connection;
...
}
So, passed in, passed by reference, or using global. I'm thinking in functions that are only used within 1 project that will only have 1 database connection. If there are multiple connections, the definitely passed in or passed by reference.
I'm thining passed by reference is not needed when you are in PHP5 using an object, so then passed in or using global are the 2 possibilities.
The reason I'm asking is because I'm getting tired of always putting in $connection into my function parameters.
I use a Singleton ResourceManager class to handle stuff like DB connections and config settings through a whole app:
class ResourceManager {
private static $DB;
private static $Config;
public static function get($resource, $options = false) {
if (property_exists('ResourceManager', $resource)) {
if (empty(self::$$resource)) {
self::_init_resource($resource, $options);
}
if (!empty(self::$$resource)) {
return self::$$resource;
}
}
return null;
}
private static function _init_resource($resource, $options = null) {
if ($resource == 'DB') {
$dsn = 'mysql:host=localhost';
$username = 'my_username';
$password = 'p4ssw0rd';
try {
self::$DB = new PDO($dsn, $username, $password);
} catch (PDOException $e) {
echo 'Connection failed: ' . $e->getMessage();
}
} elseif (class_exists($resource) && property_exists('ResourceManager', $resource)) {
self::$$resource = new $resource($options);
}
}
}
And then in functions / objects / where ever:
function doDBThingy() {
$db = ResourceManager::get('DB');
if ($db) {
$stmt = $db->prepare('SELECT * FROM `table`');
etc...
}
}
I use it to store messages, error messages and warnings, as well as global variables. There's an interesting question here on when to actually use this type of class.
Try designing your code in an object-oriented fashion. Methods that use the database should be grouped in a class, and the class instance should contain the database connection as a class variable. That way the database connection is available to the functions that need it, but it's not global.
class MyClass {
protected $_db;
public function __construct($db)
{
$this->_db = $db;
}
public function doSomething()
{
$this->_db->query(...);
}
}
I see that a lot of people have suggested some kind of static variable.
Essentially, there is very little difference between a global variable and a static variable. Except for the syntax, they have exactly the same characteristics. As such, you are gaining nothing at all, by replacing a global variable with a static variable. In most examples, there is a level of decoupling in that the static variable isn't referred directly, but rather through a static method (Eg. a singleton or static registry). While slightly better, this still has the problems of a global scope. If you ever need to use more than one database connection in your application, you're screwed. If you ever want to know which parts of your code has side-effects, you need to manually inspect the implementation. That's not stuff that will make or break your application, but it will make it harder to maintain.
I propose that you chose between one of:
Pass the instance as arguments to the functions that needs it. This is by far the simplest, and it has all the benefits of narrow scope, but it can get rather unwieldy. It is also a source for introducing dependencies, since some parts of your code may end up becoming a middleman. If that happens, go on to ..
Put the instance in the scope of the object, which has the method that needs it. Eg. if the method Foo->doStuff() needs a database connection, pass it in Foo's constructor and set it as a protected instance variable on Foo. You can still end up with some of the problems of passing in the method, but it's generally less of a problem with unwieldy constructors, than with methods. If your application gets big enough, you can use a dependency injection container to automate this.
My advice is to avoid global in the bulk of the code - it's dangerous, hard to track and will bite you.
The way that I'd do this is to have a function called getDB() which can either be at class level by way of a constructor injection or static within a common class.
So the code becomes
class SomeClass {
protected $dbc;
public function __construct($db) {
$this->dbc = $db;
}
public function getDB() {
return $this->dbc;
}
function read_something() {
$db = getDB();
$db->query();
}
}
or using a common shared class.
function read_something() {
$db = System::getDB();
$db->query();
}
No matter how much elegant system design you do, there are always a few items that are necessarily global in scope (such as DB, Session, Config), and I prefer to keep these as static methods in my System class.
Having each class require a connection via the constructor is the best way of doing this, by best I mean most reliable and isolated.
However be aware that using a common shared class to do this can impact on the ability to isolate fully the objects using it and also the ability to perform unit tests on these objects.
None of the above.
All the mysql functions take the database connection argument optionally. If you leave that argument out, the last connection by mysql_connect() is assumed.
function usingFunc() {
$connection = getConnection();
...
}
function getConnection() {
static $connectionObject = null;
if ($connectionObject == null) {
$connectionObject = connectFoo("whatever","connection","method","you","choose");
}
return $connectionObject;
}
This way, the static $connectionObject is preserved between getConnection calls.

Categories