I have created an interface meant to be implemented by users. The only real requirements I have is that the user's implement a Save() and a Load() method. Now save is simple, but the problem I'm having is with Load().
In order for Load() to be part of the interface it would need to be an instance method. But the nature of it is to return a new object that has been loaded from a database. This would imply that Load() needs to be defined as static. Static methods aren't enforced by the interface.
How can I require users who implement the interface to write their own code for Load()?
I'm using PHP5.4 which does require that constructor definitions are followed in subclasses, so one thought was to change this into an Abstract Class and define a constructor that takes an $id variable. If it's null we create a new object, if it's set then load the object. I'd much prefer to keep this setup as an interface. There also is some concern of ambiguity and some user implementing their constructor incorrectly. It's easier to document and describe what load() should do.
Why does "a method that returns an object" immediately mean that it has to be static? Static isn't a blanket "go-to" on object creation - it actually serves a specific purpose.
Anyway. There is nothing stopping you from defining an interface that requires the implementation of a static method, as follows, if your heart so desires :
interface MyTestInterface {
public static function Load();
}
class MyTest implements MyTestInterface {
public static function Load() {
echo "Test";
}
}
Fiddle: http://codepad.viper-7.com/xcoQZh
There is nothing stopping you from defining a method requiring implementation, either through an interface or an abstract class, when the method is static. However, consider the actual static use in this case....
Related
Sometimes when I look at code other people have written I see something like the following:
<?php
namespace sys\database;
class Statistics {
public function __construct() {
// Database statistics are gathered here using
// private methods of the class and then set to
// class properties
}
public static function getInstance() {
return new \sys\database\Statistics();
}
// ...
}
So the static function getInstance() simply returns an object of the class it belongs to. Then, somewhere else in the code I come across this:
$stats = \sys\database\Statistics::getInstance();
Which simply sets $stats to an instance of the Statistics object, ready for its class properties to be accessed to get various database statistics.
I was wondering why it was done this way as opposed to just using $stats = new \sys\database\Statistics();. At the end of the day, all the logic to gather statistics is in the constructor and the getInstance() method doesn't do anything other than returning a new object.
Is there something I'm missing here?
This is supposed to be an implementation of the Singleton pattern: http://www.oodesign.com/singleton-pattern.html
The pattern is used to never allow more than one instance of the class to be created.
However, there are a couple of flaws with the implementation you provided: the constructor should be private, and there should be a single private static instance of the class, returned every time the getInstance method is called.
This is supposed to be an implementation of the Singleton pattern, which is a term used to describe a class which can only exist once for run-time.
It seems the implementation you have is flawed however because:
there is no check to see if the class exists yet and
code can create multiple instances by calling the constructor directly (it should be made private)
That's a [bad] implementation of the Singleton pattern.
As a rule of thumb, you should avoid such pattern in favour of more convenient Dependency Injection, for instance.
How can I ensure that an object will be instantiated only via another particular object?
For example, say I have a Registry object to store my Mappers. When client code calls the get() method on the Registry, it lazy loads and returns the requested Mapper. That's fine, except there is nothing to stop client code from creating a duplicate instance of the Mapper using the new operator.
The only option I can think of is that my Mappers require a Registry object as a parameter. Are there other options?
What do you do? Should I even bother about preventing this kind of duplication?
Perhaps you should not try to prevent people from creating instances themselves? If you don't trust yourself or your colleagues not to instantiate objects in places where they should not instantiate them, you have a problem.
If the mappers do not need a registry to function, you should not object it via the constructor. Passing it to some static method seems rather odd, and makes your code less flexible since you're using static. And how are you going to unit test the mappers, without writing some hacks to properly instantiate them via the registry you should not have need for in these tests? Good post on that here: http://kore-nordmann.de/blog/0103_static_considered_harmful.html
You can't protect from the new operator. What you could do though is that you have a get() method in your class to make your class/object singleton (or using a Registry as you do).
class clTest {
private static $oInstance;
public static function get() {
if( !self::$oInstance ) {
self::$oInstance = new clText;
}
return self::$oInstance;
}
}
if you wish to prevent outside instantiation you only need to declare __construct as private and then use a call to a static method to get an instance of the Mapper class. You can then pass in an instance of the registry class and only return a new instance if the parameter is an instance of the registry class.
class Mapper{
private __construct(){}
public static function getInstance($registry){
if($registry instanceof Registry){
return new Mapper();
}
}
}
$registry = new Registry();
$mapper = Mapper::getInstance($registry);
What is better to use in this context, static methods, or simple public method and call them always like this: $request = new Request();
if($request->isPostRequest()){ do smth }
ofcourse its easier to use static, but what is more properly to use?
Class Request {
public static function isSecureConnection() {}
public static function isPostRequest() {}
public static function isAjaxRequest() {}
...etc
}
If each Request is a genuine entity, then it would be better to use non-static members. But if it's not and methods are used in general, like Sinus function in math, then they'd be better to be static.
Overall it'd be better to declare static functions in a class that is just consisted of functions and no data members.
You should always create a class like if it was to be used on a non-static environment.
Then you can use that as a Singleton with lazy-instantiation. Or even as a Static class instantiation. Or even as a Standalone instance object. You decide later what to do with it.
If you start by declaring all members as static you are basically just covering a bunch of Global variables inside a glorified namespace known as a Class. You also will statically allocate the memory used by that class even if you don't call it or use it in your code.
So, just write as a Class, then you decide what to do with it. Static/Non-Static. Singleton/Instance. Factory Pattern or not. Memory Allocator X/DLL bound or whatnot.
The only exception is static members used for book-keeping in behalf of the Object Instances; things like reference counting, caches and things like that. That is the good thing about static/non-static, you can mix and match for some clever behaviors.
What if later you wanted another Request? Or what would happen if you can create more than one because you are in a multithreaded environment? Things will get really strange once you go that route with statics.
It looks like you are handling one particular request.
Now this insinuates you should make it a singleton, and/or use static functions.
Reason:
There is only one request, all the state is defined by the environment delivered to the process. The class methods are just helper functions, and you want to be able to use them without class instance.
On the other hand, you would rarely use static functions with classes that represent one of many, for example one user of many, one question of many.
Declaring class properties or methods as static makes them accessible without needing an instantiation of the class. A property declared as static can not be accessed with an instantiated class object (though a static method can).
Example:
<?php
class Foo {
public static function aStaticMethod() {
// ...
}
}
Foo::aStaticMethod();
$classname = 'Foo';
$classname::aStaticMethod(); // As of PHP 5.3.0
?>
See the reference of Static Keyword from php.net.
If you can, use static methods as a default. static methods run quicker than their non-static counterparts.
According to the PHP manual, a class like this:
abstract class Example {}
cannot be instantiated. If I need a class without instance, e.g. for a registry pattern:
class Registry {}
// and later:
echo Registry::$someValue;
would it be considered good style to simply declare the class as abstract? If not, what are the advantages of hiding the constructor as protected method compared to an abstract class?
Rationale for asking: As far as I see it, it could a bit of feature abuse, since the manual refers to abstract classes more as like blueprints for later classes with instantiation possibility.
Update: First of all, thanks for all the answers! But many answers sound quite alike: 'You cannot instantiate an abstract class, but for a registry, why not using a singleton pattern?'
Unfortunately, that was more or less exactly a repeat of my question. What is the advantage of using a singleton pattern (a.k.a. hiding __construct()) compared to just declaring it abstract and not having to worry about that? (Like, e.g., it is a strong connotation between developers, that abstract classes are not actually used or so.)
If your class is not meant to define some super-type, it should not be declared as abstract, I'd say.
In your case, I would rather go with a class :
That defines __construct and __clone as private methods
so the class cannot be instanciated from outside
And, this way, your class could create an instance of itself
See the Singleton design pattern, about that, btw
Now, why use a Singleton, and not only static methods ? I suppose that, at least a couple of reasons can be valid :
Using a singleton means using an instance of the class ; makes it easier to transform a non-singleton class to a singleton one : only have to make __construct and __clone private, and add some getInstance method.
Using a singleton also means you have access to everything you can use with a normal instance : $this, properties, ...
Oh, a third one (not sure about that, but might have its importance) : with PHP < 5.3, you have less possibilities with static methods/data :
__callStatic has only been introduced in PHP 5.3
There is no __getStatic, __setStatic, ...
Same for a couple of other Magic methods !
Late Static Binding has only been added with PHP 5.3 ; and not having it often makes it harder, when working with static methods/classes ; especially when using inheritance.
This being said, yes, some code like this :
abstract class MyClass {
protected static $data;
public static function setA($a) {
self::$data['a'] = $a;
}
public static function getA() {
return self::$data['a'];
}
}
MyClass::setA(20);
var_dump(MyClass::getA());
Will work... But it doesn't feel quite natural... and this is a very simple example (see what I said earlier with Late Static Binding, and magic methods).
What you describe is permitted by the PHP language, but it's not the intended usage of an abstract class. I wouldn't use static methods of an abstract class.
Here's the downside of doing that: Another developer could extend your abstract class and then instantiate an object, which is what you want to avoid. Example:
class MyRegistry extends AbstractRegistry { }
$reg = new MyRegistry();
True, you only need to worry about this if you're handing off your abstract class to another developer who won't comply with your intended usage, but that's why you would make the class a singleton too. An uncooperative developer can override a private constructor:
class Registry
{
private function __construct() { }
}
class MyRegistry extends Registry
{
public function __construct() { } // change private to public
}
If you were using this class yourself, you would simply remember not to instantiate the class. Then you wouldn't need either mechanism to prevent it. So since you're designing this to be used by others, you need some way to prevent those people from circumventing your intended usage.
So I offer these two possible alternatives:
Stick with the singleton pattern and make sure the constructor is also final so no one can extend your class and change the constructor to non-private:
class Registry
{
private final function __construct() {
}
}
Make your Registry support both static and object usage:
class Registry
{
protected static $reg = null;
public static function getInstance() {
if (self::$reg === null) {
self::$reg = new Registry();
}
return self::$reg;
}
}
Then you can call Registry::getInstance() statically, or you can call new Registry() if you want an object instance.
Then you can do nifty things like store a new registry instance inside your global registry! :-)
I implemented this as part of Zend Framework, in Zend_Registry
As other guys said, you cannot instantiate an abstract class. You could use static methods in your class to prevent instantiating, but I'm not really a fan of doing so unless I have a proper reason.
I might be little bit off-topic now, but in your example you said you wanted this for Registry pattern class. What is the reason you don't want to instantiate it? Wouldn't it better to create an instance of Registry for each registry you want to use?
Something like:
class Registry {
private $_objects = array( );
public function set( $name, $object ) {
$this->_objects[ $name ] = $object;
}
public function get( $name ) {
return $this->_objects[ $name ];
}
}
I wouldn't even use Singleton in this case.
Setting a class to abstract that only defines static properties/methods won't have a real effect. You can extend the class, instantiate it, and call a method on it and it would change the static class properties. Obviously very confusing.
Abstract is also misleading. Abstract is ment to define an class that implements some functionality, but needs more behaviour (added via inheritance) to function properly. On top of that it's usually a feature that shouldn't be used with static at all. You are practically inviting programmers to use it wrong.
Short answer: A private constructor would be more expressive and fail safe.
There are patterns in OO that are common and well-recognized. Using abstract in an unconventional way may cause confusion (sorry, my some examples are in Java instead of PHP):
abstract class - a class meant to conceptualize a common ancestor, but of which actual instances are not meant to exist (e.g. shape is an abstract superclass for rectangle and triangle).
Commonly implemented by:
use abstract modifier on class to prevent direct instantiation, but allow deriving from the class
utility class - a class that does not represent an object in the solution space, but rather is a collection of useful static operations/methods, e.g. Math class in Java.
Commonly implemented by:
make class non-derivable, e.g. Java uses the final modifier on class, and
prevent direct instantiation - provide no constructors and hide or disable any implicit or default constructors (and copy constructors)
singleton class - a class that does represent an object in the solution space, but whose instantiation is controlled or limited, often to insure there is only one instance.
Commonly implemented by:
make class non-derivable, e.g. Java uses the final modifier on class, and
prevent direct instantiation - provide no constructors and hide or disable any implicit or default constructors (and copy constructors), and
provide a specific means to acquire an instance - a static method (often getInstance()) that returns the only instance or one of the limited number of instances
abstract really is meant to indicate a "blueprint", as you call it, for class inheritance.
Registries generally follow a singleton pattern, which means they it would instantiate itself in a private variable. Defining it as abstract would prevent this from working.
I wouldnt use an abstract class. Id use something more akin to a singleton with a protected/private constructor as you suggest. There should be very few static properties other than $instance which is the actual registry instance. Recently ive become a fan of Zend Frameworks typical pattern which is something like this:
class MyRegistry {
protected static $instance = null;
public function __construct($options = null)
{
}
public static function setInstance(MyRegistry $instance)
{
self::$instance = $instance;
}
public static function getInstance()
{
if(null === self::$instance) {
self::$instance = new self;
}
return self::$instance;
}
}
This way you get a singleton essentially but you can inject a configured instance to use. This is handy for testing purposes and inheritance.
The purpose of an abstract class is to define methods that are 1) meaningful to other classes and 2) not meaningful when not in the context of one of those classes.
To paraphase some of the php docs, imagine you are connecting to a database. Connecting to a database doesn't make much sense unless you have a particular kind of database to connect to. Yet connecting is something you will want to do regardless of the kind of database. Therefore, connecting can be defined in an abstract database class and inherited, and made meaningful by, say, a MYSQL class.
From your requirements, it sounds like you don't intend to do this but instead simply require a class without an instance. Whilst you could use an abstract class to enforce this behaviour, this seems hacky to me because it abuses the purpose of abstract classes. If I encounter an abstract class, I should be able to reasonably expect that this will have some abstract methods, for example, but your class will have none.
Therefore, a singleton seems like a better option.
However, if the reason you wish to have a class without an instance is simply so that you can call it anywhere then why do you even have a class at all? Why not just load every variable as a global and then you can just call it directly rather than through the class?
I think the best way to do this is to instantiate the class and then pass it around with dependency injection. If you are too lazy to do that (and fair enough if you are! Its your code, not mine.) then don't bother with the class at all.
UPDATE: It seems like you are conflicted between 2 needs: The need to do things quickly and the need to do things the right way. If you don't care about carrying a ton of global variables for the sake of saving yourself time, you will assumedly prefer using abstract over a singleton because it involves less typing. Pick which need is more important to you and stick with it.
The right way here is definitely not to use a Singleton or an abstract class and instead use dependency injection. The fast way is to have a ton of globals or an abstract class.
From my understanding, a class without instance is something you shouldn't be using in an OOP program, because the whole (and sole) purpose of classes is to serve as blueprints for new objects. The only difference between Registry::$someValue and $GLOBALS['Registry_someValue'] is that the former looks 'fancier', but neither way is really object-oriented.
So, to answer your question, you don't want a "singleton class", you want a singleton object, optionally equipped with a factory method:
class Registry
{
static $obj = null;
protected function __construct() {
...
}
static function object() {
return self::$obj ? self::$obj : self::$obj = new self;
}
}
...
Registry::object()->someValue;
Clearly abstract won't work here.
I would say it's a matter of coding habbits. When you think of an abstract class it is usually something you need to subclass in order to use. So declaring your class abstract is counter-intuitive.
Other than that is it just a matter of using self::$somevar in your methods if you make it abstract, rather than $this->somevar if you implement it as a singleton.
After reading this description of late static binding (LSB) I see pretty clearly what is going on. Now, under which sorts of circumstances might that be most useful or needed?
I needed LSB this for the following scenario:
Imagine you're building a "mail processor" daemon that downloads the message from an email server, classifies it, parses it, saves it, and then does something, depending on the type of the message.
Class hierarchy: you have a base Message class, with children "BouncedMessage" and "AcceptedMessage".
Each of the message types has its own way to persist itself on disk. For example, all messages of type BouncedMessage try to save itself as BouncedMessage-id.xml. AcceptedMessage, on the other hand, needs to save itself differently - as AcceptedMessage-timestamp.xml. The important thing here is that the logic for determining the filename pattern is different for different subclasses, but shared for all items within the subclass. That's why it makes sense for it to be in a static method.
Base Message class has an abstract static method (yes, abstract AND static) "save". BouncedMessage implements this method with a concrete static method. Then, inside the class that actually retrieves the message, you can call "::save()"
If you want to learn more about the subject:
http://www.qcodo.com/forums/topic.php/2356
http://community.livejournal.com/php/585907.html
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=42681
One primary need I have for late static binding is for a set of static instance-creation methods.
This DateAndTime class is part of a chronology library that I ported to PHP from Smalltalk/Squeak. Using static instance-creation methods enables creation of instances with a variety of argument types, while keeping parameter checking in the static method so that the consumer of the library is unable to obtain an instance that is not fully valid.
Late static binding is useful in this case so that the implementations of these static instance-creation methods can determine what class was originally targeted by the call. Here is an example of usage:
With LSB:
class DateAndTime {
public static function now() {
$class = static::myClass();
$obj = new $class;
$obj->setSeconds(time());
return $obj;
}
public static function yesterday() {
$class = static::myClass();
$obj = new $class;
$obj->setSeconds(time() - 86400);
return $obj;
}
protected static function myClass () {
return 'DateAndTime';
}
}
class Timestamp extends DateAndTime {
protected static function myClass () {
return 'Timestamp';
}
}
// Usage:
$date = DateAndTime::now();
$timestamp = Timestamp::now();
$date2 = DateAndTime::yesterday();
$timestamp2 = Timestamp::yesterday();
Without late static binding, [as in my current implementation] each class must implement every instance creation method as in this example:
Without LSB:
class DateAndTime {
public static function now($class = 'DateAndTime') {
$obj = new $class;
$obj->setSeconds(time());
return $obj;
}
public static function yesterday($class = 'DateAndTime') {
$obj = new $class;
$obj->setSeconds(time() - 86400);
return $obj;
}
}
class Timestamp extends DateAndTime {
public static function now($class = 'Timestamp') {
return self::now($class);
}
public static function yesterday($class = 'Timestamp') {
return self::yesterday($class);
}
}
As the number of instance-creation methods and class-hierarchy increases the duplication of methods becomes a real pain in the butt. LSB reduces this duplication and allows for much cleaner and more straight-forward implementations.
It's useful when:
You have functionality that varies over the class hierarchy,
The functionality has the same signature over the hierarchy, and
(crucially) You don't have an instance to hang the functionality off of.
If only #1 and #2 obtained, you would use an ordinary instance method. So Alex's problem (see his answer to this question) does not require LSB.
A typical case is object creation, where subclasses create themselves in different ways, but using the same parameters. Obviously you have no instance to call, so the creation method (also known as a factory method) must be static. Yet you want its behavior to vary depending on the subclass, so an ordinary static method is not right. See Adam Franco's answer for an example.
If you need to access an overloaded static property/Method within a method that hasn't been overloaded in a subclass - you need late static binding. A quick example: paste2.org
The classic example is the ActiveRecord class from Rails, if you try to implement something similar in PHP, which would look like this: class User extends ActiveRecord and then try to call User::find(1) the method that gets called is actually ActiveRecord::find() because you haven't overloaded find() in User - but without late static binding the find() method in ActiveRecord has no way of knowing which classed it got called from (self within it will always point to ActiveRecord), and thus it can't fetch your User-object for you.
Suppose you have classes representing tables (row instances) in a simplified object-relational mapper.
You would have a class "User" and a class "Company" who's instances are representing rows of the respective tables.
User and Company would inherit from some base abstract class, let's say "BaseObject" that will have some common methods like save(), delete(), validate() etc ...
If you want to store data about the validation and the table definition, the best place would be in a static variable in each derived class - since the validation and table definition is the same for each instance of User.
Without LSB the mentioned validate() method in BaseObject would have no reference to the static variables defined in User and Company, even though you are calling it through an instance of User. It will look for the same static variable in the BaseObject class, and it will raise an error.
This is my experience with PHP 5.2.8 - LSB is going to be introduced in 5.3
I have a class with a static method that handles some formatting. I have another class that than needs all the functionality of the original one except for how it handles formatting.