<?php
class Foo {
private function FooFunction(){
}
}
class Bar extends Foo {
public function BarFunction(){
$this->FooFunction();
}
}
$foo = new Foo();
$foo->FooFunction(); //Fatal error: Call to private method Foo::FooFunction()
//(Fair enough)
$bar = new Bar();
$bar->BarFunction(); //Fatal error: Call to private method Foo::FooFunction()
//from context 'Bar'
I'm having some difficulty understanding how to properly declare functions in a class which can then be used in an extension of that class
When I instantiate Foo I'd like FooFunction to remain private.
However, I do need to be able to call it from within Bar.
change code as below:
<?php
class Foo {
protected function FooFunction(){
}
}
class Bar extends Foo {
public function BarFunction(){
$this->FooFunction();
}
}
private methods not accessable in child class.
you need to use protected method type.
Related
Is there any way to define abstract class properties in PHP?
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public $tablename;
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' $property
public $tablename = 'users';
}
There is no such thing as defining a property.
You can only declare properties because they are containers of data reserved in memory on initialization.
A function on the other hand can be declared (types, name, parameters) without being defined (function body missing) and thus, can be made abstract.
"Abstract" only indicates that something was declared but not defined and therefore before using it, you need to define it or it becomes useless.
No, there is no way to enforce that with the compiler, you'd have to use run-time checks (say, in the constructor) for the $tablename variable, e.g.:
class Foo_Abstract {
public final function __construct(/*whatever*/) {
if(!isset($this->tablename))
throw new LogicException(get_class($this) . ' must have a $tablename');
}
}
To enforce this for all derived classes of Foo_Abstract you would have to make Foo_Abstract's constructor final, preventing overriding.
You could declare an abstract getter instead:
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public function get_tablename();
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
protected $tablename = 'tablename';
public function get_tablename() {
return $this->tablename;
}
}
Depending on the context of the property, if I want to force declaration of an abstract class property in an extended class, I like to use a constant with the static keyword for the property in the abstract object constructor or setter/getter methods. You can optionally use final to prevent the method from being overridden in extended classes.
Example: https://3v4l.org/WH5Xl
abstract class AbstractFoo
{
public $bar;
final public function __construct()
{
$this->bar = static::BAR;
}
}
class Foo extends AbstractFoo
{
//const BAR = 'foobar'; //uncomment to prevent exception
}
$foo = new Foo();
//Fatal Error: Undefined class constant 'BAR'
However, the extended class overrides the parent class properties and methods if redefined.
For example; if a property is declared as protected in the parent and redefined as public in the extended class, the resulting property is public. Otherwise, if the property is declared private in the parent it will remain private and not available to the extended class.
http://www.php.net//manual/en/language.oop5.static.php
As stated above, there is no such exact definition.
I, however, use this simple workaround to force the child class to define the "abstract" property:
abstract class Father
{
public $name;
abstract protected function setName(); // now every child class must declare this
// function and thus declare the property
public function __construct()
{
$this->setName();
}
}
class Son extends Father
{
protected function setName()
{
$this->name = "son";
}
function __construct(){
parent::__construct();
}
}
The need for abstract properties can indicate design problems. While many of answers implement kind of Template method pattern and it works, it always looks kind of strange.
Let's take a look at the original example:
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public $tablename;
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' $property
public $tablename = 'users';
}
To mark something abstract is to indicate it a must-have thing. Well, a must-have value (in this case) is a required dependency, so it should be passed to the constructor during instantiation:
class Table
{
private $name;
public function __construct(string $name)
{
$this->name = $name;
}
public function name(): string
{
return $this->name;
}
}
Then if you actually want a more concrete named class you can inherit like so:
final class UsersTable extends Table
{
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct('users');
}
}
This can be useful if you use DI container and have to pass different tables for different objects.
I've asked myself the same question today, and I'd like to add my two cents.
The reason we would like abstract properties is to make sure that subclasses define them and throw exceptions when they don't. In my specific case, I needed something that could work with statically.
Ideally I would like something like this:
abstract class A {
abstract protected static $prop;
}
class B extends A {
protected static $prop = 'B prop'; // $prop defined, B loads successfully
}
class C extends A {
// throws an exception when loading C for the first time because $prop
// is not defined.
}
I ended up with this implementation
abstract class A
{
// no $prop definition in A!
public static final function getProp()
{
return static::$prop;
}
}
class B extends A
{
protected static $prop = 'B prop';
}
class C extends A
{
}
As you can see, in A I don't define $prop, but I use it in a static getter. Therefore, the following code works
B::getProp();
// => 'B prop'
$b = new B();
$b->getProp();
// => 'B prop'
In C, on the other hand, I don't define $prop, so I get exceptions:
C::getProp();
// => Exception!
$c = new C();
$c->getProp();
// => Exception!
I must call the getProp() method to get the exception and I can't get it on class loading, but it is quite close to the desired behavior, at least in my case.
I define getProp() as final to avoid that some smart guy (aka myself in 6 months) is tempted to do
class D extends A {
public static function getProp() {
// really smart
}
}
D::getProp();
// => no exception...
As you could have found out by just testing your code:
Fatal error: Properties cannot be declared abstract in ... on line 3
No, there is not. Properties cannot be declared abstract in PHP.
However you can implement a getter/setter function abstract, this might be what you're looking for.
Properties aren't implemented (especially public properties), they just exist (or not):
$foo = new Foo;
$foo->publicProperty = 'Bar';
PHP 7 makes it quite a bit easier for making abstract "properties". Just as above, you will make them by creating abstract functions, but with PHP 7 you can define the return type for that function, which makes things a lot easier when you're building a base class that anyone can extend.
<?php
abstract class FooBase {
abstract public function FooProp(): string;
abstract public function BarProp(): BarClass;
public function foo() {
return $this->FooProp();
}
public function bar() {
return $this->BarProp()->name();
}
}
class BarClass {
public function name() {
return 'Bar!';
}
}
class FooClass extends FooBase {
public function FooProp(): string {
return 'Foo!';
}
public function BarProp(): BarClass {
// This would not work:
// return 'not working';
// But this will!
return new BarClass();
}
}
$test = new FooClass();
echo $test->foo() . PHP_EOL;
echo $test->bar() . PHP_EOL;
if tablename value will never change during the object's lifetime, following will be a simple yet safe implementation.
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract protected function getTablename();
public function showTableName()
{
echo 'my table name is '.$this->getTablename();
}
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' getTablename()
protected function getTablename()
{
return 'users';
}
}
the key here is that the string value 'users' is specified and returned directly in getTablename() in child class implementation. The function mimics a "readonly" property.
This is fairly similar to a solution posted earlier on which uses an additional variable. I also like Marco's solution though it can be a bit more complicated.
Just define the property in the base class without assigning it a (default) value.
Getting the property value without redefining it with a default value or assigning it a value will throw an Error.
<?php
class Base {
protected string $name;
public function i_am() : string {
return $this->name;
}
}
class Wrong extends Base {
...
}
class Good extends Base {
protected string $name = 'Somebody';
}
$test = new Good();
echo $test->i_am(), '<br>'; // Will show "Nobody"
$test = new Wrong();
echo $test->i_am(), '<br>'; // Will throw an Error:
// Error: Typed property Base::$name must not be accessed before initialization in ....
?>
You can define a static property in an abstract class.
<?php
abstract class Foo {
private static $bar = "1234";
public static function func() {
echo self::$bar;
}
}
Foo::func(); // It will be printed 1234
Too late to answer the question, but you may use the difference between self and static as follows
<?php
class A { // Base Class
protected static $name = 'ClassA';
public static function getSelfName() {
return self::$name;
}
public static function getStaticName() {
return static::$name;
}
}
class B extends A {
protected static $name = 'ClassB';
}
echo A::getSelfName(); // ClassA
echo A::getStaticName(); // ClassA
echo B::getSelfName(); // ClassA
echo B::getStaticName(); // ClassB
I have a class that extends an abstract class.
does PHP allows access to the instance of the extending class from within the abstract methods?
something like:
abstract class Foo{
protected function bar(){
return $this;
}
}
class Bar extends Foo{
public function foo(){
// this should hold Bar instance and not Foo's
$barClassInstance = $this->bar();
}
}
where $barClassInstance will hold the Bar class instance, instead of the abstract Foo instance?
Trying it out is worth a thousand stackoverflow questions
<?php
abstract class Foo{
protected function bar(){
echo 'Foo', PHP_EOL;
var_dump($this);
return $this;
}
}
class Bar extends Foo{
public function foo(){
echo 'Bar', PHP_EOL;
var_dump($this);
// this should hold Bar instance and not Foo's
$barClassInstance = $this->bar();
var_dump($barClassInstance);
}
}
$bar = new Bar();
$bar->foo();
output https://3v4l.org/b73bt
Bar
object(Bar)#1 (0) {
}
Foo
object(Bar)#1 (0) {
}
object(Bar)#1 (0) {
}
$this is a reference to the instance regardless of which subclass it is actually an instance of. There is no Foo instance because Foo cannot be instantiated, it is abstract. Even if Foo were a concrete class, you wouldn't have a Foo $this and a Bar $this in the same object. You would only have $this pointing to the specific subclass that was created.
I have a class that look like this
class a {
private $one;
private function abc() {
$this->one = "I am a string";
return $this;
}
$call = new a;
$call->abc()->other_function();
As I was doing matutor method, php has caught a fatal error on calling function abc(). It said Call to private method xxx from context.
What I know of oop is very new, that private method/property can only be used within the same class.However, I cannot call the abc() even it is within the same class.
How come?
Because you are not calling the method inside the class you are doing so outside the class code.
$call = new a;
$call->abc()->other_function();
this is outside the context of the class, and this is why you get a Fatal Error.
Private can only be used in the class itself.
Protected can only be used in the class itself and child classes.
Public can be used anywhere.
class a {
private $one;
public function abc() { //notice the public
$this->one = "I am a string";
return $this->one;
}
}
$call = new a;
echo $call->abc();
I didn't get why the first output of the code prints "Bar::testPrivate" as we are calling the test method of the parent class using sub class's instance.So, when calling the first line of code inside the test function which is "$this->testPrivate();" should call testPrivate method of the sub class hence printing "Foo::testPrivate" and not "Bar::testPrivate".
<pre>
class Bar
{
public function test() {
$this->testPrivate();
$this->testPublic();
}
public function testPublic() {
echo "Bar::testPublic\n";
}
private function testPrivate() {
echo "Bar::testPrivate\n";
}
}
class Foo extends Bar
{
public function testPublic() {
echo "Foo::testPublic\n";
}
private function testPrivate() {
echo "Foo::testPrivate\n";
}
}
$myFoo = new foo();
$myFoo->test(); // Bar::testPrivate
// Foo::testPublic
</pre>
Your class Foo doesn't have a test() method. You can call $myFoo->test() because the method test() is inherited from class Bar. You'll have to override the method test() within class Foo just as you did with methods testPrivate() and testPublic().
You are correct that it is calling the method of the base class, but in this case Bar is your base class. Check out the example here.
If you are looking to inherit all the functions from your base (parent) class then you should explicitly call it's constructor in the child class. Otherwise you will need to override those methods. Also, when using the actual instance (i.e. you created an object) functions declared private are only available to that class. Use protected for classes that will inherit that function. e.g.:
class Foo {
public function __construct() {
echo "Foo constructed...\n";
$this->fooOnly();
}
private function fooOnly() {
echo "Called 'fooOnly()'\n"; //Only available to class Foo
}
protected function useThisFoo() {
echo "Called 'useThisFoo()'\n"; //Available to Foo and anything that extends it.
}
}
class Bar extends Foo {
public function __construct() {
parent::__construct(); //Now Bar has everything from Foo
}
public function testFooBar() {
//$this->fooOnly(); //Fail - private function
$this->useThisFoo(); //Will work - protected function is available to Foo and Bar
}
}
$bar = new Bar();
$bar->testFooBar(); //Works - public function will internally call protected function.
//$bar->fooOnly(); //Fail - private function can't be accessed in global space
//$bar->useThisFoo(); //Fail again - protected function can't be access in global space
Is there any way to define abstract class properties in PHP?
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public $tablename;
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' $property
public $tablename = 'users';
}
There is no such thing as defining a property.
You can only declare properties because they are containers of data reserved in memory on initialization.
A function on the other hand can be declared (types, name, parameters) without being defined (function body missing) and thus, can be made abstract.
"Abstract" only indicates that something was declared but not defined and therefore before using it, you need to define it or it becomes useless.
No, there is no way to enforce that with the compiler, you'd have to use run-time checks (say, in the constructor) for the $tablename variable, e.g.:
class Foo_Abstract {
public final function __construct(/*whatever*/) {
if(!isset($this->tablename))
throw new LogicException(get_class($this) . ' must have a $tablename');
}
}
To enforce this for all derived classes of Foo_Abstract you would have to make Foo_Abstract's constructor final, preventing overriding.
You could declare an abstract getter instead:
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public function get_tablename();
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
protected $tablename = 'tablename';
public function get_tablename() {
return $this->tablename;
}
}
Depending on the context of the property, if I want to force declaration of an abstract class property in an extended class, I like to use a constant with the static keyword for the property in the abstract object constructor or setter/getter methods. You can optionally use final to prevent the method from being overridden in extended classes.
Example: https://3v4l.org/WH5Xl
abstract class AbstractFoo
{
public $bar;
final public function __construct()
{
$this->bar = static::BAR;
}
}
class Foo extends AbstractFoo
{
//const BAR = 'foobar'; //uncomment to prevent exception
}
$foo = new Foo();
//Fatal Error: Undefined class constant 'BAR'
However, the extended class overrides the parent class properties and methods if redefined.
For example; if a property is declared as protected in the parent and redefined as public in the extended class, the resulting property is public. Otherwise, if the property is declared private in the parent it will remain private and not available to the extended class.
http://www.php.net//manual/en/language.oop5.static.php
As stated above, there is no such exact definition.
I, however, use this simple workaround to force the child class to define the "abstract" property:
abstract class Father
{
public $name;
abstract protected function setName(); // now every child class must declare this
// function and thus declare the property
public function __construct()
{
$this->setName();
}
}
class Son extends Father
{
protected function setName()
{
$this->name = "son";
}
function __construct(){
parent::__construct();
}
}
The need for abstract properties can indicate design problems. While many of answers implement kind of Template method pattern and it works, it always looks kind of strange.
Let's take a look at the original example:
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public $tablename;
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' $property
public $tablename = 'users';
}
To mark something abstract is to indicate it a must-have thing. Well, a must-have value (in this case) is a required dependency, so it should be passed to the constructor during instantiation:
class Table
{
private $name;
public function __construct(string $name)
{
$this->name = $name;
}
public function name(): string
{
return $this->name;
}
}
Then if you actually want a more concrete named class you can inherit like so:
final class UsersTable extends Table
{
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct('users');
}
}
This can be useful if you use DI container and have to pass different tables for different objects.
I've asked myself the same question today, and I'd like to add my two cents.
The reason we would like abstract properties is to make sure that subclasses define them and throw exceptions when they don't. In my specific case, I needed something that could work with statically.
Ideally I would like something like this:
abstract class A {
abstract protected static $prop;
}
class B extends A {
protected static $prop = 'B prop'; // $prop defined, B loads successfully
}
class C extends A {
// throws an exception when loading C for the first time because $prop
// is not defined.
}
I ended up with this implementation
abstract class A
{
// no $prop definition in A!
public static final function getProp()
{
return static::$prop;
}
}
class B extends A
{
protected static $prop = 'B prop';
}
class C extends A
{
}
As you can see, in A I don't define $prop, but I use it in a static getter. Therefore, the following code works
B::getProp();
// => 'B prop'
$b = new B();
$b->getProp();
// => 'B prop'
In C, on the other hand, I don't define $prop, so I get exceptions:
C::getProp();
// => Exception!
$c = new C();
$c->getProp();
// => Exception!
I must call the getProp() method to get the exception and I can't get it on class loading, but it is quite close to the desired behavior, at least in my case.
I define getProp() as final to avoid that some smart guy (aka myself in 6 months) is tempted to do
class D extends A {
public static function getProp() {
// really smart
}
}
D::getProp();
// => no exception...
As you could have found out by just testing your code:
Fatal error: Properties cannot be declared abstract in ... on line 3
No, there is not. Properties cannot be declared abstract in PHP.
However you can implement a getter/setter function abstract, this might be what you're looking for.
Properties aren't implemented (especially public properties), they just exist (or not):
$foo = new Foo;
$foo->publicProperty = 'Bar';
PHP 7 makes it quite a bit easier for making abstract "properties". Just as above, you will make them by creating abstract functions, but with PHP 7 you can define the return type for that function, which makes things a lot easier when you're building a base class that anyone can extend.
<?php
abstract class FooBase {
abstract public function FooProp(): string;
abstract public function BarProp(): BarClass;
public function foo() {
return $this->FooProp();
}
public function bar() {
return $this->BarProp()->name();
}
}
class BarClass {
public function name() {
return 'Bar!';
}
}
class FooClass extends FooBase {
public function FooProp(): string {
return 'Foo!';
}
public function BarProp(): BarClass {
// This would not work:
// return 'not working';
// But this will!
return new BarClass();
}
}
$test = new FooClass();
echo $test->foo() . PHP_EOL;
echo $test->bar() . PHP_EOL;
if tablename value will never change during the object's lifetime, following will be a simple yet safe implementation.
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract protected function getTablename();
public function showTableName()
{
echo 'my table name is '.$this->getTablename();
}
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' getTablename()
protected function getTablename()
{
return 'users';
}
}
the key here is that the string value 'users' is specified and returned directly in getTablename() in child class implementation. The function mimics a "readonly" property.
This is fairly similar to a solution posted earlier on which uses an additional variable. I also like Marco's solution though it can be a bit more complicated.
Just define the property in the base class without assigning it a (default) value.
Getting the property value without redefining it with a default value or assigning it a value will throw an Error.
<?php
class Base {
protected string $name;
public function i_am() : string {
return $this->name;
}
}
class Wrong extends Base {
...
}
class Good extends Base {
protected string $name = 'Somebody';
}
$test = new Good();
echo $test->i_am(), '<br>'; // Will show "Nobody"
$test = new Wrong();
echo $test->i_am(), '<br>'; // Will throw an Error:
// Error: Typed property Base::$name must not be accessed before initialization in ....
?>
You can define a static property in an abstract class.
<?php
abstract class Foo {
private static $bar = "1234";
public static function func() {
echo self::$bar;
}
}
Foo::func(); // It will be printed 1234
Too late to answer the question, but you may use the difference between self and static as follows
<?php
class A { // Base Class
protected static $name = 'ClassA';
public static function getSelfName() {
return self::$name;
}
public static function getStaticName() {
return static::$name;
}
}
class B extends A {
protected static $name = 'ClassB';
}
echo A::getSelfName(); // ClassA
echo A::getStaticName(); // ClassA
echo B::getSelfName(); // ClassA
echo B::getStaticName(); // ClassB