I am looking into trying to simplify my PHP code some more, and I have yet to find an answer with this methodology one of my team members are using. Nor, have I ever saw this done before anywhere on the web.
Here is the code example from our web application which he is working on with me.
<?php
class ArticlesHandler {
public function __construct() {
require 'Articles.php';
$articles = new Articles;
}
}
?>
Is this proper to init one class within another class?
For me, this just seems not proper standard to init classes to work together.
Yes and no. It works, but this particular code can lead to a number of problems.
You should be using require_once instead of require to avoid possible errors of including the same file twice. As it is this code here will bring your app to a complete stop:
new ArticlesHandler;
new ArticlesHandler;
This creates a hard coupling to the Articles class. You should probably rather be using dependency injection and pass an instance of Article to the constructor of ArticlesHandler. See How Not To Kill Your Testability Using Statics.
Yes, it is proper and normal to call constructors in a constructor. There is nothing weird/bad about it.
This is what I normally do.
class Repository {
protected $_models = array();
public function getModel($model, array $params = array()){
require_once $model.'.php'; //Replace this with an autoloader
if(empty($this->_models[$model])){
if(!empty($params)){
$this->_models[$model] = new $model($params);
} else {
$this->_models[$model] = new $model();
}
}
return $this->_models[$model];
}
}
And call the other class like this.
class ArticlesHandler extends Repository {
public function __construct() {
$articles = $this->getModel('Articles');
}
}
it seem's right.
For me, this just seems not proper standard to init classes to work together.
you can extend Articles class if you want to use Articles class inside the ArticlesHandler
Related
I am wondering if such this subclassing structure is possible in PHP. If this is a duplicate I apologize as I couldn't figure out what this process would be called and the only I could find was a closed question with no answer.
I am working with multiple classes. For example we will say Main and User.
The Main class will hold all of the initiation code. So
class Main{
//Setters for core variables and data needed to make calls
...
protected function fetchInfo(){
//Do Stuff to return info from other source(Curl calls in my case)
}
}
and User
class User extends Main{
public function getName(){
$data = $this->fetchInfo();
return $data['name'];
}
}
But instead of having it where I would. Do $exampe1 = new Main(...); to set varaibles, and $example2 = new User(); to call the subclass to do $example2->getName(); is there a way to do something like $example = new Main(); whcih could then call the subclasses when needed like $example->User->getName();?
I know there are a lot of different ways this could be handled, but I want the classes separate for organization and I plan on having a lot of subclasses that need to pull info from that main class and would like to know if there is a way they can be linked in that fashion.
EDIT: The reason I dont want to just call User calls to get the function is I'll end up having 15+ classes that handle the returned data differently and making wonder if there was a better way than making a new Object for each one if I want to use it.
A "Main" is not a "User" so I would say this type of subclassing is a poor choice.
I might instead look at injection.
class MainDataHandler {
//...
}
class User {
private $main;
public function __construct(MainDataHandler $main) {
$this->main = $main;
}
public function getName() {
return $this->main->getData('name');
}
}
The benefits of injection is that your classes can work and be tested independently without dependencies on another class to do the work. Also if "Main" ever changes you your User class isn't dependent on how the new Main works.
Through my multiple studies I have come across the factory method of setting session and database objects which I have been using while in development. What I am wondering is, putting aside personal preference (although I will soak in any opinions anyone has), does this general method work, and is it efficient (meaning, am I using it correctly)? If it is not, do you have suggestions for how to improve it?
Background
I created the code this way so as to pass a database and session object to the class upon calling the class. I wanted to be able to pass along the relevant objects/references so that they could be used.
The Call Class
This class is meant to call static functions, like so:
class CALL {
public static $_db, $_session;
public status function class1() {
$function = new class1();
$function->set_session(self::$_session);
$function->set_database(self::$_db);
return $function;
}
public status function class2() {
...
}
...
}
The _set class
class _set {
public $_db, $_session;
public function __construct() { ... }
public function set_database($_db) {
$this->_db = $_db;
}
public function set_session($_session) {
$this->_session = $_session;
}
}
Now the classes referenced.
class class1 extends _set {
function __construct() { ... }
function function1() { return "foo"; }
...
}
So, moving forward, the classes would be called using CALL::class1 or CALL::class2. After that, they can be accessed as per usual, aka:
CALL::$_db = $database->_dbObject;
CALL::$_session = $_SESSION;
$class1 = CALL::class1;
echo $class1->function1(); //prints "foo".
Read about Dependency Injection . Small suggestion from my point of view, you should never create objects like $db or $session inside other objects. You should rather inject them through constructor or setter method. It will make your code less dependant on a specific classes and it will be easier to replace all dependencies almost without refactoring (actually without one if you know hot to use interfaces).
If anyone stumbles on this, I will share with you what my solution was.
Although this exercise helped me to learn a lot, and I am sure I could take the time to create a VERY highly functional factory/Container, because this is not integral to my program and not even unique, I finally bowed to the age old wisdom of not repeating something that has already been done.
I utilized Pimple, a lightweight library that uses PHP closures to create function calls. Now, I can haave the flexibility of determining which dependency injections I want, but I also only need to inject them once. Future calls, even when they create new instances, will replicate them. While I think that, in theory, my project was workable as it was, it did indeed have the unfortunate issue of requiring you to go into the container to make changes. With Pimple I do not need to do that. So I've tossed by Container class and picked up a lightweight program from the maker of Symfony. While this may not be the best answer for everyone, it was for me. Cheers!
I am trying to develop an object oriented PHP application in which whole php application will be extending from MyApplicationBase base class. But the problems is I want to create only single instance of MyApplicationBase. Below is the code which explains what I mean
class MyApplicationBase{
static $called=0;
public var $db;
function __construct()
{
self::$called++;
echo "<pre>MyApplicationBase Created ".self::$called." times</pre>";
$this->db=new DatabaseWrapper();
}
}
class ApplicationSecurity extends MyApplicationBase{
function is_logged_in()
{
$res=$this->db->query("user check db query goes here");
return ($res)?true:false;
}
//..... other methods related to ApplicationSecurity class
}
class ApplicationBusinessLogic extends MyApplicationBase{
// business logic methods here which may use base class vars like $db
// this may also use instance of ApplicationSecurity class
}
class ApplicationTemplating extends MyApplicationBase{
protected function outputHeader()
{
require_once('path/to/themes/header.php');
}
protected function outputSidebar()
{
require_once('path/to/themes/siderbar.php');
}
protected function outputMainbody()
{
require_once('path/to/themes/mainbody.php');
$app=new ApplicationBusinessLogic();
$app->initiate();
}
protected function outputFooter()
{
require_once('path/to/themes/footer.php');
}
public function outputTemplate()
{
$this->outputHeader();
$this->outputSidebar();
$this->outputMainbody();
$this->outputFooter();
}
}
//index.php file code starts here--------
$myPhpApplication = new ApplicationTemplating();
$myPhpApplication->outputTemplate();
My goal is when I create instance of my application then It only call the single instance of "MyApplicationBase" class instead of calling it multiple times. Please do tell me how can I achieve this. I am google for 5 hours but unable to find any solution yet.
I am trying to develop an object oriented PHP application in which whole php application will be extending from MyApplicationBase base class.
As PHP has single inheritance, this is by far the most worst idea to do object oriented PHP programming.
But the problems is I want to create only single instance of MyApplicationBase.
As every class is a MyApplicationBase you actually don't want that because it would mean you could instantiate exactly one class in your whole application.
What you're probably looking for is some kind of ApplicationClass which you pass along and of which just a single instance exists.
This would at least allow you in the future to throw such a "block in road" away more easily then if you would have got extended from there.
In any case you should program against an ApplicationInterface instead of an ApplicationClass to make this throwing away - as it will be necessary - easier.
The best thing for sure would be to not do anything in that direction and only write code you need in the first place.
To only write code you need, you need to develop test-driven. Why not start with that if you want to do object oriented programming?
Well I suppose that you want to avoid multiple connections to the database in this case. Solution is simple with Dependency injection, just initialize your database connection outside of MyApplicationBase class and then pass it as a constructor parameter (beware of constuctor hell though). Like this:
class MyApplicationBase{
static $called=0;
public $db;
function __construct($db)
{
self::$called++;
echo "<pre>MyApplicationBase Created ".self::$called." times</pre>";
$this->db= $d;
}
}
$db = new DatabaseWrapper();
$templating = new ApplicationTemplating($db);
$security = new ApplicationSecurity($db);
You could also take a look at some framework, they usually come with some dependency injection capabilities.
I need some advice on how I can proceed with this issue.
Using PHP
An example would be:
class BuilderClass {
function getClass($id, $some, $vars){
$dbResult = new db_Class::getDbRows($id, $some, $vars);
foreach(...)
// Build something from the database values
return self;
}
}
So what I want to do is to create a test case where I somehow mock the db results.
I have not found any great way to do this, please point me in the right direction or similar to get this working for me.
I could change something within the builder itself for example call a class that runs the function: FunctionRunner::runStaticFunction("db_Class", "getDbRows", $args, $something_else); But at the moment I don't know if that is possible neither. Any research articles that cover this or any sites that explain this. I'd appriciate anything at the moment.
Thanks
/Marcus
Split the operations of retrieving data from database, and building the data.
class BuilderClass {
function getClass($id, $some, $vars){
$dbResult = new db_Class::getDbRows($id, $some, $vars);
return doGetClass($dbResult);
}
function doGetClass($dbResult) {
foreach(...)
// Build something from the database values
return self;
}
}
That way, you can test doGetClass in isolation from calling the database .
As often the case, inability to easily write tests for your functions is caused by a flaw in your application design. In this case the db_Class is tightly coupled to your BuilderClass.
A proper solution would be to have a Database object in your BuilderClass using dependency injection, and mocking that injection to return a static result.
class BuilderClass
{
protected $oDatabase;
public function __construct(db_Class $oDatabase) {
$this->oDatabase = $oDataabse;
}
public function getClass($someVars) {
$this->oDatabase->getDbRows($someVars);
}
}
This way, the Database object is easily replaced with a stub.
There are many ways to do this, but since we are talking PHP, you could leverage the magic class loader function.
Simply put, if you want to mock the data access layer, you just create an object with the actual name of the data class, and the autoloader is never called.
Want to actually access the database? don't define the class and the autoloader will be called when something tries to access the database, which should then know what to do to load the class.
Mostly my autoloaders, when I use them, tend to look something like this;
function __autoload($className)
{
if(file_exists('../includes/'.$className.'.php'))
require_once('../includes/'.$className.'.php');
}
i just got some more questions while learning PHP, does php implement any built in plugin system?
so the plugin would be able to change the behavior of the core component.
for example something like this works:
include 'core.class.php';
include 'plugin1.class.php';
include 'plugin2.class.php';
new plugin2;
where
core.class.php contains
class core {
public function coremethod1(){
echo 'coremethod1';
}
public function coremethod2(){
echo 'coremethod2';
}
}
plugin1.class.php contains
class plugin1 extends core {
public function coremethod1(){
echo 'plugin1method1';
}
}
plugin2.class.php contains
class plugin2 extends plugin1 {
public function coremethod2(){
echo 'plugin2method2';
}
}
This would be ideal, if not for the problem that now the plugins are dependable on each other, and removing one of the plugins:
include 'core.class.php';
//include 'plugin1.class.php';
include 'plugin2.class.php';
new plugin2;
breaks the whole thing...
are there any proper methods to doing this?
if there are not, them i might consider moving to a different langauge that supports this...
thanks for any help.
edit:
obviously it is my understanding that is lacking, so here is a
attempt at a clarification.
core.class.php contains anything...
plugin1.class.php contains anything...
plugin2.class.php contains anything...
include 'core.class.php';
include 'plugin1.class.php';
include 'plugin2.class.php';
$core = new core;
$core->coremethod1();//outputs plugin2method1
whereas:
include 'core.class.php';
include 'plugin2.class.php';
$core = new core;
$core->coremethod1();//outputs plugin1method1
I'm interested in any implementation, even one not involving classes
for example
include 'core.php';
//does core stuff
include 'core.php';
include 'plugin1';
//does extended core stuff
include 'core.php';
include 'plugin2';
//does extended core stuff
include 'core.php';
include 'plugin2';
include 'plugin1';
//does very extended core stuff
including a file needs to change the application behavior. for it to have any meaning.
I do not know what this is called either, so point me at the proper naming if there is any.
You are misusing the term "plugin". A plugin is generally a package of code that extends or alters the base functionality of a system - to make actual PHP plugins (which in the PHP world are called extensions) you'd be writing C or C++.
What you're describing here is merely including classes or class trees into the current execution for usage. And there is a way to bring them into the current execution context 'automatically', and that's via the autoload system.
If, after you've read the documentation on autoloading, you are still unsure of how to move forward, comment here and I will help you along.
EDIT
Ok, I see what you're after. You can't do exactly what you're after. When you execute new core; an instance of the class core will be returned - you can't modify that at all.
However, if you are willing to modify how you create instances of core, then I think I have something that could work for you, and it might look something like this.
class core {
public function coremethod1(){
echo 'coremethod1';
}
public function coremethod2(){
echo 'coremethod2';
}
/**
* #return core
*/
final public static function create()
{
// listed in order of preference
$plugins = array( 'plugin2', 'plugin1' );
foreach ( $plugins as $plugin )
{
if ( class_exists( $plugin ) )
{
return new $plugin();
}
}
return new self;
}
}
class plugin1 extends core {
public function coremethod1(){
echo 'plugin1method1';
}
}
class plugin2 extends plugin1 {
public function coremethod2(){
echo 'plugin2method2';
}
}
$core = core::create();
// test what we have
echo get_class( $core ), '<br>'
, $core->coremethod1(), '<br>'
, $core->coremethod2()
;
If your only concern is that not including plugin1 will create an error, then you can resort to autoloading to have plugin2 load plugin1 automatically:
From the comments in the PHP Manual on spl_autoload
// Your custom class dir
define('CLASS_DIR', 'class/')
// Add your class dir to include path
set_include_path(get_include_path().PATH_SEPARATOR.CLASS_DIR);
// You can use this trick to make autoloader look
// for commonly used "My.class.php" type filenames
spl_autoload_extensions('.class.php');
// Use default autoload implementation
spl_autoload_register();
If, however, you are looking for a traits/mixin-like feature, then the answer is no. PHP does not support this as of now. At least not without patching the core or resorting to these two APIs you do not want to use in production code.
The proper way to change how an object behaves at runtime would be to use Decorators:
$class = new BasicCache( new BasicValidators ( new Basic ) );
or Strategy patterns:
$class = new Basic;
$class->setStrategy(function() { return 'foo'} );
echo $class->callStrategy(); // foo
$class->setStrategy(function() { return 'bar'} );
echo $class->callStrategy(); // bar
See http://sourcemaking.com/design_patterns for the most common patterns.
EDIT Here is an example of how to create plugins with decorators. Assume, we have a game of some sort where some non-player characters walk around in a virtual space and greet the main character from time to time. That's all they do right now. We want some variation on how they greet though, which is why we need our plugins/decorators in this scenario.
First we create an interface that defines some methods any object able to greet should have. We don't care about what it does when these methods are invoked on a specific object. We just want to make sure that the methods are available and that they are called with a clearly defined input:
interface GreetInterface
{
public function greet($name);
public function setGreeting($greeting);
}
An interface is basically a contract any implementing object must fulfill. In our case, the contract says, if you are an object that can greet, you have to have two methods. Implement them any way you like, but have these methods.
Let's build our non-player character classes now, implementing this interface
class Dude implements GreetInterface
{
protected $greeting = 'hello';
public function greet($name)
{
return sprintf('%s %s', $this->greeting, $name);
}
public function setGreeting($greeting)
{
$this->greeting = $greeting;
return $this;
}
}
That's pretty straigtforward I guess. The Dude class just defines the two methods from the interface. When greet() is called, it will fetch the string stored in greeting and prepend to the param passed to the greet method. The setGreeting method allows us to change the greeting at runtime. Note: you could add a getter as well (I was just lazy)
Now on to the plugins. We will create an abstract GreetPlugin class to contain some shared boilerplate code, simply because we don't want to duplicate code in our actual plugins. The abstract plugin class will implement the GreetInterface, so we can make sure all subclasses implement the interface too.
Since Dude already implements the interface as well, we could have the plugins extend Dude, but that would be conceptually wrong, because extending creates an is-a relationship, but a plugin is not a Dude.
abstract class GreetPluginAbstract implements GreetInterface
{
protected $inner;
public function __construct(GreetInterface $inner)
{
$this->inner = $inner;
}
public function setGreeting($greeting)
{
$this->inner->setGreeting($greeting);
return $this;
}
public function greet($name)
{
return $this->inner->greet($name);
}
}
The plugin class accepts one argument when initialized: any class implementing the GreetInterface. The TypeHint makes sure, the class fulfills the contract. That's required, because, as you can see in the code, our plugins will need to call the methods in the interface on the class passed through the constructor. If we had extended from Dude, we would now be able to wrap dudes into dudes, which is a bit odd. Another reason for not doing it.
Now on to the first plugin. We want some of our dudes to speak with a fancy french accent, which means they use âccénts all over the place, but cannot pronounce a proper h. Disclaimer: yes, I know that's a cliche. Please bear with my examples
class FrenchPlugin extends GreetPluginAbstract
{
public function greet($name) {
return str_replace(array('h', 'e'), array('', 'é'),
$this->inner->greet($name));
}
}
Since the Plugin extends the abstract plugin, we can now focus on the actual code that modifies how a regular dude would do his greeting. When greet() is called, we call greet() on the wrapped element and then remove all h characters and turn all es into és. Everything else is unmodified abstract behavior.
In another plugin, we want to change the wording of the greeting, so we have some dudes say Heya, instead of just Hello. Just to add some variation.
class EasyGoingPlugin extends GreetPluginAbstract
{
protected $inner;
public function __construct(GreetInterface $inner) {
$this->inner = $inner->setGreeting('heya');
parent::__construct($inner);
}
}
This way we only override the constructor, because the greet method should just return whatever it will be. So we call the setGreeting method on the object passed to this plugin. Because the object has to implement the GreetInterface, we can be sure this works.
Note that I am assigning the return value of setGreeting as the inner object. This is possible because I return $this, whenever setMethod is called. This cannot be enforced through the interface, so you cannot rely on this form the interface. I just added it to show another technique: method chaining.
With two plugins done, we feel we have enough variation. Now we only need a convenient way to create Dudes. For that we create a small class like this:
class DudeBuilder
{
public static function build()
{
$dude = new Dude();
$decorators = func_get_args();
foreach($decorators as $decorator) {
$decorator .= "Plugin";
// require_once $decorator;
$dude = new $decorator($dude);
}
return $dude;
}
}
Note: I always mix up Builder and AbstractFactory, so if the above is a Factory, well, then it's a factory. Check out the design patterns links I gave earlier on ;)
All this Builder does, is create a regular dude and then wrap/decorate it into/with whatever plugins we tell it to use and than return it. Because the builder encapsulates no own state, we make the build method static.
For this example I assume you used the autoloading code I gave right on top. If not, you can include the plugin files in the foreach loop. Lazy loading them only when they are needed will give you a few microseconds faster load times over including them all on top. Hopefully, this also explains what I meant in the various comments when I argued the behavior should not be controlled by a file inclusion. The file inclusion is just a necessity. You cannot use a class that is not know to PHP. But that the class is actually used, is controlled by our code alone, by passing in the plugin names to the build method.
Let's do this now
$regularDude = DudeBuilder::build();
$frenchDude = DudeBuilder::build('French');
$easygoingDude = DudeBuilder::build('EasyGoing');
$frenchEasyGoingDude = DudeBuilder::build('French', 'EasyGoing');
This is effectively the same as doing:
$regularDude = new Dude;
$frenchDude = new FrenchPlugin(new Dude);
$easygoingDude = new EasyGoingPlugin(new Dude);
$frenchEasyGoingDude = new FrenchPlugin(new EasyGoingPlugin(new Dude));
With just two plugins, we can now create three types of Dudes. Let's have them greet you:
echo $regularDude->greet('Yuri'), PHP_EOL,
$frenchDude->greet('Yuri'), PHP_EOL,
$easygoingDude->greet('Yuri'), PHP_EOL,
$frenchEasyGoingDude->greet('Yuri'), PHP_EOL;
// gives
hello Yuri
éllo Yuri
heya Yuri
éya Yuri
We can now create additional plugins to decorate our basic classes with. If for some reason, you decide your game should have talking horses or cars as well, you could also create a class Car or Horse and have it implement the greet interface too and add a Builder for them. You can then reuse the plugins to create French EasyGoing Cars or Horses.
PHP core can be extended with PECL extensions (which are C++, I believe).
Core functions can be overridden (if you have the APD PECL extension installed) with override_function
User functions can be executed with call_user_func.
Maybe if you could explain what you are planning, we'd be able to offer a better answer?
Your code is breaking because plugin2 extends plugin1, and you're not including the plugin1 class. Why not make class plugin2 extend core? That seems to be what you're going for.