I've a simple application, say it has some classes and an "extra" one that handles database requests. Currently i'm creating the database object everytime the app is used, but in some cases there's no need for a database connection. I'm doing it like this (PHP btw):
$db = new Database();
$foo = new Foo($db); // passing the db
But sometimes the $foo object does not need db access, as only methods without database actions are called. So my question is: What's the professional way to handle situations like this / how to create the db connection/object only when needed ?
My goal is to avoid unnecessary database connections.
Note: Although the direct answer to ops question, "when can I only create / connect to the database when required and not on every request" is inject it when you need it, simply saying that is not helpful. I'm explaining here how you actually go about that correctly, as there really isn't a lot of useful information out there in a non-specific-framework context to help in this regard.
Updated: The 'old' answer to this question can be see below. This encouraged the service locator pattern which is very controversial and to many an 'anti-pattern'. New answer added with what I've learned from researching. Please read the old answer first to see how this progressed.
New Answer
After using pimple for a while, I learned much about how it works, and how it's not actually that amazing after all. It's still pretty cool, but the reason it's only 80 lines of code is because it basically allows the creation of an array of closures. Pimple is used a lot as a service locator (because it's so limited in what it can actually do), and this is an "anti-pattern".
Firstly, what is a service locator?
The service locator pattern is a design pattern used in software development to encapsulate the processes involved in obtaining a service with a strong abstraction layer. This pattern uses a central registry known as the "service locator" which on request returns the information necessary to perform a certain task.
I was creating pimple in the bootstrap, defining dependencies, and then passing this container to each and every single class I instantiated.
Why is a service locator bad?
What's the problem with this you say? The main problem is that this approach hides dependencies from the class. So if a developer is coming to update this class and they haven't seen it before, they're going to see a container object containing an unknown amount of objects. Also, testing this class is going to be a bit of a nightmare.
Why did I do this originally? Because I thought that after the controller is where you start doing your dependency injection. This is wrong. You start it straight away at the controller level.
If this is how things work in my application:
Front Controller --> Bootstrap --> Router --> Controller/Method --> Model [Services|Domain Objects|Mappers] --> Controller --> View --> Template
...then the dependency injection container should start working right away at the first controller level.
So really, if I were to still use pimple, I would be defining what controllers are going to be created, and what they need. So you would inject the view and anything from the model layer into the controller so it can use it. This is Inversion Of Control and makes testing much easier. From the Aurn wiki, (which I'll talk about soon):
In real life you wouldn't build a house by transporting the entire hardware store (hopefully) to the construction site so you can access any parts you need. Instead, the foreman (__construct()) asks for the specific parts that will be needed (Door and Window) and goes about procuring them. Your objects should function in the same way; they should ask only for the specific dependencies required to do their jobs. Giving the House access to the entire hardware store is at best poor OOP style and at worst a maintainability nightmare. - From the Auryn Wiki
Enter Auryn
On that note, I'd like to introduce you to something brilliant called Auryn, written by Rdlowrey that I was introduced to over the weekend.
Auryn 'auto-wires' class dependencies based on the class constructor signature. What this means that, for each class requested, Auryn finds it, figures out what it needs in the constructor, creates what it needs first and then creates an instance of the class you asked for originally. Here's how it works:
The Provider recursively instantiates class dependencies based on the parameter type-hints specified in their constructor method signatures.
...and if you know anything about PHP's reflection, you'll know some people call it 'slow'. So here's what Auryn does about that:
You may have heard that "reflection is slow". Let's clear something up: anything can be "too slow" if you're doing it wrong. Reflection is an order of magnitude faster than disk access and several orders of magnitude faster than retrieving information (for example) from a remote database. Additionally, each reflection offers the opportunity to cache the results if you're worried about speed. Auryn caches any reflections it generates to minimize the potential performance impact.
So now we've skipped the "reflection is slow" argument, here's how I've been using it.
How I use Auryn
I make Auryn part of my autoloader. This is so that when a class is asked for, Auryn can go away and read the class and it's dependencies, and it's dependencies' dependencies (etc), and return them all into the class for instantiation. I create the Auyrn object.
$injector = new \Auryn\Provider(new \Auryn\ReflectionPool);
I use a Database Interface as a requirement in the constructor of my database class. So I tell Auryn which concrete implementation to use (this is the part you change if you want to instantiate a different type of database, at a single point in your code, and it'll all still work).
$injector->alias('Library\Database\DatabaseInterface', 'Library\Database\MySQL');
If I wanted to change to MongoDB and I'd written a class for it, I'd simple change Library\Database\MySQL to Library\Database\MongoDB.
Then, I pass the $injector into my router, and when creating the controller / method, this is where the dependencies are automatically resolved.
public function dispatch($injector)
{
// Make sure file / controller exists
// Make sure method called exists
// etc...
// Create the controller with it's required dependencies
$class = $injector->make($controller);
// Call the method (action) in the controller
$class->$action();
}
Finally, answer OP's question
Okay, so using this technique, let's say you have the User controller which requires the User Service (let's say UserModel) which requires Database access.
class UserController
{
protected $userModel;
public function __construct(Model\UserModel $userModel)
{
$this->userModel = $userModel;
}
}
class UserModel
{
protected $db;
public function __construct(Library\DatabaseInterface $db)
{
$this->db = $db;
}
}
If you use the code in the router, Auryn will do the following:
Create the Library\DatabaseInterface, using MySQL as the concrete class (alias'd in the boostrap)
Create the 'UserModel' with the previously created Database injected into it
Create the UserController with the previously created UserModel injected into it
That's the recursion right there, and this is the 'auto-wiring' I was talking about earlier. And this solves OPs problem, because only when the class hierarchy contains the database object as a constructor requirement is the object insantiated, not upon every request.
Also, each class has exactly the requirements they need to function in the constructor, so there are no hidden dependencies like there were with the service locator pattern.
RE: How to make it so that the connect method is called when required. This is really simple.
Make sure that in the constructor of your Database class, you don't instantiate the object, you just pass in it's settings (host, dbname, user, password).
Have a connect method which actually performs the new PDO() object, using the classes' settings.
class MySQL implements DatabaseInterface
{
private $host;
// ...
public function __construct($host, $db, $user, $pass)
{
$this->host = $host;
// etc
}
public function connect()
{
// Return new PDO object with $this->host, $this->db etc
}
}
So now, every class you pass the database to will have this object, but will not have the connection yet because connect() hasn't been called.
In the relevant model which has access to the Database class, you call $this->db->connect(); and then continue with what you want to do.
In essence, you still pass your database object to the classes that require it, using the methods I have described previously, but to decide when to perform the connection on a method-by-method basis, you just run the connect method in the required one. No you don't need a singleton. You just tell it when to connect when you want it to, and it doesn't when you don't tell it to connect.
Old Answer
I'm going to explain a little more in-depth about Dependency Injection Containers, and how they can may help your situation. Note: Understanding the principles of 'MVC' will help significantly here.
The Problem
You want to create some objects, but only certain ones need access to the database. What you're currently doing is creating the database object on each request, which is totally unnecessary, and also totally common before using things like DiC containers.
Two Example Objects
Here's an example of two objects that you may want to create. One needs database access, another doesn't need database access.
/**
* #note: This class requires database access
*/
class User
{
private $database;
// Note you require the *interface* here, so that the database type
// can be switched in the container and this will still work :)
public function __construct(DatabaseInterface $database)
{
$this->database = $database;
}
}
/**
* #note This class doesn't require database access
*/
class Logger
{
// It doesn't matter what this one does, it just doesn't need DB access
public function __construct() { }
}
So, what's the best way to create these objects and handle their relevant dependencies, and also pass in a database object only to the relevant class? Well, lucky for us, these two work together in harmony when using a Dependency Injection Container.
Enter Pimple
Pimple is a really cool dependency injection container (by the makers of the Symfony2 framework) that utilises PHP 5.3+'s closures.
The way that pimple does it is really cool - the object you want isn't instantiated until you ask for it directly. So you can set up a load of new objects, but until you ask for them, they aren't created!
Here's a really simple pimple example, that you create in your boostrap:
// Create the container
$container = new Pimple();
// Create the database - note this isn't *actually* created until you call for it
$container['datastore'] = function() {
return new Database('host','db','user','pass');
};
Then, you add your User object and your Logger object here.
// Create user object with database requirement
// See how we're passing on the container, so we can use $container['datastore']?
$container['User'] = function($container) {
return new User($container['datastore']);
};
// And your logger that doesn't need anything
$container['Logger'] = function() {
return new Logger();
};
Awesome! So.. how do I actually use the $container object?
Good question! So you've already created the $container object in your bootstrap and set up the objects and their required dependencies. In your routing mechanism, you pass the container to your controller.
Note: example rudimentary code
router->route('controller', 'method', $container);
In your controller, you access the $container parameter passed in, and when you ask for the user object from it, you get back a new User object (factory-style), with the database object already injected!
class HomeController extends Controller
{
/**
* I'm guessing 'index' is your default action called
*
* #route /home/index
* #note Dependant on .htaccess / routing mechanism
*/
public function index($container)
{
// So, I want a new User object with database access
$user = $container['User'];
// Say whaaat?! That's it? .. Yep. That's it.
}
}
What you've solved
So, you've now killed multiple birds (not just two) with one stone.
Creating a DB object on each request - Not any more! It's only created when you ask for it because of the closures Pimple uses
Removing 'new' keywords from your controller - Yep, that's right. You've handed this responsibility over to the container.
Note: Before I continue, I want to point out how significant bullet point two is. Without this container, let's say you created 50 user objects throughout your application. Then one day, you want to add a new parameter. OMG - you now need to go through your whole application and add this parameter to every new User(). However, with the DiC - if you're using $container['user'] everywhere, you just add this third param to the container once, and that's it. Yes, that totally is awesome.
The ability to switch out databases - You heard me, the whole point of this is that if you wanted to change from MySQL to PostgreSQL - you change the code in your container to return a new different type of database you've coded, and as long as it all returns the same sort of stuff, that's it! The ability to swap out concrete implementations that everyone always harps on about.
The Important Part
This is one way of using the container, and it's just a start. There are many ways to make this better - for example, instead of handing the container over to every method, you could use reflection / some sort of mapping to decide what parts of the container are required. Automate this and you're golden.
I hope you found this useful. The way I've done it here has at least cut significant amounts of development time for me, and it's good fun to boot!
This is approximately what I use.
class Database {
protected static $connection;
// this could be public if you wanted to be able to get at the core database
// set the class variable if it hasn't been done and return it
protected function getConnection(){
if (!isset(self::$connection)){
self::$connection = new mysqli($args);
}
return self::$connection;
}
// proxy property get to contained object
public function __get($property){
return $this->getConnection()->__get($property);
}
// proxy property set to contained object
public function __set($property, $value){
$this->getConnection()->__set($property, $value);
}
// proxy method calls to the contained object
public function __call($method, $args){
return call_user_func_array(array($this->getConnection(), $method), $args);
}
// proxy static method calls to the contained object
public function __callStatic($method, $args){
$connClass = get_class($this->getConnection());
return call_user_func_array(array($connClass, $method), $args);
}
}
Note it only works if there is a single database in play. If you wanted multiple different databases it would be possible to extend this but beware of late static binding in the getConnection method.
Here is an example of a simple approach:
class Database {
public $connection = null ;
public function __construct($autosetup = false){
if ($autosetup){
$this->setConnection() ;
}
}
public function getProducts(){//Move it to another class if you wish
$this->query($sql_to_get_products);
}
public function query($sql) {
if (!$connection || !$connection->ping()){
$this->setupConnection() ;
}
return $this->connection->query($sql);
}
public function setConnection(){
$this->connection = new MySQLi($a, $b, $c, $d) ;
}
public function connectionAvailable(){
return ($connection && $connection->ping()) ;
}
}
Look into using a dependency injection container, something like Pimple would be nice place to start. With a dependency injection container you 'teach' the container how to create the objects in your application, they're not instantiated until you ask for them. With Pimple, you can configure a resource to be shared so that it's only ever instantiated once during the request no matter how often you ask the container for it.
You can setup your classes to accept the container in their constructor or use a setter method to inject into your class.
A simplified example could look like this:
<?php
// somewhere in your application bootstrap
$container = new Pimple();
$container['db'] = $container->share(
function ($c) {
return new Database();
}
);
// somewhere else in your application
$foo = new Foo($container);
// somewhere in the Foo class definition
$bar = $this->container['db']->getBars();
Hope it helps.
You got some great answers already, with the majority concentrating on the aspect of injecting dependencies (which is a good thing), and only creating objects on demand.
The other aspect is the more important one: Do not put code that does any heavy work into your constructors. In case of a database object, this means: Do not connect to the database inside the constructor.
Why is this more important? Because not creating a database object because the using object also gets not created is no real optimization if the using object gets always created, but does not always run queries.
Creating an object in PHP is reasonable fast. The class code usually is available in the opcode cache, so it only triggers a call to the autoloader and then allocates some bytes in memory for the objects' properties. The constructor will run after that. If the only thing it does is copying the constructor parameters to local property variables, this is even optimized by PHP with "copy-on-write" references. So there is no real benefit if this object does not get created in the first place, if you cannot avoid it. If you can: even better.
I come from the world of Java. Java is resident in memory accross stateless HTML requests. PHP is not. That is a whole different story - and what I like about PHP.
I simply use:
$conn = #pg_connect(DBConnection);
the DBConnection is a definition containing the information about the host etc..
The # assures that the current connection is used or a new one is created. How can I do it more easily?
The data how to connect to the database is stable. The connection itself might be recreated during a request. Why should I program better then the people of PHP and recreate the #? They did that for the PHP community, let's use it.
By the way, never put heavy objects in a constructor and never let the constructor do some heavy job nor let it happen that an exception can be thrown during construction of an object. You might have an unfinished object resident in your memory. An init-method is to be preferred. I agree on that with Henrique Barcelos.
This is the way I am using mysqli. Database object behaves the same as mysqli object, can add my own methods or override existing ones, and the only difference is that the actual connection to database is not established when you create the object but on first call to method or property that needs the connection.
class Database {
private $arguments = array();
private $link = null;
public function __construct() {
$this->arguments = func_get_args();
}
public function __call( $method, $arguments ) {
return call_user_func_array( array( $this->link(), $method ), $arguments );
}
public function __get( $property ) {
return $this->link()->$property;
}
public function __set( $property, $value ){
$this->link()->$property = $value;
}
private function connect() {
$this->link = call_user_func_array( 'mysqli_connect', $this->arguments );
}
private function link() {
if ( $this->link === null ) $this->connect();
return $this->link;
}
}
Another way to achieve the same behavior is with use of mysqli_init() and mysqli_real_connect() methods, constructor initializes the object with mysqli_init(), and when you need a real connection the mysqli_real_connect() method is used.
class Database {
private $arguments = array();
public function __construct() {
$this->arguments = array_merge( array( 'link' => mysqli_init() ), func_get_args() );
}
public function __call( $method, $arguments ) {
return call_user_func_array( array( $this->link(), $method ), $arguments );
}
public function __get( $property ) {
return $this->link()->$property;
}
public function __set( $property, $value ) {
$this->link()->$property = $value;
}
private function connect() {
call_user_func_array( 'mysqli_real_connect', $this->arguments );
}
private function link() {
if ( !#$this->arguments['link']->thread_id ) $this->connect();
return $this->arguments['link'];
}
}
I tested memory consumption for both approaches and got quite unexpected results, the second approach uses less resources when connects to database and executes queries.
interface IDatabase {
function connect();
}
class Database implements IDatabase
{
private $db_type;
private $db_host;
private $db_name;
private $db_user;
private $db_pass;
private $connection = null;
public function __construct($db_type, $db_host, $db_name, $db_user, $db_pass)
{
$this->db_type = $db_type;
$this->db_host = $db_host;
$this->db_name = $db_name;
$this->db_user = $db_user;
$this->db_pass = $db_pass;
}
public function connect()
{
if ($this->connection === null) {
try {
$this->connection = new PDO($this->db_type.':host='.$this->db_host.';dbname='.$this->db_name, $this->db_user, $this->db_pass);
$this->connection->setAttribute(PDO::ATTR_ERRMODE, PDO::ERRMODE_EXCEPTION);
return $this->connection;
} catch (PDOException $e) {
return $e;
}
} else {
return $this->connection;
}
}
}
How about this? In connect(), check if a connection has already been established, if yes, return it, if not, create it and return it. This will prevent you from having TOO many connections open. Let's say, in your controller action, you want to call two methods of UserRepository (that depends on the Database), getUsers() and getBlockedUsers(), if you call these methods, connect() will be called in each one of them, with this check in place it will return the already existing instance.
You could use an singleton pattern to achive this and request everytime you need the database a database object. This results in something like this
$db = DB::instance();
where DB::instance is declared something like this
class DB {
//...
private static $instance;
public static function instance() {
if (self::$instance == null) {
self::$instance = new self();
}
}
//...
}
<?php
mysql_select_db('foo',mysql_connect('localhost','root',''))or die(mysql_error());
session_start();
function antiinjection($data)
{
$filter_sql = stripcslashes(strip_tags(htmlspecialchars($data,ENT_QUOTES)));
return $filter_sql;
}
$username = antiinjection($_POST['username']);
$password = antiinjection($_POST['password']);
/* student */
$query = "SELECT * FROM student WHERE username='$username' AND password='$password'";
$result = mysql_query($query)or die(mysql_error());
$row = mysql_fetch_array($result);
$num_row = mysql_num_rows($result);
/* teacher */
$query_teacher = mysql_query("SELECT * FROM teacher WHERE username='$username' AND password='$password'")or die(mysql_error());
$num_row_teacher = mysql_num_rows($query_teacher);
$row_teahcer = mysql_fetch_array($query_teacher);
if( $num_row > 0 ) {
$_SESSION['id']=$row['student_id'];
echo 'true_student';
}else if ($num_row_teacher > 0){
$_SESSION['id']=$row_teahcer['teacher_id'];
echo 'true';
}else{
echo 'false';
}
?>
and in the php file insert javascript
<script>
jQuery(document).ready(function(){
jQuery("#login_form1").submit(function(e){
e.preventDefault();
var formData = jQuery(this).serialize();
$.ajax({
type: "POST",
url: "login.php",
data: formData,
success: function(html){
if(html=='true')
{
window.location = 'folder_a/index.php';
}else if (html == 'true_student'){
window.location = 'folder_b/index.php';
}else
{
{ header: 'Login Failed' };
}
}
});
return false;
});
});
</script>
another connection
<?php
class DbConnector {
var $theQuery;
var $link;
function DbConnector(){
// Get the main settings from the array we just loaded
$host = 'localhost';
$db = 'db_lms1';
$user = 'root';
$pass = '';
// Connect to the database
$this->link = mysql_connect($host, $user, $pass);
mysql_select_db($db);
register_shutdown_function(array(&$this, 'close'));
}
//*** Function: query, Purpose: Execute a database query ***
function query($query) {
$this->theQuery = $query;
return mysql_query($query, $this->link);
}
//*** Function: fetchArray, Purpose: Get array of query results ***
function fetchArray($result) {
return mysql_fetch_array($result);
}
//*** Function: close, Purpose: Close the connection ***
function close() {
mysql_close($this->link);
}
}
?>
Related
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();
$db->query(..);
}
There are, of course, cases where this isn't the best route. As always, it depend on the specific needs of your application.
I'm in the process of re factoring a lot of code to make it more testable and I have a bunch of useful functions that rely on an instantiated database object.
Things like this:
function id_from_name($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
For years I have used global $var,$var2,...,$varn for methods in my application. I've used them for two main implementations:
Getting an already set class (such as DB connection), and passing info to functions that display to page.
Example:
$output['header']['log_out'] = "Log Out";
function showPage(){
global $db, $output;
$db = ( isset( $db ) ) ? $db : new Database();
$output['header']['title'] = $db->getConfig( 'siteTitle' );
require( 'myHTMLPage.html' );
exit();
}
There are, however, performance and security ramifications of doing it like this.
What alternative practice can I use that will maintain my functionality but improve design, performance, and/or security?
This is the first question I've ever asked on SO, so if you need clarifications please comment!
1. Globals. Works like a charm. Globals are hated thus my thoughts of not using it.
Well, globals are not just hated. They are hated for a reason. If you didn't run so far into the problems globals cause, fine. There is no need for you to refactor your code.
2. Define a constant in my config.php file.
This is actually just like a global, but with another name. You would spare the $ as well and to use the global at the beginning of functions. Wordpress did this for their configuration, I'd say this is more bad than using global variables. It makes it much more complicated to introduce seams. Also you can not assign an object to a constant.
3. Include the config file in the function.
I'd consider this as overhead. You segmentize the codebase for not much gain. The "global" here will become the name of the file you inlcude btw..
Taken these three thoughts of you and my comments to them into account I'd say: Unless you run into actual issues with some global variables, you can stick to them. Global then work as your service locator (configuration, database). Others do much more to create the same.
If you run into problems (e.g. you probably want to develop test-driven), I suggest you start with putting one part after the other under test and then you learn how to avoid the globals.
Dependency Injection
As inside comments it became clear you're looking for dependency injection, and if you can not edit the function parameter definition, you can - if you use objects - inject dependencies via the constructor or by using so called setter methods. In the following example code I'll do both which is for demonstration purposes only as you might have guessed, it's not useful to use both at once:
Let's say the configuration array is the dependency we would like to inject. Let's call it config and name the variable $config. As it is an array, we can type-hint it as array. first of all define the configuration in a include file maybe, you could also use parse_ini_file if you prefer the ini-file format. I think it's even faster.
config.php:
<?php
/**
* configuration file
*/
return array(
'db_user' => 'root',
'db_pass' => '',
);
That file then can just be required inside your application where-ever you want to:
$config = require('/path/to/config.php');
So it can be easily turned into an array variable somewhere in your code. Nothing spectacular so far and totally unrelated to dependency injection. Let's see an exemplary database class which needs to have the configuration here, it needs to have the username and the password otherwise it can't connect let's say:
class DBLayer
{
private $config;
public function __construct(array $config)
{
$this->setConfig($config);
}
public function setConfig(array $config)
{
$this->config = $config;
}
public function oneICanNotChange($paramFixed1, $paramFixed2)
{
$user = $this->config['db_user'];
$password = $this->config['db_pass'];
$dsn = 'mysql:dbname=testdb;host=127.0.0.1';
try {
$dbh = new PDO($dsn, $user, $password);
} catch (PDOException $e) {
throw new DBLayerException('Connection failed: ' . $e->getMessage());
}
...
}
This example is a bit rough, but it has the two examples of dependency injection. First via the constructor:
public function __construct(array $config)
This one is very common, all dependencies the class needs to do it's work are injection at creation time. This also ensures that when any other method of that object is called, the object will be in a pre-determinable state - which is somewhat important for a system.
The second example is to have a public setter method:
public function setConfig(array $config)
This allows to add the dependency later, but some methods might need to check for things being available prior doing their job. E.g. if you could create the DBLayer object without providing configuration, the oneICanNotChange method could be called without that object having configuration and should had to deal with that (which is not shown in this example).
Service Locator
As you need to probably integrate code on the fly and you want your new code to be put under test with dependency injection and all that what's making our live easier, you might need to put this together with your ancient / legacy code. I think that part is tough. Dependency injection on it's own is pretty easy, but putting this together with old code is not that straight forward.
What I can suggest here is that you make one global variable that is the so called service locator. It contains a central point to fetch objects (or even arrays like your $config) from. It can be used then and the contract is that single variable name. So to remove globals we make use of a global variable. Sounds a bit counter-productive and it even is if your new code uses it too much as well. However, you need some tool to bring old and new together. So here is the most bare PHP service locator implementation I could imagine so far.
It consists of one Services object that offers all of your services, like the config from above. Because when a PHP script starts, we yet do not know if a service at all is needed (e.g. we might not run any database query, so we don't need to instantiate the database), it offers some lazy initialization feature as well. This is done by using factory-scripts that are just PHP files that setup the service and return it.
A first example: Let's say the function oneICanNotChange would not have been part of an object but just a simple function in the global namespace. We would not have been able to inject config dependency. This is where the Services Service Locator object comes in:
$services = new Services(array(
'config' => '/path/to/config.php',
));
...
function oneICanNotChange($paramFixed1, $paramFixed2)
{
global $services;
$user = $services['config']['db_user'];
$password = $services['config']['db_pass'];
...
As the example already shows, the Services object does map the string 'config' to the path of the PHP file that defines the $config array: /path/to/config.php. It uses the ArrayAccess interface than to expose that service inside the oneICanNotChange function.
I suggest the ArrayAccess interface here, because it's well defined and it shows that we have some dynamic character here. On the other hand it allows us the lazy initialization:
class Services implements ArrayAccess
{
private $config;
private $services;
public function __construct(array $config)
{
$this->config = $config;
}
...
public function offsetGet($name)
{
return #$this->services[$name] ?
: $this->services[$name] = require($this->config[$name]);
}
...
}
This exemplary stub just requires the factory scripts if it has not done so far, otherwise will return the scripts return value, like an array, an object or even a string (but not NULL which makes sense).
I hope these examples are helpful and show that not much code is needed to gain more flexibility here and punching globals out of your code. But you should be clear, that the service locator introduces global state to your code. The benefit is just, that it's easier to de-couple this from concrete variable names and to provide a bit more flexibility. Maybe you're able to divide the objects you use in your code into certain groups, of which only some need to become available via the service-locator and you can keep the code small that depends on the locator.
The alternative is called dependency injection. In a nutshell it means that you pass the data a function/class/object requires as parameters.
function showPage(Database $db, array &$output) {
...
}
$output['header']['log_out'] = "Log Out";
$db = new Database;
showPage($db, $output);
This is better for a number of reasons:
localizing/encapsulating/namespacing functionality (the function body has no implicit dependencies to the outside world anymore and vice versa, you can now rewrite either part without needing to rewrite the other as long as the function call doesn't change)
allows unit testing, since you can test functions in isolation without needing to setup a specific outside world
it's clear what a function is going to do to your code just by looking at the signature
There are, however, performance and security ramifications of doing it like this.
To tell you truth, there are no performance nor security ramifications. Using globals is a matter of cleaner code, and nothing more. (Well, okay, as long as you're not passing variables of tens of megabytes in size)
So, you have to think first, will alternatives make cleaner code for you, or not.
In matters of cleaner code, I'd be in fear if I see a db connection in the function called showPage.
One option that some people may frown upon is to create a singleton object responsible for holding the application state. When you want to access some shared "global" object you could make a call like: State::get()->db->query(); or $db = State::get()->db;.
I see this method as a reasonable approach as it saves having to pass around a bunch of objects all over the place.
EDIT:
Using this approach can help simplify the organization and readability of your application. For example, your state class could call the proper methods to initialize your database object and decouple its initialization from your showPage function.
class State {
private static $instance;
private $_db;
public function getDB() {
if(!isset($this->_db)){
// or call your database initialization code or set this in some sort of
// initialization method for your whole application
$this->_db = new Database();
}
return $this->_db;
}
public function getOutput() {
// do your output stuff here similar to the db
}
private function __construct() { }
public static function get() {
if (!isset(self::$instance)) {
$className = __CLASS__;
self::$instance = new State;
}
return self::$instance;
}
public function __clone() {
trigger_error('Clone is not allowed.', E_USER_ERROR);
}
public function __wakeup() {
trigger_error('Unserializing is not allowed.', E_USER_ERROR);
}
}
and your show page function could be something like this:
function showPage(){
$output = State::get()->getOutput();
$output['header']['title'] = State::get()->getDB()->getConfig( 'siteTitle' );
require( 'myHTMLPage.html' );
exit();
}
An alternative to using a singleton object is to pass the state object to your various functions, this allows you to have alternative "states" if your application gets complicated and you will only need to pass around a single state object.
function showPage($state){
$output = $state->getOutput();
$output['header']['title'] = $state->getDB()->getConfig( 'siteTitle' );
require( 'myHTMLPage.html' );
exit();
}
$state = new State; // you'll have to remove all the singleton code in my example.
showPage($state);
function showPage(&$output, $db = null){
$db = is_null( $db ) ? new Database() : $db;
$output['header']['title'] = $db->getConfig( 'siteTitle' );
require( 'myHTMLPage.html' );
exit();
}
and
$output['header']['log_out'] = "Log Out";
showPage($output);
$db =new Database();
showPage($output,$db);
Start designing your code in OOP, then you can pass config to the constructor. You could also encapsulate all your functions into a class.
<?php
class functions{
function __construct($config){
$this->config = $config;
}
function a(){
//$this->config is available in all these functions/methods
}
function b(){
$doseSomething = $this->config['someKey'];
}
...
}
$config = array(
'someKey'=>'somevalue'
);
$functions = new functions($config);
$result = $functions->a();
?>
Or if you cant refactor the script, loop through the config array and define constants.
foreach($config as $key=>$value){
define($key,$value);
}
The gist behind DI is to relieve a class from creating and preparing objects it depends on and pushing them in. This sounds very reasonable, but sometimes a class does not need all the objects, that are being pushed into it to carry out its function. The reason behind this is an "early return" that happens upon invalid user input or an exception thrown by one of the required objects earlier or the unavailability of a certain value necessary to instantiate an object until a block of code runs.
More practical examples:
injecting a database connection object that will never be used, because the user data does not pass validation (provided that no triggers are used to validate this data)
injecting excel-like objects (PHPExcel e.g.) that collect input (heavy to load and instantiate because a whole library is pulled in and never used, because validation throws an exception earlier than a write occurs)
a variable value that is determined within a class, but not the injector at runtime; for instance, a routing component that determines the controller (or command) class and method that should be called based on user input
although this might be a design problem, but a substantial service-class, that depends on a lot of components, but uses only like 1/3 of them per request (the reason, why i tend to use command classes instead of controllers)
So, in a way pushing in all necessary components contradicts "lazy-loading" in the way that some components are created and never used, that being a bit unpractical and impacting performance. As far as PHP is concerned - more files are loaded, parsed and compiled. This is especially painful, if the objects being pushed in have their own dependencies.
i see 3 ways around it, 2 of which don't sound very well:
injecting a factory
injecting the injector (an anti-pattern)
injecting some external function, that gets called from within the
class once a relevant point is reached (smtg like "retrieve a
PHPExcel instance once data validation finished"); this is what i
tend to use due to its flexibility
The question is what's the best way of dealing with such situations / what do you guys use?
UPDATE:
#GordonM here are the examples of 3 approaches:
//inject factory example
interface IFactory{
function factory();
}
class Bartender{
protected $_factory;
public function __construct(IFactory $f){
$this->_factory = $f;
}
public function order($data){
//validating $data
//... return or throw exception
//validation passed, order must be saved
$db = $this->_factory->factory(); //! factory instance * num necessary components
$db->insert('orders', $data);
//...
}
}
/*
inject provider example
assuming that the provider prepares necessary objects
(i.e. injects their dependencies as well)
*/
interface IProvider{
function get($uid);
}
class Router{
protected $_provider;
public function __construct(IProvider $p){
$this->_provider = $p;
}
public function route($str){
//... match $str against routes to resolve class and method
$inst = $this->_provider->get($class);
//...
}
}
//inject callback (old fashion way)
class MyProvider{
protected $_db;
public function getDb(){
$this->_db = $this->_db ? $this->_db : new mysqli();
return $this->_db;
}
}
class Bartender{
protected $_db;
public function __construct(array $callback){
$this->_db = $callback;
}
public function order($data){
//validating $data
//... return or throw exception
//validation passed, order must be saved
$db = call_user_func_array($this->_db, array());
$db->insert('orders', $data);
//...
}
}
//the way it works under the hood:
$provider = new MyProvider();
$db = array($provider, 'getDb');
new Bartender($db);
//inject callback (the PHP 5.3 way)
class Bartender{
protected $_db;
public function __construct(Closure $callback){
$this->_db = $callback;
}
public function order($data){
//validating $data
//... return or throw exception
//validation passed, order must be saved
$db = call_user_func_array($this->_db, array());
$db->insert('orders', $data);
//...
}
}
//the way it works under the hood:
static $conn = null;
$db = function() use ($conn){
$conn = $conn ? $conn : new mysqli();
return $conn;
};
new Bartender($db);
I've been thinking about this problem a lot lately in planning of a major project that I want to do as right as humanly possible (stick to LoD, no hard coded dependencies, etc). My first thought was the "Inject a factory" approach as well, but I'm not sure that's the way to go. The Clean Code talks from Google made the claim that if you reach through an object to get the object you really want then you're violating the LoD. That would seem to rule out the idea of injecting a factory, because you have to reach through the factory to get what you really want. Maybe I've missed some point there that makes it okay, but until I know for sure I'm pondering other approaches.
How do you do the function injection? I'd imagine you're passing in a callback that does the instantiation of the object you want, but a code example would be nice.
If you could update your question with code examples of how you do the three styles you mentioned it might be useful. I'm especially keen to see "injecting the injector" even if it is an antipattern.
One idea that did occur was that of a proxy object. It implements the same interface(s) as the actual object you want to pass in, but instead of implementing anything it just holds an instance of the real class and forwards method calls on to it.
interface MyInterface
{
public function doFoo ();
public function isFoo ();
// etc
}
class RealClass implements MyInterface
{
public function doFoo ()
{
return ('Foo!');
}
public function isFoo ()
{
return ($this -> doFoo () == 'Foo!'? true: false);
}
// etc
}
class RealClassProxy implements MyInterface
{
private $instance = NULL;
/**
* Do lazy instantiation of the real class
*
* #return RealClass
*/
private function getRealClass ()
{
if ($this -> instance === NULL)
{
$this -> instance = new RealClass ();
}
return $this -> instance;
}
public function doFoo ()
{
return $this -> getRealClass () -> doFoo ();
}
public function isFoo ()
{
return $this -> getRealClass () -> isFoo ();
}
// etc
}
Because the proxy has the same interface as the real class, you can pass it as an argument to any function/method that type hints for the interface. The Liskov Substitution Principle holds for the proxy because it responds to all the same messages as the real class and returns the same results (the interface enforces this, at least for method signitures). However, the real class doesn't get instantiated unless a message actually gets sent to the proxy, which does lazy instantiation of the real class behind the scenes.
function sendMessageToRealClass (MyInterface $instance)
{
$instance -> doFoo ();
}
sendMessageToRealClass (new RealClass ());
sendMessageToRealClass (new RealClassProxy ());
There is an extra layer of indirection involved with the proxy object, which obviously means that there is a small performance hit for every method call you make. However, it does allow you to do lazy instantiation, so you can avoid instantiating classes you don't need. Whether this is worth it depends on the cost of instantiating the real object versus the cost of the extra layer of indirection.
EDIT: I had originally written this answer with the idea of subclassing the real object so you could use the technique with objects that don't implement any interfaces such as PDO. I had originally thought that interfaces were the correct way to do this but I wanted an approach that didn't rely on the class being tied to an interface. On reflection that was a big mistake so I've updated the answer to reflect what I should have done in the first place. This version does mean, however, that you can't directly apply this technique to classes with no associated interface. You'll have to wrap such classes in another class that does provide an interface for the proxy approach to be viable, meaning yet another layer of indirection.
If you want to implement lazy loading you basically have two way to do it (as you have already written in the topic):
instead of injecting an instance of object you might need, you inject a Factory or a Builder. The difference between them is that instance of Builder is made for returning one type of object (maybe with different setups), while Factory makes different types of instances ( with same lifetime and/or implementing same interface ).
utilize anonymous function which will return you an instance. That would look something like this:
$provider = function() {
return new \PDO('sqlite::memory:');
};
Only when you call this anonymous function, the instance of PDO is created and connection to database established.
What I usually do in my code is combine both. You can equip the Factory with such provider. This, for example, lets you have a single connection for all the objects which where created by said factory, and the connection is create only, when you first time ask an instance from Factory.
The other way to combine both methods (which i have not used, though) would be to create full blow Provider class, which in constructor accepts an anonymous function. Then the factory could pass around this same instance of Provider and the expensive object (PHPExcel, Doctrine, SwiftMailer or some other instance) is only created once a Product from that Factory first time turns to the Provider (couldn't come up with better name to describe all objects created by same factory) and requests it. After that, this expensive object is shared between all Products of Factory.
... my 2 cents
I chose lazy-injection (i.e. injecting a Proxy class):
class Class1 {
/**
* #Inject(lazy=true)
* #var Class2
*/
private $class2;
public function doSomething() {
// The dependency is loaded NOW
return $this->class2->getSomethingElse();
}
Here, the dependency (class2) is not injected directly: a proxy class is injected. Only when the proxy class is used that the dependency is loaded.
This is possible in PHP-DI (dependency injection framework).
Disclaimer: I work in this project
For years I have used global $var,$var2,...,$varn for methods in my application. I've used them for two main implementations:
Getting an already set class (such as DB connection), and passing info to functions that display to page.
Example:
$output['header']['log_out'] = "Log Out";
function showPage(){
global $db, $output;
$db = ( isset( $db ) ) ? $db : new Database();
$output['header']['title'] = $db->getConfig( 'siteTitle' );
require( 'myHTMLPage.html' );
exit();
}
There are, however, performance and security ramifications of doing it like this.
What alternative practice can I use that will maintain my functionality but improve design, performance, and/or security?
This is the first question I've ever asked on SO, so if you need clarifications please comment!
1. Globals. Works like a charm. Globals are hated thus my thoughts of not using it.
Well, globals are not just hated. They are hated for a reason. If you didn't run so far into the problems globals cause, fine. There is no need for you to refactor your code.
2. Define a constant in my config.php file.
This is actually just like a global, but with another name. You would spare the $ as well and to use the global at the beginning of functions. Wordpress did this for their configuration, I'd say this is more bad than using global variables. It makes it much more complicated to introduce seams. Also you can not assign an object to a constant.
3. Include the config file in the function.
I'd consider this as overhead. You segmentize the codebase for not much gain. The "global" here will become the name of the file you inlcude btw..
Taken these three thoughts of you and my comments to them into account I'd say: Unless you run into actual issues with some global variables, you can stick to them. Global then work as your service locator (configuration, database). Others do much more to create the same.
If you run into problems (e.g. you probably want to develop test-driven), I suggest you start with putting one part after the other under test and then you learn how to avoid the globals.
Dependency Injection
As inside comments it became clear you're looking for dependency injection, and if you can not edit the function parameter definition, you can - if you use objects - inject dependencies via the constructor or by using so called setter methods. In the following example code I'll do both which is for demonstration purposes only as you might have guessed, it's not useful to use both at once:
Let's say the configuration array is the dependency we would like to inject. Let's call it config and name the variable $config. As it is an array, we can type-hint it as array. first of all define the configuration in a include file maybe, you could also use parse_ini_file if you prefer the ini-file format. I think it's even faster.
config.php:
<?php
/**
* configuration file
*/
return array(
'db_user' => 'root',
'db_pass' => '',
);
That file then can just be required inside your application where-ever you want to:
$config = require('/path/to/config.php');
So it can be easily turned into an array variable somewhere in your code. Nothing spectacular so far and totally unrelated to dependency injection. Let's see an exemplary database class which needs to have the configuration here, it needs to have the username and the password otherwise it can't connect let's say:
class DBLayer
{
private $config;
public function __construct(array $config)
{
$this->setConfig($config);
}
public function setConfig(array $config)
{
$this->config = $config;
}
public function oneICanNotChange($paramFixed1, $paramFixed2)
{
$user = $this->config['db_user'];
$password = $this->config['db_pass'];
$dsn = 'mysql:dbname=testdb;host=127.0.0.1';
try {
$dbh = new PDO($dsn, $user, $password);
} catch (PDOException $e) {
throw new DBLayerException('Connection failed: ' . $e->getMessage());
}
...
}
This example is a bit rough, but it has the two examples of dependency injection. First via the constructor:
public function __construct(array $config)
This one is very common, all dependencies the class needs to do it's work are injection at creation time. This also ensures that when any other method of that object is called, the object will be in a pre-determinable state - which is somewhat important for a system.
The second example is to have a public setter method:
public function setConfig(array $config)
This allows to add the dependency later, but some methods might need to check for things being available prior doing their job. E.g. if you could create the DBLayer object without providing configuration, the oneICanNotChange method could be called without that object having configuration and should had to deal with that (which is not shown in this example).
Service Locator
As you need to probably integrate code on the fly and you want your new code to be put under test with dependency injection and all that what's making our live easier, you might need to put this together with your ancient / legacy code. I think that part is tough. Dependency injection on it's own is pretty easy, but putting this together with old code is not that straight forward.
What I can suggest here is that you make one global variable that is the so called service locator. It contains a central point to fetch objects (or even arrays like your $config) from. It can be used then and the contract is that single variable name. So to remove globals we make use of a global variable. Sounds a bit counter-productive and it even is if your new code uses it too much as well. However, you need some tool to bring old and new together. So here is the most bare PHP service locator implementation I could imagine so far.
It consists of one Services object that offers all of your services, like the config from above. Because when a PHP script starts, we yet do not know if a service at all is needed (e.g. we might not run any database query, so we don't need to instantiate the database), it offers some lazy initialization feature as well. This is done by using factory-scripts that are just PHP files that setup the service and return it.
A first example: Let's say the function oneICanNotChange would not have been part of an object but just a simple function in the global namespace. We would not have been able to inject config dependency. This is where the Services Service Locator object comes in:
$services = new Services(array(
'config' => '/path/to/config.php',
));
...
function oneICanNotChange($paramFixed1, $paramFixed2)
{
global $services;
$user = $services['config']['db_user'];
$password = $services['config']['db_pass'];
...
As the example already shows, the Services object does map the string 'config' to the path of the PHP file that defines the $config array: /path/to/config.php. It uses the ArrayAccess interface than to expose that service inside the oneICanNotChange function.
I suggest the ArrayAccess interface here, because it's well defined and it shows that we have some dynamic character here. On the other hand it allows us the lazy initialization:
class Services implements ArrayAccess
{
private $config;
private $services;
public function __construct(array $config)
{
$this->config = $config;
}
...
public function offsetGet($name)
{
return #$this->services[$name] ?
: $this->services[$name] = require($this->config[$name]);
}
...
}
This exemplary stub just requires the factory scripts if it has not done so far, otherwise will return the scripts return value, like an array, an object or even a string (but not NULL which makes sense).
I hope these examples are helpful and show that not much code is needed to gain more flexibility here and punching globals out of your code. But you should be clear, that the service locator introduces global state to your code. The benefit is just, that it's easier to de-couple this from concrete variable names and to provide a bit more flexibility. Maybe you're able to divide the objects you use in your code into certain groups, of which only some need to become available via the service-locator and you can keep the code small that depends on the locator.
The alternative is called dependency injection. In a nutshell it means that you pass the data a function/class/object requires as parameters.
function showPage(Database $db, array &$output) {
...
}
$output['header']['log_out'] = "Log Out";
$db = new Database;
showPage($db, $output);
This is better for a number of reasons:
localizing/encapsulating/namespacing functionality (the function body has no implicit dependencies to the outside world anymore and vice versa, you can now rewrite either part without needing to rewrite the other as long as the function call doesn't change)
allows unit testing, since you can test functions in isolation without needing to setup a specific outside world
it's clear what a function is going to do to your code just by looking at the signature
There are, however, performance and security ramifications of doing it like this.
To tell you truth, there are no performance nor security ramifications. Using globals is a matter of cleaner code, and nothing more. (Well, okay, as long as you're not passing variables of tens of megabytes in size)
So, you have to think first, will alternatives make cleaner code for you, or not.
In matters of cleaner code, I'd be in fear if I see a db connection in the function called showPage.
One option that some people may frown upon is to create a singleton object responsible for holding the application state. When you want to access some shared "global" object you could make a call like: State::get()->db->query(); or $db = State::get()->db;.
I see this method as a reasonable approach as it saves having to pass around a bunch of objects all over the place.
EDIT:
Using this approach can help simplify the organization and readability of your application. For example, your state class could call the proper methods to initialize your database object and decouple its initialization from your showPage function.
class State {
private static $instance;
private $_db;
public function getDB() {
if(!isset($this->_db)){
// or call your database initialization code or set this in some sort of
// initialization method for your whole application
$this->_db = new Database();
}
return $this->_db;
}
public function getOutput() {
// do your output stuff here similar to the db
}
private function __construct() { }
public static function get() {
if (!isset(self::$instance)) {
$className = __CLASS__;
self::$instance = new State;
}
return self::$instance;
}
public function __clone() {
trigger_error('Clone is not allowed.', E_USER_ERROR);
}
public function __wakeup() {
trigger_error('Unserializing is not allowed.', E_USER_ERROR);
}
}
and your show page function could be something like this:
function showPage(){
$output = State::get()->getOutput();
$output['header']['title'] = State::get()->getDB()->getConfig( 'siteTitle' );
require( 'myHTMLPage.html' );
exit();
}
An alternative to using a singleton object is to pass the state object to your various functions, this allows you to have alternative "states" if your application gets complicated and you will only need to pass around a single state object.
function showPage($state){
$output = $state->getOutput();
$output['header']['title'] = $state->getDB()->getConfig( 'siteTitle' );
require( 'myHTMLPage.html' );
exit();
}
$state = new State; // you'll have to remove all the singleton code in my example.
showPage($state);
function showPage(&$output, $db = null){
$db = is_null( $db ) ? new Database() : $db;
$output['header']['title'] = $db->getConfig( 'siteTitle' );
require( 'myHTMLPage.html' );
exit();
}
and
$output['header']['log_out'] = "Log Out";
showPage($output);
$db =new Database();
showPage($output,$db);
Start designing your code in OOP, then you can pass config to the constructor. You could also encapsulate all your functions into a class.
<?php
class functions{
function __construct($config){
$this->config = $config;
}
function a(){
//$this->config is available in all these functions/methods
}
function b(){
$doseSomething = $this->config['someKey'];
}
...
}
$config = array(
'someKey'=>'somevalue'
);
$functions = new functions($config);
$result = $functions->a();
?>
Or if you cant refactor the script, loop through the config array and define constants.
foreach($config as $key=>$value){
define($key,$value);
}