In PHP, I have two classes: Database and Item.
Database contains the connection properties and methods. For example, Database::Query can be used to pass a query string, etc.
Item is a generic item identifier. It's built by passing it an itemID which is then used to query the database for the rest of the item information.
In this case, what's the best practice for creating Item objects if they require database access? Is it normal to create each one using this syntax:
$item = new Item(12345, $db);
Or is it better, acceptible, or possible to create the Database object and have it used for each Item created in the application, such that the call could become:
$item = new Item(12345);
The second seems a lot cleaner (and can be expanded so that similar types of objects don't also need that $db addon), but I'm looking for suggestions from those who have more experience at this than I do! Thanks!
I would suggest that most seasoned developers would lean toward the approach of dependency injection as demonstrated in your first example.
Why?
Well largely because this allows you to decouple the class to which the dependency is being injected from the dependency's implementation.
So consider this dependency injection example:
Class some_class {
protected $db;
__construct($db) {
if($db instanceof some_db_class === false) {
throw new Exception('Improper parameter passed.');
}
$this->db = $db;
}
}
Here you could pass any type of object so long as it was an instance of some_db_class it could be a subclass of that object that implements the same methods used by this class. That doesn't matter to this class as long as the methods are implemented (you of course could also check that a passed object implements a specific interface in addition to or in lieu of checking its instance type).
This means that, for example, you can pass a mock DB object for testing or something like that. The class doesn't care as long as the methods are implemented.
Now consider the singleton approach (or similar instantiation of DB from with the class):
Class some_class {
protected $db;
__construct() {
$this->db = some_db_class::get_instance();
}
}
Here you have tightly coupled your class to a specific database class. If you wanted to test this class with a mock DB implementation it becomes very painful in that you need to modify the class to do so.
I won't even get into discussion of using global as that is just poor practice and should not be considered at all.
I would recommend using the Singleton Pattern for your database connection. This is actually the best practice. As you really dont need to instances of your database connection.
class Database_Instance
{
private static $database;
public static function getDatabaseObject() {
if (!self::$db) {
self::$db = new PDO( );
}
return self::$db;
}
}
function callWhatSoEver()
{
$connection = Database_Instance::getDatabaseObject();
}
For more information about the singleton pattern, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singleton_pattern
Typically a database connection object is global, or accessible globally. That works well for the vast majority of applications.
I do something like this (simplified for example purposes):
$db = connect_to_db();
function GetDB()
{
global $db;
return $db
}
//inside the item object
function Load( $id)
{
$db = GetDB();
$db->query(..);
}
There are, of course, cases where this isn't the best route. As always, it depend on the specific needs of your application.
Related
I'm in the process of re factoring a lot of code to make it more testable and I have a bunch of useful functions that rely on an instantiated database object.
Things like this:
function id_from_name($table, $name)
{
$db = get_database();
//code that returns an id
}
function username_from_user_id($id)
{
$db = get_database();
//code that returns a username
}
There are a bunch more like id_exists, id_active etc.
Now I'm thinking that this isn't the right thing to do as the object should probably be passed through as an argument? But then that means creating and sending in a new object into each of these functions every time i want to use one.
So really, my questions are: Should I be moving these functions into their own class/library that has access to the database object? and are the examples that I've shown above generally a bad way of doing things?
A better approach would be indeed to make classes. And you would be passing the database object to the constructor and make it an instance variable. That way every function would have access to the database object.
Now the reason why it is considered bad to instantiate e.g. your database object in every function, is because if you decide for example one day to change your datasource, you might need a huge refactor. If you pass your database object into the constructor, you can just pass/inject the right object into the class without any refactor.
...a bit more about DI below...
By passing your objects into the constructors, you also create a more clear API => you know which object depends on the other, you know exactly which class uses your DB object. If you start instantiating it or accessing it in a static way inside the functions like you did, I would have to look through all your classes to see where your DB object is used. One more point, dependency injection forces SRP (single responsibility principle) => if you start injecting too many objects (constructor gets many arguments), you should suspect your class is doing too much than what it should, and start refactoring.
You can create a class Table_Adapter and instantiate database object inside its constructor:
class Table_Adapter
{
protected $db;
public function __construct()
{
$db = get_database();
}
}
Then you create a child class Items_Table_Adapter' that extendsTable_Adapterand put their all methods related toItems` table.
class Items_Table_Adapter extends Table_Adapter
{
public function item_by_id($id)
{
}
}
Then you use it like:
$tableAdapter = new Items_Table_Adapter();
$item = $tableAdapter->item_by_id(1);
Try something like:
class YourClass{
public static function get_database(){
// your creation
return $db;
}
public function id_from_name($table, $name)
{
/* your code */
//code that returns an id
}
public function username_from_user_id($id)
{
/* your code */
}
}
so you could just use it this way:
$db = YourClass::get_database();
$result = $db->id_from_name($table, $name);
It is certainly recommended that you have the option to swap out your database connection.
Now, if your function get_database() looks like this:
function get_database() {
static $db;
if (!$db)
$db = new \mysqli(...);
return $db;
}
Then you really, really should change it to a wrapper around a class, looking like this:
function get_database_manager() {
static $dbmgr;
if (!$dbmgr)
$dbmgr = new DbManager;
return $dbmgr;
}
function get_database() {
return get_database_manager()->getCurrentConnection();
}
where DbManager has an instance attribute with the current connection that is returned with getCurrentConnection(). If you want to swapt out the connection, do something like get_database_manager()->setConnection($newConn). Problem solved :)
I'll leave the downsides of static programming here (it remains with many examples in this thread): http://kunststube.net/static/
as well as the common method to get rid of that (we have another approach here): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_injection
I have been working on moving over to OOP in PHP. I have reading explanations on php.net, but I was hoping I could get some specific answers here.
I tried to create the following example to illustrate my question. Say I have "Database", "Products", and "Users" classes, and I want to display products if a user has access.
So I call the "Products" class "showProducts()" function, which in turn creates an instance of the "User" class, which creates an instance of the "Database" object and checks the users access level.
If the user has access, then the "showProducts()" function creates another instance of the "Database" object, and queries the database.
class Database{
public function query(){
//runs query here
}
public function __construct() {
//sets up connection here
}
}
class User{
public function checkAccess(){
$db = new Database();
$db->query( //pass in query to check access )
//does stuff, then returns true or false
}
}
class Products{
public function showProducts(){
$user = new User();
if($user->checkAccess())
$db = new Database();
$db->query( //pass in query to get products )
}
}
I was hoping someone could illustrate how to do this the proper way.
I would like to have some sort of controller class, that creates one "Database" object, that is available to all of the classes that need to access it, without having to create multiple instances of the "Database" object. I would like the same thing with the users class, so there is one $users object that all the classes can access, without having to create a new object every time I need to use something in the "User" class.
I apologize if my question is not clear, and thanks in advance for any responses!!
Thanks to everybody for the replies!
When moving form procedural to Object Oriented programming you should grasp more then just how to build classes. OOP is not writing classes, its about following best practices, principles and patterns in OOP.
You should not instantiate new objects inside another, you should give the User object, his Database object that User depends on, through constructor, or setter method. That is called Dependency Injection. The goal is to give objects to a class that needs them through constructor or setter method. And they should be instanciated from outside of that class, so its easier to configure class. And when building a class you want its easy to see what dependencies that class have. You can read about Inversion of Control principle here: IoC
So then your code would look like this:
<?php
// User object that depends on Database object, and expects it in constructor.
class User
{
protected $database;
public function __construct($database)
{
$this->database = $database;
}
// -- SNIP --
}
?>
Now to use that user class you do this:
<?php
$database = new Database($connParams);
$user = new User($database);
?>
You can also use Dependency Injection using setter methods to set dependencies, but Il let you google that for yourself :)
Thats it, joust read about Inversion of Controll principle, and about Dependency Injection and Dependency Injection Containers, these are the best ways to manage classes.
I have seen lots of PHP code that is "OOP" and in fact they are only using Classes as functionality namespaces :) So joust learn about OOP principles and patterns.
Have fun! :)
Don't instantiate objects inside your constructors or other methods. Pass them as parameter, preferably inside a different class known as factory. This will make it easy to test your code, but also make it easy to create the objects.
Also, don't try to use singletons. This is the object oriented version of "global variables", and you do not want to use global variables. It makes testing of your code really hard, nearly impossible.
Watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FRm3VPhseI to understand why it is bad to use singletons. Especially the CreditCard example at 19:00 is worth watching.
If you really want to do it state-of-the-art, have a look at the concept of "dependency injection". Essentially, passing stuff that is needed from outside into a class is the whole secret, but there are frameworks that do this for you automatically, so you do not have to write a factory yourself anymore. These are called "Dependency Injection Container" or "DIC".
To make one object for all your code use Singleton pattern:
class Database{
private $db_descriptor;
private function __construct(){
/* connect and other stuff */
}
public static function getInstance(){
static $instance;
if($instance === null){
$instance = new self();
}
return $instance;
}
}
And you can use the same technique with users, i say more with php 5.4 you can use 1 trait for singleton pattern.
One last tip: when you work with database and other heavy things use technique called lazy initialization. When you improve your OOP skills look at Doctrine Project they use that techniques a lot!
I am not sure if this is totally the wrong thing to do, so I am looking for a bit of advice.
I have set up a database class with the constructor establishing a PDO connection to a MySQL database.
I've been looking at singletons and global variables, but there always seems to be someone who recommends against either/or.
I'm experimenting with a user class which extends the database class, so I can call upon the PDO functions/methods but maintain separate user class code. Is this a stupid thing to do?
You should generally pass a connection into your user, so your user class would take a database type object into its constructor and then use that database object to execute queries against the database. That way your data access logic remains separate from your business logic. This is called composition, as opposed to what you're talking about, which is inhertance.
If you really wanted to be technical, it would be best to have a user object with nothing but public variables, and then you would use a 'service' to implement your business logic.
class UserService implements IUserService
{
private $_db;
function __construct(IDb $db) {
$this->_db = db;
}
function GetAllUsers() {
$users = Array();
$result = $this->_db->Query("select * from user")
foreach($result as $user) {
//Would resolve this into your user domain object here
users[] = $user;
}
return users;
}
}
Well, ask yourself if User is a special case of Database. I'm not sure how others perceive it, but I would be kind of offended. I think what you need is to read about the Liskov substitution principle.
As for solving your "people tell me that globals are bad" issue, here are two videos you should watch:
The Clean Code Talks - Don't Look For Things!
The Clean Code Talks - Global State and Singletons
The idea behind class extensions in OOP is for child classes to be related to the parent classes. For instance, a school might have a Person class with extension classes of Faculty and Students. Both of the child classes are people, so it makes sense for them to extend the Person class. But a User is not a type of Database, so some people might get upset if you make it an extension.
Personally, I would send the database object as an argument to the User class in the constructor and simply assign that object to a class property. For instance:
class User
{
protected $db;
function __construct($username, $password, $db)
{
//some code...
$this->db = $db;
}
}
Alternatively, though some might yell at you for it, you can use the global keyword to inherit a variable in the global scope for use within your methods. The downside is that you would then have to declare it global in every method that needs it, or you could do:
class User
{
protected $db;
function __construct($username, $password)
{
global $db;
//some code...
$this->db = $db;
}
}
But in answer to your question, no I don't think you should make User an extension of Database; even though it would do what you need, it isn't a proper OOP practice.
It is pretty simple according to the definition of an object. It is the encapsulation of data and the operation which is performed on that data so if we only consider the theoretical point of view it would leads us in pleasurable environment.
My suggestion would be to create an abstract data access class with the generalized basic crud operations and a simple query execution using either PDO, ADO or some other database abstraction library. Now use this class as a parent for most of your model classes like the User.
Now the basic CRUD is provided by the abstract data access class and you can write the behavior specific to the user object like getting all posts for the user by consuming the simple query interface of the abstract parent class.
This approach will bring more modularity in term of coupling functionality and more readability and reuse-ability.
I don't see anything wrong with it for specific cases. You could use it for something as simple as wrapping a user's DB credentials in an object so they don't have to specify them everywhere the DB object is used.
$db = new UserDB();
would be a bit nicer than
$db = new StandarDB($username, $password, $default_db);
So I know that questions with 'what is the best' in their title aren't supposed to be asked, but really.. how should you do this?
We have a database class and, for example, a user class. A user class will get methods such as create() and update(), which will need to do database stuff.
As far as I know there are 2 main options, passing on the database object in every __construct() or make the database class static.
(Any other tips about OOP + database driven websites are also appreciated)
A very common pattern here is to make the database class a singleton construct, which is then passed to every object constructor (that is called Dependency Injection).
The purpose of making the database object a singleton is to ensure that only one connection is made per page load. If you need multiple connections for some reason, you would want to do it a different way. It's important to pass it via the constructors though, rather than creating the database object inside an unrelated class so that you can more easily test and debug your code.
// Basic singleton pattern for DB class
class DB
{
// Connection is a static property
private static $connection;
// Constructor is a private method so the class can't be directly instantiated with `new`
private function __construct() {}
// A private connect() method connects to your database and returns the connection object/resource
private static function connect() {
// use PDO, or MySQLi
$conn = new mysqli(...);
// Error checking, etc
return $conn;
}
// Static method retrieves existing connection or creates a new one if it doesn't exist
// via the connect() method
public static function get_connection() {
if (!self::$connection) {
self::$connection = self::connect();
// This could even call new mysqli() or new PDO() directly and skip the connect() method
// self::$connection = new mysqli(...);
}
return self::$connection;
}
}
class Other_Class
{
// accepts a DB in constructor
public function __construct($database) {
//stuff
}
}
// Database is created by calling the static method get_connetion()
$db = DB::get_connection();
$otherclass = new Other_Class($db);
// Later, to retrieve the connection again, if you don't use the variable $db
// calling DB::get_connection() returns the same connection as before since it already exists
$otherclass2 = new Other_Class(DB::get_connection());
Another method is to create your database class directly extending either mysqli or PDO. In that case, the __construct() method supplies the object to getConnect(), as in
public static function get_connection() {
if (!self::$connection) {
self::$connection = new self(/* params to constructor */);
}
return self::$connection;
}
Well, what you can do is to have the database access layer in one object, which is then passed to your objects, respecting the inversion of control pattern.
If you want to dig a bit into this direction, have a look into dependency injection (DI): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_injection
Having a singleton is usually a bad idea as you will end up having problems when testing your code.
Having the database access logic within a model class such as User violates the separation of concerns principle. Usually DAO (Data Access Object) handles db related concerns.
There are ORM frameworks such as Hibernate, which handle mismatch between OO and relational models quite well, potentially saving a lot of manual work.
I'm really surprised that no one said this, but here it goes: ORM.
If your weapon of choice is PHP, then the major options are Propel and Doctrine. They both have many strengths and some weaknesses, but there's no doubt that they're powerfull. Just an example, from Propel's (my personal favourite) user manual:
// retrieve a record from a database
$book = BookQuery::create()->findPK(123);
// modify. Don't worry about escaping
$book->setName('Don\'t be Hax0red!');
// persist the modification to the database
$book->save();
$books = BookQuery::create() // retrieve all books...
->filterByPublishYear(2009) // ... published in 2009
->orderByTitle() // ... ordered by title
->joinWith('Book.Author') // ... with their author
->find();
foreach($books as $book) {
echo $book->getAuthor()->getFullName();
}
You won't get more OO than that!
They will handle a lot of things for you like for one, abstracting your data from the database vendor. That said, you should be able to move (relatively painlessly) from MySQL to SQL Server and if you're building your own tools for web applications, then beign able to adapt to different environments is a very important thing.
Hope I can help!
Hey have a look at ORM's. Let them do the hard work for you? fluent nhibernate or microsofts entity framework.
I could be misunderstanding your question. Sorry if so
I have one database wrapper class. How should I use this class object to execute query in other class?
$liveresellerdb=new Database('host','user','spswd','db');
$fetch = $liveresellerdb->getResult($select_resellerData);
How should I include the database object in my one class?
Class one
{
function a (){
$sql="select * from table ";
//how should i execute here my query i mean to say
//every time i can't create the new object
// i want to know the good method by which i just execute the query by
// giving the database name
}
}
I'd advise against the Singleton pattern (using static members is a variation of this pattern) and use Dependency Injection instead. This means that you pass the database object to your service (the class that uses the connection) through the constructor.
Here is an example.
class UserFinder
{
private $db;
public function __construct(Database $db)
{
$this->db = $db;
}
public function findAllActive()
{
$sql = 'SELECT * FROM users WHERE active = 1';
return $this->db->executeAndFetchAll($sql);
}
}
$db = new Database($host, ...);
$finder = new UserFinder($db);
$users = $finder->findAllActive();
This ensures that you are not bound to a specific implementation of the Database class (you could make a sub-class) and will allow you to create separate UserFinders with separate Database instances. It will also make it easier to write tests for your application because you have less dependencies, which are not hidden and also replaceable.
In short: Use dependency injection.
Since global variables are dirty (you always need the global $var; statement), the easiest solution is to store them in a static member of a class, e.g. Database::$db.
Another solution (in a proper OOP environment) would be passing the database instance to the classes - in your code it would be the constructor of one which accepted the instance and then stored in a private member variable.
Maybe, you should think about implementing your Database class according to a Singleton Pattern.
Updated (according to comment below):
Ok. I have only one suggestion here (except passing object via method's parameters and Dependency Injection, described in igorw's comment)...
Dependency Injection is a good way, but this case you - I suppose - have some small amount of databases, so it can be better to save them all in some static private array and get by keys.
So you will have only one public static method getInstance($key) and keys can be stored as some predefined constants (to avoid "spelling" errors).
This way you don't require initialization at all (getInstance($key) can create new Database objects with necessary parameters [passed to constructor] depending on the $key parameter). Dependency Injection looks better in general, but in some particular cases this way can be easier-to-use.
Could be ok to have a Db setAdapter method that store database connections in a static property by name:
Db::setAdapter('db1', 'mysql:host=localhost;dbname=' . $dbname, $user, $pass);
Db::setAdapter('db2', 'mysql:host=localhost;dbname=' . $dbname2, $user2, $pass2);
Then a getAdapter method that will return a database connection when needed:
Db::getAdapter(); // return the default one
Db::getAdapter('db2'); // return an instance by its name
Behind the scenes you could implement a lazy connection too.