I have some pattern that works great for me, but that I have some difficulty explaining to fellow programmers. I am looking for some justification or literature reference.
I personally work with PHP, but this would also be applicable to Java, Javascript, C++, and similar languages. Examples will be in PHP or Pseudocode, I hope you can live with this.
The idea is to use a lazy evaluation container for intermediate results, to avoid multiple computation of the same intermediate value.
"Dynamic programming":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_programming
The dynamic programming approach seeks to solve each subproblem only once, thus reducing the number of computations: once the solution to a given subproblem has been computed, it is stored or "memo-ized": the next time the same solution is needed, it is simply looked up
Lazy evaluation container:
class LazyEvaluationContainer {
protected $values = array();
function get($key) {
if (isset($this->values[$key])) {
return $this->values[$key];
}
if (method_exists($this, $key)) {
return $this->values[$key] = $this->$key();
}
throw new Exception("Key $key not supported.");
}
protected function foo() {
// Make sure that bar() runs only once.
return $this->get('bar') + $this->get('bar');
}
protected function bar() {
.. // expensive computation.
}
}
Similar containers are used e.g. as dependency injection containers (DIC).
Details
I usually use some variation of this.
It is possible to have the actual data methods in a different object than the data computation methods?
It is possible to have computation methods with parameters, using a cache with a nested array?
In PHP it is possible to use magic methods (__get() or __call()) for the main retrieval method. In combination with "#property" in the class docblock, this allows type hints for each "virtual" property.
I often use method names like "get_someValue()", where "someValue" is the actual key, to distinguish from regular methods.
It is possible to distribute the data computation to more than one object, to get some kind of separation of concerns?
It is possible to pre-initialize some values?
EDIT: Questions
There is already a nice answer talking about a cute mechanic in Spring #Configuration classes.
To make this more useful and interesting, I extend/clarify the question a bit:
Is storing intermediate values from dynamic programming a legitimate use case for this?
What are the best practices to implement this in PHP? Is some of the stuff in "Details" bad and ugly?
If I understand you correctly, this is quite a standard procedure, although, as you rightly admit, associated with DI (or bootstrapping applications).
A concrete, canonical example would be any Spring #Configuration class with lazy bean definitions; I think it displays exactly the same behavior as you describe, although the actual code that accomplishes it is hidden from view (and generated behind the scenes). Actual Java code could be like this:
#Configuration
public class Whatever {
#Bean #Lazy
public OneThing createOneThing() {
return new OneThing();
}
#Bean #Lazy
public SomeOtherThing createSomeOtherThing() {
return new SomeOtherThing();
}
// here the magic begins:
#Bean #Lazy
public SomeThirdThing getSomeThirdThing() {
return new SomeThirdThing(this.createOneThing(), this.createOneThing(), this.createOneThing(), createSomeOtherThing());
}
}
Each method marked with #Bean #Lazy represents one "resource" that will be created once it is needed (and the method is called) and - no matter how many times it seems that the method is called - the object will only be created once (due to some magic that changes the actual code during loading). So even though it seems that in createOneThing() is called two times in createOneThing(), only one call will occur (and that's only after someone tries to call createSomeThirdThing() or calls getBean(SomeThirdThing.class) on ApplicationContext).
I think you cannot have a universal lazy evaluation container for everything.
Let's first discuss what you really have there. I don't think it's lazy evaluation. Lazy evaluation is defined as delaying an evaluation to the point where the value is really needed, and sharing an already evaluated value with further requests for that value.
The typical example that comes to my mind is a database connection. You'd prepare everything to be able to use that connection when it is needed, but only when there really is a database query needed, the connection is created, and then shared with subsequent queries.
The typical implementation would be to pass the connection string to the constructor, store it internally, and when there is a call to the query method, first the method to return the connection handle is called, which will create and save that handle with the connection string if it does not exist. Later calls to that object will reuse the existing connection.
Such a database object would qualify for lazy evaluating the database connection: It is only created when really needed, and it is then shared for every other query.
When I look at your implementation, it would not qualify for "evaluate only if really needed", it will only store the value that was once created. So it really is only some sort of cache.
It also does not really solve the problem of universally only evaluating the expensive computation once globally. If you have two instances, you will run the expensive function twice. But on the other hand, NOT evaluating it twice will introduce global state - which should be considered a bad thing unless explicitly declared. Usually it would make code very hard to test properly. Personally I'd avoid that.
It is possible to have the actual data methods in a different object than the data computation methods?
If you have a look at how the Zend Framework offers the cache pattern (\Zend\Cache\Pattern\{Callback,Class,Object}Cache), you'd see that the real working class is getting a decorator wrapped around it. All the internal stuff of getting the values stored and read them back is handled internally, from the outside you'd call your methods just like before.
The downside is that you do not have an object of the type of the original class. So if you use type hinting, you cannot pass a decorated caching object instead of the original object. The solution is to implement an interface. The original class implements it with the real functions, and then you create another class that extends the cache decorator and implements the interface as well. This object will pass the type hinting checks, but you are forced to manually implement all interface methods, which do nothing more than pass the call to the internal magic function that would otherwise intercept them.
interface Foo
{
public function foo();
}
class FooExpensive implements Foo
{
public function foo()
{
sleep(100);
return "bar";
}
}
class FooCached extends \Zend\Cache\Pattern\ObjectPattern implements Foo
{
public function foo()
{
//internally uses instance of FooExpensive to calculate once
$args = func_get_args();
return $this->call(__FUNCTION__, $args);
}
}
I have found it impossible in PHP to implement a cache without at least these two classes and one interface (but on the other hand, implementing against an interface is a good thing, it shouldn't bother you). You cannot simply use the native cache object directly.
It is possible to have computation methods with parameters, using a cache with a nested array?
Parameters are working in the above implementation, and they are used in the internal generation of a cache key. You should probably have a look at the \Zend\Cache\Pattern\CallbackCache::generateCallbackKey method.
In PHP it is possible to use magic methods (__get() or __call()) for the main retrieval method. In combination with "#property" in the class docblock, this allows type hints for each "virtual" property.
Magic methods are evil. A documentation block should be considered outdated, as it is no real working code. While I found it acceptable to use magic getter and setter in a really easy-to-understand value object code, which would allow to store any value in any property just like stdClass, I do recommend to be very careful with __call.
I often use method names like "get_someValue()", where "someValue" is the actual key, to distinguish from regular methods.
I would consider this a violation of PSR-1: "4.3. Methods: Method names MUST be declared in camelCase()." And is there a reason to mark these methods as something special? Are they special at all? The do return the value, don't they?
It is possible to distribute the data computation to more than one object, to get some kind of separation of concerns?
If you cache a complex construction of objects, this is completely possible.
It is possible to pre-initialize some values?
This should not be the concern of a cache, but of the implementation itself. What is the point in NOT executing an expensive computation, but to return a preset value? If that is a real use case (like instantly return NULL if a parameter is outside of the defined range), it must be part of the implementation itself. You should not rely on an additional layer around the object to return a value in such cases.
Is storing intermediate values from dynamic programming a legitimate use case for this?
Do you have a dynamic programming problem? There is this sentence on the Wikipedia page you linked:
There are two key attributes that a problem must have in order for dynamic programming to be applicable: optimal substructure and overlapping subproblems. If a problem can be solved by combining optimal solutions to non-overlapping subproblems, the strategy is called "divide and conquer" instead.
I think that there are already existing patterns that seem to solve the lazy evaluation part of your example: Singleton, ServiceLocator, Factory. (I'm not promoting singletons here!)
There also is the concept of "promises": Objects are returned that promise to return the real value later if asked, but as long as the value isn't needed right now, would act as the values replacement that could be passed along instead. You might want to read this blog posting: http://blog.ircmaxell.com/2013/01/promise-for-clean-code.html
What are the best practices to implement this in PHP? Is some of the stuff in "Details" bad and ugly?
You used an example that probably comes close to the Fibonacci example. The aspect I don't like about that example is that you use a single instance to collect all values. In a way, you are aggregating global state here - which probably is what this whole concept is about. But global state is evil, and I don't like that extra layer. And you haven't really solved the problem of parameters enough.
I wonder why there are really two calls to bar() inside foo()? The more obvious method would be to duplicate the result directly in foo(), and then "add" it.
All in all, I'm not too impressed until now. I cannot anticipate a real use case for such a general purpose solution on this simple level. I do like IDE auto suggest support, and I do not like duck-typing (passing an object that only simulates being compatible, but without being able to ensure the instance).
Related
I am quite new to OOP, so this is really a basic OOP question, in the context of a Laravel Controller.
I'm attempting to create a notification system system that creates Notification objects when certain other objects are created, edited, deleted, etc. So, for example, if a User is edited, then I want to generate a Notification regarding this edit. Following this example, I've created UserObserver that calls NotificationController::store() when a User is saved.
class UserObserver extends BaseObserver
{
public function saved($user)
{
$data = [
// omitted from example
];
NotificationController::store($data);
}
}
In order to make this work, I had to make NotificationController::store() static.
class NotificationController extends \BaseController {
public static function store($data)
{
// validation omitted from example
$notification = Notification::create($data);
}
I'm only vaguely familiar with what static means, so there's more than likely something inherently wrong with what I'm doing here, but this seems to get the job done, more or less. However, everything that I've read indicates that static functions are generally bad practice. Is what I'm doing here "wrong," per say? How could I do this better?
I will have several other Observer classes that will need to call this same NotificationController::store(), and I want NotificationController::store() to handle any validation of $data.
I am just starting to learn about unit testing. Would what I've done here make anything difficult with regard to testing?
I've written about statics extensively here: How Not To Kill Your Testability Using Statics. The gist of it as applies to your case is as follows:
Static function calls couple code. It is not possible to substitute static function calls with anything else or to skip those calls, for whatever reason. NotificationController::store() is essentially in the same class of things as substr(). Now, you probably wouldn't want to substitute a call to substr by anything else; but there are a ton of reasons why you may want to substitute NotificationController, now or later.
Unit testing is just one very obvious use case where substitution is very desirable. If you want to test the UserObserver::saved function just by itself, because it contains a complex algorithm which you need to test with all possible inputs to ensure it's working correctly, you cannot decouple that algorithm from the call to NotificationController::store(). And that function in turn probably calls some Model::save() method, which in turn wants to talk to a database. You'd need to set up this whole environment which all this other unrelated code requires (and which may or may not contain bugs of its own), that it essentially is impossible to simply test this one function by itself.
If your code looked more like this:
class UserObserver extends BaseObserver
{
public function saved($user)
{
$data = [
// omitted from example
];
$this->NotificationController->store($data);
}
}
Well, $this->NotificationController is obviously a variable which can be substituted at some point. Most typically this object would be injected at the time you instantiate the class:
new UserObserver($notificationController)
You could simply inject a mock object which allows any methods to be called, but which simply does nothing. Then you could test UserObserver::saved() in isolation and ensure it's actually bug free.
In general, using dependency injected code makes your application more flexible and allows you to take it apart. This is necessary for unit testing, but will also come in handy later in scenarios you can't even imagine right now, but will be stumped by half a year from now as you need to restructure and refactor your application for some new feature you want to implement.
Caveat: I have never written a single line of Laravel code, but as I understand it, it does support some form of dependency injection. If that's actually really the case, you should definitely use that capability. Otherwise be very aware of what parts of your code you're coupling to what other parts and how this will impact your ability to take it apart and refactor later.
I recently started learning the basics of OOP in PHP.
I am new to a whole lot of concepts.
In the traditional procedural way of doing things, if I had a repetitive task, I wrote a function and called it each time.
Since this seems to be a regular occurence, I created a small library of 5-10 functions, which I included in my procedural projects and used.
In OOP, what is the valid way of using your functions and having them accessible from all objects?
To make things closer to the real world, I created a thumbnail class, that takes an image filename as an argument and can perform some operations on it.
In procedural programming. when I had a function for creating thumbnails, I also had a function to create a random md5 string, check a given folder if said string existed, and repeat if it did, so I could generate a unique name for my thumbnails before saving them.
But if I wanted to generate another unique name for another purpose, say saving a text file, I could call that function again.
So, long story short, what is the valid OOP way to have the method randomise_and_check($filename) (and all other methods in my library) accessible from all the objects in my application?
Great question. The first thing you want to do is identify the primary objects you will be working with. An easy way to do this is to identify all the nouns related to your project. In your example it sounds like you will be working with images and strings, from this we can create two classes which will contain related attributes (functions, member variables, etc). And as you wisely mentioned, we need to ensure that the algorithms you are converting into OOP can be called from any context, so we try to keep them abstract as possible (within reason).
So for your specific situation I would suggest something like:
// Good object reference, abstract enough to cover any type of image
// But specific enough to provide semantic API calls
class Image
{
// Using your example, but to ensure you follow the DRY principle
// (Don't repeat yourself) this method should be broken up into two
// separate methods
public static function randomise_and_check($fileUri)
{
// Your code here
....
// Example of call to another class from within this class
$hash = String::generateHash();
}
}
// Very abstract, but allows this class to grow over time, by adding more
// string related methods
class String
{
public static function generateHash()
{
return md5(rand());
}
}
// Calling code example
$imageStats = Image::radomise_and_check($fileUri);
There are several other approaches and ideas that can be employed, such as whether or not to instantiate objects, or whether we should create a parent class from which we can extend, but these concepts will become evident over time and with practice. I think the code snippet provided should give you a good idea what you can do to make the jump from procedural to OOP. And, as always, don't forget to read the docs for more info.
-- Update --
Adding an OOP example:
class Image
{
protected $sourceUri;
public function setSourceUri($sourceUri)
{
$this->sourceUri = $sourceUri;
}
public function generateThumb()
{
return YourGenerator::resize($this->getSourceUri);
}
}
$image = new Image();
$image->setSourceUri($imageUri);
$thumbnail = $image->generateThumbnail();
The way I see it, you have two options:
Don't worry about cramming yourself into OOP and just make them standard, global functions in some utilities.php file you include wherever you want to use it. This is my preferred method.
If you take the more OOP approach, you could make them static functions ("methods") in some utilities class. From the PHP documentation:
<?php
class Foo {
public static function aStaticMethod() {
// ...
}
}
Foo::aStaticMethod();
$classname = 'Foo';
$classname::aStaticMethod(); // As of PHP 5.3.0
?>
Create an (abstract) Util-class with static functions:
example from my Util class:
abstract Class Util{
public static function dump($object){
echo '<pre class=\"dump\">' . print_r($object, true) . '</pre>';
}
}
How to use:
<?
$object = new Whatever();
//what's in the object?
Util::dump($object);
?>
For a beginner, OOP development is not all that different from procedural (once you master the basic concepts it gets quite a bit different, but that's not important to learning the basics).
You deal in OO concepts all the time, you just don't realize it. When you click on a file in your file manager, and manipulate that file.. you're using Object Oriented concepts. The file has attributes (size, type, read-only, etc..) and things you can do with it (open, copy, delete).
You just apply those concepts to development by creating objects that have properties and things you can do with it (methods).
In the OOP world, you don't typically make things available to everything else. OOP is all about "encapsulation", which is limiting access to only that which is needed. Why would you make a "haircut" method available to an orange juice object? You wouldn't. You only make the "haircut" method available to objects that need haircuts.
Writing reusable OO software is very difficult. Even professionals can't get it right a lot of the time. It requires a mixture of experience, training, practice, and frankly luck in some cases.
You should read about Dependency Injection as it seems to apply to your specific problem. Basically, you have an object that depends on some abstraction, maybe the "Image Library" functionality. In your controller, you would create an instance of the "Image Library" object and inject that dependency into whatever other objects required it.
That is, you need to stop thinking on the global scope altogether. Instead, you have to compartmentalize functionailties in a sane way and tie them together. Basically, objects should only know about as little as they need to know (also look up Law of Demeter and SOLID). I reiterate, this is tough to do correctly, and most of the time you can still have an application that works beautifully even if it's done incorrectly.
If you want to be very strict about this you should apply this line of thinking to everything, but if you have a function that wraps something very simple like return isset($_POST[$key]) ? $_POST[$key] : $default; I see no real harm in creating a global function for that. You could create an HttpPost wrapper class, but that is overkill in most circumstances IMO.
The short answer: use ordinary function. OOP encourages you to think about data and associated routines, using static functions instead of ordinary does not make your program more object-oriented. Following the single programming paradigm is not practical, combine them when you see that this will make your program cleaner.
coming from Java, I only have a few vacational visits to PHP. Looking at magic get and set methods, my (Java influenced) tummy starts hurting: It looks as if you were accessing properties directly (although, of course, you are actually are using __get and __set).
So - except for less code you have to write, are there any advantages to using magic getter and setter methods instead of traditional getX()/setX() methods? Should I start using them when coding PHP?
Thanks and best!
The only benefit of __get() is the possibility of less code, but even then it's not necessarily the case. For example, if you have a set of 10 private members and you want the getter to reveal 5, you have to write __get() so that if one of the psuedo-visible members is called, you send it. Otherwise, you either issue an error (that would otherwise come naturally without __get() or return a value such as null that may not actually be helpful.
I must excoriate anyone who suggests using getters and setters in general at all. This usually indicates a problem with architecture. Explain the conceptual difference between the two following code blocks, for instance:
class _ {
public $_;
}
vs.
class _ {
private $_;
public function get_() {
return $this->_;
}
}
There isn't a difference.
However, as many will point out the advantage of having a getter is that this allows you to modify the return value in some way transparently to make it useful for the recipient. However, we come back to architecture problems. You should never have to expose the contents of a class for any reason at all. Instead, you should tell the class to perform an action (which may vary based on its state). Using getters generally lends to querying the class' state and performing an action externally based on the viewed state.
I have essentially the same arguments against __set() and setters, but there is one nice thing that __set() lets you do:
class _ {
private $_ = array();
public function __set($key, $val) {
$this->_[$key] = $val;
}
}
This lets you type the very nice $_obj->key = 'val'. Note that there is not much difference from this and adding another method such as add() that takes the key and value and does the same thing, I just prefer the object setter notation.
__get__ and __set__ are fully dynamic. So for example you can start a database request if they are called to enable lazy loading. Of course, you could do this with getters and setters, too, but then you would have to do this every time. You can also do something like AOP because every property call gets passed through one single method. So all in all __get__/__set__ offer more flexilibility against time they take to process. You can do really advanced/cool stuff with it.
The advantages are that when you're refactoring, direct assignments / reads can be handled without the need to immediately change the complete codebase too, the code can be somewhat shorter, and people can create strings somewhat more easily (for example: $title="<title>{$obj->title}</title>"; vs. $title='<title>'.$obj->getTitle().'</title>';.
However, __get & __set methods can become large and unwieldy fairly quickly, and when coding properly & explicitly, it is in my opinion better to use explicit set/getX() methods to make clear functions are called, and the minor increase of code verbosity is as far as I'm concerned justified as one can easily see what actually calls a function and what doesn't. A possible exception could be when you are building a decorator for another class/object, but that's about it.
there is few difference between getter and setter methods and __set() and __get() methods! these are magic methods!
__set() use when you wanna assign undefined state to a object and so __get() also use to fetch value of undefined state!
setter and getter are used to assign or fetch value of defined states
except for less code you have to write, are there any advantages to using magic getter and setter >methods instead of traditional getX()/setX() methods? Should I start using them when coding PHP?
Given that less code to write it's already a strong reason to start use them.
the other reason is that you can add a common behaviour to all your getter/setter
function __set() {
//> Do some code in common between all setter
//> set your var here
}
When writing getX()/setX() for each attribute, practically speaking, you'll have at a minimum, 7 lines of code. This is assuming that your opening method brace is on the same line as the definition and you only put a single line of code into the method, then you have your closing brace on its own line.
For a non-trivial object, multiply that by 6 (YMMV). That is 42 lines just for attribute access/mutation. That does not include input validation or normalization. For an alternative, check out: https://github.com/metaphp/attributes
There are overheads in dynamic programming (e.g. using magic methods). An old benchmark: Benchmarking magic
As PHP is a dynamic (and not a completely enterprise) language, reducing code lines and missing some nanoseconds seems good idea in many cases (for debugging, scalability, reducing errors and etc).
While working on a project, I've been making some changes and browsing around existing framework API docs for insight.
While perusing the Kohana docs, I noticed that the getters/setters of any given class are typically combined:
public function someProperty($value = null){
if(is_null($value){
return $this->_someProperty;
}
$this->_someProperty = $value;
return $this;
}
Rather than:
public function setSomeProperty($value){
$this->_someProperty = $value;
return $this;
}
public function getSomeProperty(){
return $this->_someProperty;
}
Is there any value in doing this (the former), beyond lessening the method count of a given class? I was always under the understanding that methods (functions in general) should be more descriptive of an action. Do other experienced developers cringe, even a tiny bit, when they see this?
I was just surprised to see a popular framework use such conventions (I haven't used Kohana of course)
I consider this bad practise because it violates CommandQuerySeparation. Setting a value is changing state (Command). Getting a value is asking for state (Query). A method should not do both, but one thing only.
Also, it's not really obvious what a method does when it's just called username, e.g. does not have a verb, like get or set. This gets even worse in your example, because the return value is either the object itself or the property value, so its not consistent.
Moreover, getters (and setters) should be used sparingly as they will quickly convolute your API. The more getters and setters you have, the more knowledge about an object is required by collaborators of that object. If you find your objects asking other objects about their internals, chances are you misplaced the responsibilities.
jQuery goes the same way as Kohana. However I think it's better to create separate methods for setting and getting. It's more obvious what the method does and I think it's more practically in code-completition in your ide. For example you type set and you get a list of all Properties you can set.
Another disadvantage is: what if you want to set a value really to null? This wouldn't work since the null is the identifier for returnin the value, you are restricted in setting specific values...
So it's nice, since you'll have to write less, but hey what are three letters (set/get) in front of your methods?
Despite the fact that Kohana uses such unusual technique for the OOP, I think you should follow coding conventions at first. But of course it's better to use separate getters and setters for every property in your classes. So, if it's possible to use them not breaking the conventions - just do it and you won't be wrong ;) . You can also read here about good habits in PHP OOP - http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/os-php-7oohabits/ if you've doubted about using some OOP technics. Hope that it'll help :)
I'd rather believe they had a reasonable explanation for doing it this way. For example, for easier implementation of ArrayAccess. Only way to know for sure is to ask them directly.
To answer your question, yes I cringe when I see the first method. Goes against OOP principles.
Why not do it like this?
public function someProperty($value = null)
{
if (func_num_args() === 1) {
$this->someProperty = $value;
return $this;
} else {
return $this->someProperty;
}
}
This would imo be the only correct way to implement a combined getter/setter
If you do it everywhere it is a good way, but than it really needs to be for everything, maybe the programmers of this framework are used to is, (it's a bit jquery alike)
However it would confuse me
For setting and getting I always use setters and getters:
public function __set($key, $value) {
// assign value $value to $this->key
}
public function __get($key) {
// return value of this->key
}
For the sake of argument,
The combined approach does offer some benefits:
Avoids __get and __set magic while still emulating a public property. (I would not ever recommend using magic for these situations anyway)
Using thing() is less verbose than using getThing() setThing().
Even though the methods will be doing more, they can still be considered as "doing one thing()", that is handling the thing(). Properties also do more than one thing. They allow you to set and get values.
It's argued that the thing() doesn't give a verb. However, we can assume that a thing() without a verb means that we use it like a property (we get and set it). For interfaces, we can say that a thing() with no argument is readonly and a thing($arg) with an argument is read/write. Why should we be shy from adopting this? At some point we adopted the idea of adding getters and setters didn't we?
If you are using a web-based language (like PHP), then chances are you might be using jQuery as well. JQuery is already doing this sort of thing() and it has worked out well.
Using func_num_args(), as mentioned already, helps achieve this approach perfectly.
Personally, I've already taken a good portion of risks in my current apps at this point so I'm probably going with the old tried-and-true getters and setters (see the section "Finding the Balance" of Jimmy Bogard's post in regards to getters/setters for data operations). And I suppose we are already trained to look for these get/set prefixes (as well as our IDE's) to see what properties we can work with in a class. This is a discussion I would be open to returning to at some point.
I'm kind of new in PHP. For some reason in other types of programming languages like JAVA I have no problem with using setters and getters for every single variable, but when I'm programming in PHP probably because it is so flexible it feels kind of like a waste of time. It feels simpler to just set the class attributes as public most of the time and manipulating them like that. The thing is that when I do it like this I feel like I'm doing something wrong and going against OO principles.
Is it really that wrong not using setters and getters? Why or why not? How do you guys do it most of the time?
The main problem with not using property accessors is that if you find out you ever need to change a field to a property later on – to make it a computed property in a subclass, for instance – you’ll break clients of your API. For a published library, this would be unacceptable; for an internal one, just quite a lot of work fixing things.
For private code or small apps, it could be feasible to just wing it. An IDE (or text editor) will let you generate accessor boilerplate and hide it using code folding. This arguably makes using getters and setters mechanically fairly easy.
Note that some programming languages have features to synthesise the default field+getter+setter – Ruby does it via metaprogramming, C# has auto-implemented properties. And Python sidesteps the issue completely by letting you override attribute access, letting you encapsulate the attribute in the subclass that needs it instead of having to bother with it up front. (This is the approach I like best.)
The point of getters or setters is that you can still add logic to your modifications of the field in one place instead of everyplace you want to modify or retrieve the field. You also gain control at class level what happens with the field.
If we're talking strictly about PHP here and not about C#, Java, etc (where the compiler will optimise these things), I find getters and setters to be a waste of resources where you simply need to proxy the value of a private field and do nothing else.
On my setup, I made two crappy classes, one with five private fields encapsulated by five getter/setter pairs proxying the field (which looked almost exactly like java code, funnily enough) and another with five public fields, and called memory_get_usage() at the end after creating an instance. The script with the getter/setters used 59708 bytes of memory and the script with the public fields used 49244 bytes.
In the context of a class library of any significant size, such as a web site framework, these useless getters and setters can add up to a HUGE black hole for memory. I have been developing a framework for my employer in PHP (their choice, not mine. i wouldn't use it for this if i had the choice but having said that, PHP is not imposing any insurmountable restrictions on us) and when I refactored the class library to use public fields instead of getters/setters, the whole shebang ended up using 25% less memory per request at least.
The __get(), __set() and __call() 'magic' methods really shine for handling interface changes. When you need to migrate a field to a getter/setter (or a getter/setter to a field) they can make the process transparent to any dependent code. With an interpreted language it's a bit harder to find all usages of a field or method even with the reasonably good support for code sensitivity provided by Eclipse PDT or Netbeans, so the magic methods are useful for ensuring that the old interface still delegates to the new functionality.
Say we have an object which was developed using fields instead of getters/setters, and we want to rename a field called 'field' to 'fieldWithBetterName', because 'field' was inappropriate, or no longer described the use accurately, or was just plain wrong. And say we wanted to change a field called 'field2' to lazy load its value from the database because it isn't known initially using a getter...
class Test extends Object {
public $field;
public $field2;
}
becomes
class Test extends Object {
public $fieldWithBetterName = "LA DI DA";
private $_field2;
public function getField2() {
if ($this->_field2 == null) {
$this->_field2 = CrapDbLayer::getSomething($this->fieldWithBetterName);
}
return $this->_field2;
}
public function __get($name) {
if ($name == 'field')) {
Logger::log("use of deprecated property... blah blah blah\n".DebugUtils::printBacktrace());
return $this->fieldWithBetterName;
}
elseif ($name == 'field2') {
Logger::log("use of deprecated property... blah blah blah\n".DebugUtils::printBacktrace());
return $this->getField2();
}
else return parent::__get($name);
}
}
$t = new Test;
echo $t->field;
echo $t->field2;
(As a side note, that 'extends Object' bit is just a base class I use for practically everything which has a __get() and a __set() declaration which throws an exception when undeclared fields are accessed)
You can go backwards with __call(). This example is quite brittle, but it's not hard to clean up:
class Test extends Object {
public $field2;
public function __call($name, $args) {
if (strpos($name, 'get')===0) {
$field = lcfirst($name); // cheating, i know. php 5.3 or greater. not hard to do without it though.
return $this->$field;
}
parent::__call($name, $args);
}
}
Getter and setter methods in PHP are good if the setter has to do something, or if the getter has to lazy load something, or ensure something has been created, or whatever, but they're unnecessary and wasteful if they do nothing other than proxy the field, especially with a few techniques like the ones above to manage interface changes.
I am probably not going to get many upvotes on this one, but personally getters and even more so setters feel like a code smell to me. Designs should be behavior driven, not data driven. Of course, this is just an opinion. If you have an object that depends on a particular data field of another object this is very tight coupling. Instead it should depend on the behavior of that object which is far less brittle than its data.
But yes, property like getters and setters are a step up from a dependency on a field directly for this very reason. It is less brittle and loosens up the coupling between the objects.
Did you consider to use magic functions __set/__get? Using them you can easily merge all getter/setter function in only 2 functions!
There is a way to emulate get/set without actually using get/set function class, so your code remains tidy:
$person->name = 'bob';
echo $person->name;
Take a look at this class I have coded.
Typically, when using this class, you would declare all your properties protected (or private). In the event where you'd want to add a behaviour on a property, say strtolower() + ucfirst() on the "name" property, all you'd need to do is declare a protected set_name() function in your class and the behavior should get picked up automatically. Same can be accomplished with get_name().
// Somewhere in your class (that extends my class).
protected function set_name($value) { $this->name = ucfirst(strtolower($value)); }
//
// Now it would store ucfirst(strtolower('bob')) automatically.
$person->name = 'bob';
P.S.
Another cool thing is you can make up non-existing fields such as
echo $person->full_name;
without having such fields (as long as there is a get_full_name() function).
If you access these variable in your script lots of time and if you update yoru class often you should use setters and getter because but if you dont this , when you improve your class you have to update all files which uses this variable .
Secondly main reason why you do this is you should not access variable directly because class structure may change and this data can be providen differently.While you are getting data from class you should not care about how this data is generated .Class have to care about this data proccessing so you only should care what will you get.