I want to ask a noob question regarding the server performance.
Assume that each class contain 1000 line codes with same performance wight .
If I want to use a function belongs to the another. I found that there are 3 ways to do that.
Inside class $this->Another_Class = new Another_Class
Use static Another_Class::Wanted_Function()
Global global $Another_Class
May I ask in term of server performance, are they the same?? or do I have alternative except magic call?
I strongly suggest you do not use globals for anything.
As for whether to use static or instantiated classes... that's entirely up to what you're trying to do. A static member function is essentially the same as a namespaced function that has the ability to access other static member functions/variables.
Instantiating a class is technically slower than accessing a static class, but that's only the case if you have logic that is run when the __construct() and class variable initialization happens.
Globals should be avoided at all times, and static generally should be avoided too unless it is really necessary as they are not good for code reuse.
Also, you might want to take a look at such concepts as Inversion of Control and Dependency Injection.
In short you should prefer not to instantiate dependencies within class, but inject it.
Simple example:
class Example
{
protected $foo;
public function setFoo($foo)
{
$this->foo = $foo;
}
public function doSomething()
{
$this->foo->callFooMethod();
}
}
$example = new Example();
$example->setFoo(new Foo);
$example->doSomething();
Related
I am reviewing some code a colleague of mine has written and I am trying to wrap my head around his design. It appears they have a class that is mostly static, but has a private constructor method. Within the class, there are methods that then construct new objects from that same class. Is this considered an 'okay' practice? Or is this kind of a wonky way of doing a class?
Here's the abstract code:
class ABC
{
static public $PROP1 = 'car';
static public $PROP2 = 'blue';
static public $PROP3 = 'apple';
static public function method1($arg)
{
return new ABC($arg, true);
}
private function __construct($arg, $isFlag = false)
{
//Do stuff
}
}
Thanks for the help!
Whether it's OK or not depends on what the class is used for.
Anyway, the kind of architecture you're describing is sometimes used for different purposes. The Singleton pattern is a good application of such pratice.
This singleton pattern makes you having more control on the way your class needs to be expressed throughout your program.
let say you want to instanciate only 5 Objects of the same class, you can easily implements that with a counter in the static method.
That is sometimes called 'Factory pattern' as you will notice the way you manage the creation of instances (products).
If you had a family of objects that shared most of their state this may be a sane approach. I can't imagine a situation though that wouldn't be better just to abstract the shared state into it's own object and inject it into each of the new instances. IMHO public statics are almost as evil as globals.
This seems to be the so called factory pattern.
if you declare the constructor private you can not instanciate the class directly.
You have to use the public static methods to use such a class.
Patterns are really great! you should read something about them.
I'm studying this code:
http://www.w3style.co.uk/a-lightweight-and-flexible-front-controller-for-php-5
In it the author uses a static function to instantiate a class. I'm basically a beginner and I had never seen this. Why would one use a static instantiator rather than the usual constructor?
Here is the code:
index.php
<?php
define("PAGE_DIR", dirname(__FILE__) . "/pages");
require_once "FrontController.php";
FrontController::createInstance()->dispatch();
FrontController.php
<?php
class FrontController {
public static function createInstance() {
if (!defined("PAGE_DIR")) {
exit("Critical error: Cannot proceed without PAGE_DIR.");
}
$instance = new self();
return $instance;
}
public function dispatch() {....}
This is a workaround for PHP, since it is too dumb for stuff like this:
(new SomeClass())->doSomething();
Oneliners like that are impossible in native PHP. That is why some people wrap the instantiation of the class in a static method to make it possible:
SomeClass::create()->doSomething();
It helps to keep the scope clean, since you do not need extra variables. It would look like this, otherwise:
$instance = new SomeClass();
$instance->doSomething();
unset($instance);
EDIT: let me quote Gordon here (from the comments): "Static calls are the same as putting a function into the global scope. Calling it will always have a dependency on the global scope." You should be aware of this fact, as it makes your code less flexible.
The most common situations are where you want to create a singleton instance, or using a factory pattern.
PHP only allows one constructor, which means if you want to have more than one way to construct an object, mutliple static function are considered a valid solution. However, just having a static function that calls the constructor doesn't seem to make much sense.
For example, you could have a constructor that takes parameters for each property of the object. And a static function which takes just an id, and does a database call to retrieve all the properties to retrieve the object. This means you don't have to have all the database procedures in your calling code. The static function takes responsibility.
It is often suggested to make a seperate Factory class to do this, but I don't think that always makes sense. You should read in on the subject before making a decision if it makes sense for you.
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.
First of all, I do not want to extend a class. I would ideally like to do this.
public function __construct() {
/* Set Framework Variable */
global $Five;
$this =& $Five;
}
I have a system where the variable $Five is a container class which contains other libraries. I could assign this to a local variable of Five... i.e.
public function __construct() {
/* Set Framework Variable */
global $Five;
$this->Five = $Five;
}
However, the reason why I am trying to avoid this is that function calls would be getting a little long.
$this->Five->load->library('library_name');
Its a little ugly. Far better would be.
$this->load->library('library_name');
What is the best solution for this?
I think that
$this->Five->load->library('library_name');
is going to be your best option unless you decide to have the class extend the helper class. AKA
class Something extends Helper_Class
However, this means that Helper_Class is instantiated every time you instantiate a class.
Another method would be to have a pseudo-static class that assigned all of the helper classes to class members
public function setGlobals($five)
{
$this->loader = $five->loader;
}
Then just call it
public function __construct($five)
{
someClass::setGlobals($five);
}
If $Five is a global, you could just global $Five everytime you want to use it, but putting that at the top of every function just seems like bad coding.
Also, I'd just like to do my public service announcement that Global variables are generally a bad idea, and you might want to search 'Dependency Injection' or alternative to globals. AKA
public function __construct($five);
instead of
global $five;
Globals rely on an outside variable to be present and already set, while dependency injection requests a variable that it is assuming to be an instance of the Five class.
If you are running PHP 5.1 (Thanks Gordon), you can insure the variable is an instance of the FiveClass by doing this:
public function__construct(FiveClass $five);
$this is a reference to the current instance of the class you are defining. I do not believe you can assign to it. If Five is a global you ought to be able to just do this:
$Five->load->library('library_name');
You might wanna go with some kind of implementation of the dependency injection pattern:
Dependency injection (DI) in computer
programming refers to the process of
supplying an external dependency to a
software component. It is a specific
form of inversion of control where the
concern being inverted is the process
of obtaining the needed dependency.
See also the documentation for the symfony DI container. I can highly recommend this DI container implementation if you want to improve the way you handle your 'globals'.
You could also have a read of this question on 'best ways to access global objects'.
How about making the relevant data members and methods of Five static class members? This
$this->Five->load->library('library_name');
would become this
Five::load->library('library_name');
and you wouldn't have to pass &$Five around everywhere.
You cannot overwrite $this (like e.g. in C++) but you can easily build an aggregate using __call() for method calls and __get(), __set(), __isset() for properties.
Example for __call():
class Five {
public function bar() {
echo __METHOD__, " invoked\n";
}
}
class Foo {
protected $Five = null;
public function __construct(Five $five=null) {
if ( is_object($five) ) {
$this->Five = $five;
}
}
public function __call($name, $args) {
// there's no accessible method {$name} in the call context
// let's see if there is one for the object stored in $five
// and if there is, call it.
$ctx = array($this->Five, $name);
if ( !is_null($this->Five) && is_callable($ctx) ) {
return call_user_func_array($ctx, $args);
}
else {
// ....
}
}
}
$foo = new Foo(new Five);
$foo->bar();
prints Five::bar invoked.
In my opinion the biggest draw back is that it is much harder to see "from the outside" what the object is capable of.
I'm pretty sure you can't reassign $this, as it's one of those special things that looks like a variable in PHP, but is treated slightly differently behind the scenes.
If your concerns are the semantics of your method calling getting too long, I'd make load a method call instead of an object property
$this->load()->library('library_name');
public function load()
{
return $this->Five;
}
maybe better for you will be to use PHP Magic Methods?
http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.overloading.php#language.oop5.overloading.methods