I saw this code on a different question - 2nd answer link and the first comment was that it is a static factory anti-pattern and that it violates SRP:
class User {
public static function create($userid) {
// get user from the database
// set $isPartner to true or false
// set $isClient to true or false
// set $isModerator to true or false
if ($isPartner) {
return new Partner($userid);
} elseif ($isClient) {
return new Client($userid);
} elseif ($isModerator) {
return new Moderator($userid);
} else {
return new User($userid);
}
}
}
$person = User::create($userid);
Now I can understand why it violates SRP - because it deals with connecting to the database as well as building the new class, but besides that I'm not sure if I understand why it is an anti-pattern.
I wanted to write a bit of code that seemed quite similar to this so I am now wondering whether to avoid it, this is my code (in pseudo-code):
class DatabaseClass()
{
...deals with getting a result from the database...
}
abstract class User()
{
...base class for all users...
}
class AdminUser extends User(){}
class StaffUser extends User(){}
class BasicUser extends User(){}
class UserFactory()
{
function createUser($privilege)
{
if($privilege=="high")
return new AdminUser($privilege);
else if($privilege=="med")
return new StaffUser($privilege);
else
return new BasicUser($privilege);
}
$db=new DatabaseClass($username,$password);
$result=$db->getUser();
$userfactory=new UserFactory();
$user=$userfactory->createUser($result);
Now at the moment I am not using a static method but would my oop still be considered an anti-pattern?
Especially since I don't really see any difference in then doing something like this instead and it being pretty much the same thing:
$result=DatabaseClass::getUser($username,$password);
$user=UserFactory::createUser($result);
No, it's not an anti-pattern. Personally, I take the term "anti-pattern" with a grain of salt whenever I see it. It's far too easily tossed around by people who don't like your code but can't really articulate why.
The problem with a static factory is that any class which uses the factory must explicitly depend on it. That violates the principle that we should depend on abstractions rather than concretions (the 'D' in SOLID). This makes code using the factory harder to re-use and unit test. But keep in mind that the approach has benefits too. It's easier to write and easier to understand.
Your code is equivalent to a static factory method. The problem in both cases is that the caller must know the concrete class of the factory.
Your factory is not the issue, is the conection to the db i guess.
Other than that, you're using the factory method well.
Upon seen the edit, its for the best that you separate the data access from the factory.
It's not so much an "anti-pattern" as a bad idea from the maintenance perspective.
I would still be ok (not so good but still ok) if you had your data access code inside the factory as long as that code was in a separate class (that is reused across the application for data access) and you just call it to get something you need. In that case it'd be a combination of two patterns, a factory and a facade.
What i'd really pay attenntion to is to find out if the data isn't going to change during the session, if so just go one time to the db an keep the results. If you only create the User (or derived classes) once, make damm sure you only do it once.
That i think is more important that respecting patterns blindly.
PHP has functionality of dynamical class instantiation where class name that should be instantiated could be a variable. The following code works fine:
$classname='User';
$Object=new $classname; //instantiates new User()
This code instantiates that class whose name is stored in $classname variable.
I'm not so well with the Factory Pattern, however, if you want to have some benefit, it could abstract the creation based on persistence variation, e.g. if it's adapting the database for users or not.
class DatabaseUserFactory implements UserFactory
{
private $dbClass;
function __construct(DatabaseClass $dbClass)
{
$this->dbClass = $dbClass;
}
/**
* #return user
*/
function createUser()
{
$result = $db->getUser();
return $this->createUserByPrivilege($result->getPrivilege());
}
private function createUserByPrivilege($privilege)
{
if ($privilege == "high")
return new AdminUser($privilege);
else if ($privilege == "med")
return new StaffUser($privilege);
else
return new BasicUser($privilege);
}
}
$db = new DatabaseClass($username, $password);
$userfactory = new DatabaseUserFactory($db);
// ...
$user = $userfactory->createUser();
Related
I am wondering if such this subclassing structure is possible in PHP. If this is a duplicate I apologize as I couldn't figure out what this process would be called and the only I could find was a closed question with no answer.
I am working with multiple classes. For example we will say Main and User.
The Main class will hold all of the initiation code. So
class Main{
//Setters for core variables and data needed to make calls
...
protected function fetchInfo(){
//Do Stuff to return info from other source(Curl calls in my case)
}
}
and User
class User extends Main{
public function getName(){
$data = $this->fetchInfo();
return $data['name'];
}
}
But instead of having it where I would. Do $exampe1 = new Main(...); to set varaibles, and $example2 = new User(); to call the subclass to do $example2->getName(); is there a way to do something like $example = new Main(); whcih could then call the subclasses when needed like $example->User->getName();?
I know there are a lot of different ways this could be handled, but I want the classes separate for organization and I plan on having a lot of subclasses that need to pull info from that main class and would like to know if there is a way they can be linked in that fashion.
EDIT: The reason I dont want to just call User calls to get the function is I'll end up having 15+ classes that handle the returned data differently and making wonder if there was a better way than making a new Object for each one if I want to use it.
A "Main" is not a "User" so I would say this type of subclassing is a poor choice.
I might instead look at injection.
class MainDataHandler {
//...
}
class User {
private $main;
public function __construct(MainDataHandler $main) {
$this->main = $main;
}
public function getName() {
return $this->main->getData('name');
}
}
The benefits of injection is that your classes can work and be tested independently without dependencies on another class to do the work. Also if "Main" ever changes you your User class isn't dependent on how the new Main works.
I'm looking for some direction regarding the following, I'm new to OOP and getting there but think either my lack of understanding is causing me to get stuck in a rabbit hole or I'm just over thinking things too much and being anal.
basically i have a main class called "CurlRequest" which sole purpose is to perform curl requests, providing a url and params it returns me some html. This class works and functions as intended and I'm happy with that.
I use this class for a few projects but for one I then wanted to track the performance of my requests made. attempted, failed, passed etc, so i created a static class for this which manages all my counters. I place counter references like the following at different areas in my CurlRequest class.
PerformanceTracker::Increment('CurlRequest.Attempted');
PerformanceTracker::Increment('CurlRequest.Passed');
PerformanceTracker::Increment('CurlRequest.Failed');
I have around 10 or so of these with my class tracking all kinds of things during the curl request and i also use my PerformanceTracker class in other classes i made.
However like mentioned i only wanted to do this for one of my projects, so find my self in the situation of having my original CurlRequest class and an altered one with performance counters in it.
My question is, is their a way i can use the same class for any project and choose to use the PerformanceTracker class or not. The obvious way i thought of was to pass an $option argument into the class and then have if statements around all the counters, but can't help think its messy.
if ($this->options['perfCounter'] == true ) {
PerformanceTracker::Increment($this->owner . '.CurlRequest.Failed');
}
this also adds a lot of extra code to the class.
I suggest placing the if statement in a separate method
private function handlePerformanceTracker($q)
{
if ($this->options['perfCounter'] == true ) {
PerformanceTracker::Increment($q);
}
}
And call this method instead of your calls to
PerformanceTracker::Increment(...);
Also if you find that you want to track performance differently between your projects it might be useful to change your constructor to accept a callable argument, this way you externalize the actual implementation from the CurlRequest class itself.
public function __construct(..., callable performanceHandler)
Then when you instantiate your class:
$curlRequest = new CurlRequest(..., function($outcome) {
//your implementation
});
You can use inheritance and create a subclass that performs the logging before delegating to the parents methods:
class PerformanceTracker
{
static function Increment($s)
{
echo $s;
}
}
class CurlRequest
{
function get($url){
//preform curl request, save html to variable etc
//dummy vars used here so working example code
$html = 'html here';
$curlError = false;
if($curlError){
$this->error($curlError);
}
return $this->success($html);
}
protected function success($html)
{
return $html;
}
protected function error($curlError)
{
throw new Exception($curlError);
}
}
class LoggingCurlRequest extends CurlRequest
{
function get($url)
{
PerformanceTracker::Increment('CurlRequest.Attempted');
return parent::get($url);
}
function success($html)
{
PerformanceTracker::Increment('CurlRequest.Passed');
return parent::success($html);
}
function error($curlError)
{
PerformanceTracker::Increment('CurlRequest.Failed');
parent::error($curlError);
}
}
$lcr = new LoggingCurlRequest();
$lcr->get('unused in example');
As i have used dummy classes with minimal code to demo the technique the benefit might not be obvious, but in you real code, the methods in the CurlRequest class will be more complex, but the methods in the logging class will remain as two liners, with the log function and the call to the parent method.
Using this technique you can modify the parent class without effecting the derived classes (provided the method signatures dont change), can create other derived classes (how about a CachingCurlRequest) etc.
For the full benefits of OOP you should look into dependency injection and interfaces
From an OOP perspective you could use the 'Null' object pattern. This just means that the dependency used by the CurlRequest class is abstract (possibly an interface?). You would then have Two concrete implementations of PerformanceTracker: the one you have today and one that does nothing (it does not have any behavior). In this way for the one project when you instantiate the CurlRequest class it would use the concrete implementation that has behavior and for all the other projects it would use the concrete implementation with no behavior. All of the code in CurlRequest would look the same but it would have different behavior depending on which concrete implementation it was using
I'm a bit lost here because I want to do something that is very easy in Java but seems a bit complicated in PHP.
We are building an SDK for our product and in Java, we have this one class that must not (!) be instantiated by the user (i.e. the coder), since there are several constraints regarding it's integrity. So we've built that as a nested class "X" inside of the "XFactory" and you will get an instance of X by calling XFactory.buildMeMyX(); - Easy...
Now PHP does not support nested classes at all, and I wonder how to apply the same here. In Java, X's constructor is hidden (private), so only XFactory can call it.
In PHP, it looks like I will have to make __construct() public and move the nested class X out of XFactory. Hence, the user will be able to create an instance without the Factory.
Now - I COULD move the factory functionality to X itself and move all the stuff there, but this would kind of break the design of the SDK. Is there a useful way to do such things in PHP after all?
For PHP 5.x you already described your options, there are no private/protected classes or inner classes at all, so there is no further way to restrict instantiation.
However, with PHP 7 this is going to change.
There are still no nested classes (although we might get them in the future, see: https://stackoverflow.com/a/31454435/664108), but you could instantiate an anonymous class and only provide the consumer with its interface like this:
class XFactory
{
public function buildMeMyX()
{
return new class() implements XInterface {
public function doWhatEverAnXCanDo()
{
// X X X
}
// ...
};
}
}
interface XInterface
{
function doWhatEverAnXCanDo();
}
As the others have said, there currently is no clean way to implement this behavior in PHP. In my opinion, the only valid use case for private constructors are factories inside the class that implement that factories.
Whenever you try to get around that use case it gets messy. No one should ever try to invent clever ways to bypass PHP's language limiations.
I just violated that rule by myself just to prove it is indeed possible. But please refrain from using that in production, or better: using it anywhere. I will try to find some bulletproof arguments for that suggestion and edit the answer afterwards.
<?php
class Dependency {}
class SomeClass {
protected $dep;
private function __construct(Dependency $dep)
{
$this->dep = $dep;
}
public function doSomething()
{
var_dump($this->dep);
echo "Doing Stuff and even having dependencies";
}
}
class SomeClassFactory {
public function buildSomeClass()
{
return $this->instantiateSomeClassWith(new Dependency);
}
protected function instantiateSomeClassWith()
{
$reflectionClass = new ReflectionClass('SomeClass');
$someClass = $reflectionClass->newInstanceWithoutConstructor();
$constructor = $reflectionClass->getConstructor();
$constructorClosure = $constructor->getClosure($someClass);
call_user_func_array($constructorClosure, func_get_args());
return $someClass;
}
}
$factory = new SomeClassFactory();
$someClass = $factory->buildSomeClass();
$someClass->doSomething();
?>
Output: object(Dependency)#2 (0) { } Doing Stuff and even having dependencies
The theory is simple. The constructor of the class that will be built via the Factory is made private. We make use of reflection within the factory to create an instance of the class without invoking the constructor.
Once we have an instance, we grab the closure of the constructor and invoke it via call_user_func_array(). That way you can make use of Dependency Injection just as you would if the constructor was public.
As I said before. That way is a single smell. By creating an object without invoking it's constructor, there is no real way to validate an objects state upon creation
This is a proof of concept, but the concept sucks.
There is no native way to do so, yet. However, if you really want to "enforce" that your class is only created from your factory class, there is a little "hackish" way to do so limiting the instantiation by inistantiating class.
class X
{
function __construct()
{
new Y();
}
}
class Y
{
function __construct()
{
$trace = debug_backtrace(DEBUG_BACKTRACE_PROVIDE_OBJECT, 2);
if (!isset($trace[1]['object']) || !($trace[1]['object'] instanceof X)) {
throw new \RuntimeException('This is a private class');
}
}
}
new X(); // All is fine
new Y(); // Exception
Please note that there is no "real" way to protect the class from being instantiated from elsewhere even using this approach - it still can be done via reflection by bypassing the constructor, or simply modifying your source.
Lately I have been trying to create my own PHP framework, just to learn from it (As we may look into some bigger and more robust framework for production). One design concept I currently have, is that most core classes mainly work on static functions within classes.
Now a few days ago, I've seen a few articles about "Static methods are death to testability". This concerned me as.. yeah.. my classes contain mostly static methods.. The main reason I was using static methods is that a lot of classes would never need more than one instance, and static methods are easy to approach in the global scope. Now I'm aware that static methods aren't actually the best way to do things, I'm looking for a better alternative.
Imagine the following code to get a config item:
$testcfg = Config::get("test"); // Gets config from "test"
echo $testcfg->foo; // Would output what "foo" contains ofcourse.
/*
* We cache the newly created instance of the "test" config,
* so if we need to use it again anywhere in the application,
* the Config::get() method simply returns that instance.
*/
This is an example of what I currently have. But according to some articles, this is bad.
Now, I could do this the way how, for example, CodeIgniter does this, using:
$testcfg = $this->config->get("test");
echo $testcfg->foo;
Personally, I find this harder to read. That's why I would prefer another way.
So in short, I guess I need a better approach to my classes. I would not want more than one instance to the config class, maintain readability and have easy access to the class. Any ideas?
Note that I'm looking for some best practice or something including a code sample, not some random ideas. Also, if I'm bound to a $this->class->method style pattern, then would I implement this efficiently?
In response to Sébastien Renauld's comments: here's an article on Dependency Injection (DI) and Inversion of Control (IoC) with some examples, and a few extra words on the Hollywood principle (quite important when working on a framework).
Saying your classes won't ever need more than a single instance doesn't mean that statics are a must. Far from it, actually. If you browse this site, and read through PHP questions that deal with the singleton "pattern", you'll soon find out why singletons are a bit of a no-no.
I won't go into the details, but testing and singletons don't mix. Dependency injection is definitely worth a closer look. I'll leave it at that for now.
To answer your question:
Your exaple (Config::get('test')) implies you have a static property in the Config class somewhere. Now if you've done this, as you say, to facilitate access to given data, imagine what a nightmare it would be to debug your code, if that value were to change somewhere... It's a static, so change it once, and it's changed everywhere. Finding out where it was changed might be harder than you anticipated. Even so, that's nothing compared to the issues someone who uses your code will have in the same situation.
And yet, the real problems will only start when that person using your code wants to test whatever it is he/she made: If you want to have access to an instance in a given object, that has been instantiated in some class, there are plenty of ways to do so (especially in a framework):
class Application
{//base class of your framework
private $defaulDB = null;
public $env = null;
public function __construct($env = 'test')
{
$this->env = $env;
}
private function connectDB(PDO $connection = null)
{
if ($connection === null)
{
$connection = new PDO();//you know the deal...
}
$this->defaultDB = $connection;
}
public function getDB(PDO $conn = null)
{//get connection
if ($this->defaultDB === null)
{
$this->connectDB($conn);
}
return $this->defaultDB;
}
public function registerController(MyConstroller $controller)
{//<== magic!
$controller->registerApplication($this);
return $this;
}
}
As you can see, the Application class has a method that passes the Application instance to your controller, or whatever part of your framework you want to grant access to scope of the Application class.
Note that I've declared the defaultDB property as a private property, so I'm using a getter. I can, if I wanted to, pass a connection to that getter. There's a lot more you can do with that connection, of course, but I can't be bothered writing a full framework to show you everything you can do here :).
Basically, all your controllers will extend the MyController class, which could be an abstract class that looks like this:
abstract class MyController
{
private $app = null;
protected $db = null;
public function __construct(Application $app = null)
{
if ($app !== null)
{
return $this->registerApplication($app);
}
}
public function registerApplication(Application $app)
{
$this->app = $app;
return $this;
}
public function getApplication()
{
return $this->app;
}
}
So in your code, you can easily do something along the lines of:
$controller = new MyController($this);//assuming the instance is created in the Application class
$controller = new MyController();
$controller->registerApplication($appInstance);
In both cases, you can get that single DB instance like so:
$controller->getApplication()->getDB();
You can test your framework with easily by passing a different DB connection to the getDB method, if the defaultDB property hasn't been set in this case. With some extra work you can register multiple DB connections at the same time and access those at will, too:
$controller->getApplication->getDB(new PDO());//pass test connection here...
This is, by no means, the full explanation, but I wanted to get this answer in quite quickly before you end up with a huge static (and thus useless) codebase.
In response to comments from OP:
On how I'd tackle the Config class. Honestly, I'd pretty much do the same thing as I'd do with the defaultDB property as shown above. But I'd probably allow for more targeted control on what class gets access to what part of the config:
class Application
{
private $config = null;
public function __construct($env = 'test', $config = null)
{//get default config path or use path passed as argument
$this->config = new Config(parse_ini_file($config));
}
public function registerController(MyController $controller)
{
$controller->setApplication($this);
}
public function registerDB(MyDB $wrapper, $connect = true)
{//assume MyDB is a wrapper class, that gets the connection data from the config
$wrapper->setConfig(new Config($this->config->getSection('DB')));
$this->defaultDB = $wrapper;
return $this;
}
}
class MyController
{
private $app = null;
public function getApplication()
{
return $this->app;
}
public function setApplication(Application $app)
{
$this->app = $app;
return $this;
}
//Optional:
public function getConfig()
{
return $this->app->getConfig();
}
public function getDB()
{
return $this->app->getDB();
}
}
Those last two methods aren't really required, you could just as well write something like:
$controller->getApplication()->getConfig();
Again, this snippet is all a bit messy and incomplete, but it does go to show you that you can "expose" certain properties of one class, by passing a reference to that class to another. Even if the properties are private, you can use getters to access them all the same. You can also use various register-methods to control what it is the registered object is allowed to see, as I've done with the DB-wrapper in my snippet. A DB class shouldn't deal with viewscripts and namespaces, or autoloaders. That's why I'm only registering the DB section of the config.
Basically, a lot of your main components will end up sharing a number of methods. In other words, they'll end up implementing a given interface. For each main component (assuming the classic MVC pattern), you'll have one abstract base-class, and an inheritance chain of 1 or 2 levels of child classes: Abstract Controller > DefaultController > ProjectSpecificController.
At the same time, all of these classes will probably expect another instance to be passed to them when constructed. Just look at the index.php of any ZendFW project:
$application = new Zend_Application(APPLICATION_ENV);
$application->bootstrap()->run();
That's all you can see, but inside the application, all other classes are being instantiated. That's why you can access neigh on everything from anywhere: all classes have been instantiated inside another class along these lines:
public function initController(Request $request)
{
$this->currentController = $request->getController();
$this->currentController = new $this->currentController($this);
return $this->currentController->init($request)
->{$request->getAction().'Action'}();
}
By passing $this to the constructor of a controller class, that class can use various getters and setters to get to whatever it needs... Look at the examples above, it could use getDB, or getConfig and use that data if that's what it needs.
That's how most frameworks I've tinkered or worked with function: The application is kicks into action and determines what needs to be done. That's the Hollywood-principle, or Inversion of Control: the Application is started, and the application determines what classes it needs when. In the link I provided I believe this is compared to a store creating its own customers: the store is built, and decides what it wants to sell. In order to sell it, it will create the clients it wants, and provide them with the means they need to purchase the goods...
And, before I forget: Yes, all this can be done without a single static variable, let alone function, coming into play. I've built my own framework, and I've never felt there was no other way than to "go static". I did use the Factory pattern at first, but ditched it pretty quickly.
IMHO, a good framework is modular: you should be able to use bits of it (like Symfony's components), without issues. Using the Factory pattern makes you assume too much. You assume class X will be available, which isn't a given.
Registering those classes that are available makes for far more portable components. Consider this:
class AssumeFactory
{
private $db = null;
public function getDB(PDO $db = null)
{
if ($db === null)
{
$config = Factory::getConfig();//assumes Config class
$db = new PDO($config->getDBString());
}
$this->db = $db;
return $this->db;
}
}
As opposed to:
class RegisteredApplication
{//assume this is registered to current Application
public function getDB(PDO $fallback = null, $setToApplication = false)
{
if ($this->getApplication()->getDB() === null)
{//defensive
if ($setToApplication === true && $fallback !== null)
{
$this->getApplication()->setDB($fallback);
return $fallback;//this is current connection
}
if ($fallback === null && $this->getApplication()->getConfig() !== null)
{//if DB is not set #app, check config:
$fallback = $this->getApplication()->getConfig()->getSection('DB');
$fallback = new PDO($fallback->connString, $fallback->user, $fallback->pass);
return $fallback;
}
throw new RuntimeException('No DB connection set #app, no fallback');
}
if ($setToApplication === true && $fallback !== null)
{
$this->getApplication()->setDB($fallback);
}
return $this->getApplication()->getDB();
}
}
Though the latter version is slightly more work to write, it's quite clear which of the two is the better bet. The first version just assumes too much, and doesn't allow for safety-nets. It's also quite dictatorial: suppose I've written a test, and I need the results to go to another DB. I therefore need to change the DB connection, for the entire application (user input, errors, stats... they're all likely to be stored in a DB).
For those two reasons alone, the second snippet is the better candidate: I can pass another DB connection, that overwrites the application default, or, if I don't want to do that, I can either use the default connection, or attempt to create the default connection. Store the connection I just made, or not... the choice is entirely mine. If nothing works, I just get a RuntimeException thrown at me, but that's not the point.
Magic methods would help you: see the examples about __get() and __set()
You should also take a look at namespaces: it may help you to get rid of some classes with static methods only.
I have a DataMapperFactory and I think I am doing it correctly and it makes sense to have one but I have a DomainObjectFactory too but it just seems pointless. This is it:
namespace libs\factories;
use models as Models;
class DomainObjectFactory {
public function build($name) {
$className = 'Models\\' . $name;
return new className();
}
}
The only advantage I can see of this is that I am keeping the new operator from being present all over my code.
There has to be more to a DomainObjectFactory than this right?
Any help would be great thanks.
There are there major reasons to use factories:
1. Abstract the creation of object
This is one of the most useful structures in your architecture when it comes to unit testing. Having a factory be responsible for the creation of instance makes easier to introduce mocks when testing.
Also, as added benefit, your is not anymore tightly coupled to the name of the classes that you utilize.
2. Simplify instantiation
Here you have two aspect that you have to consider. First - the ability to instantiate different objects based on some condition - was already quite well described in helmbert's answer (+1 for him).
The other case is when you are instantiating domain objects, which more complex.
Something like this:
$employees = new EmployeeCollection;
$address = new Location;
$class = $type . `Company`;
$company = new $class( $employee, $address );
There is quite a lot to do before you can create an instance of HoldingCompany. But this whole process can be done withing the factory. Especially if your domain object factory makes a good use of correctly implemented DIC (which is quite rare, btw).
3. Prepare objects before they are released in the application
You should never do any computation in the constructor. It make impossible to test that code. Constructors should only contains simple variable assignments.
But this introduces an issue: sometimes you need to do few logical operations, before you can let other code structures to deal with your instantiated object. As beginners we usually do that in the constructor. But where to put it now?
This is where factories come to the rescue.
public function create( $name )
{
$instance = new $name;
if ( is_callable($instance, false, 'prepare') )
{
$instance->prepare();
}
return $instance;
}
Now, when you use $factory->create('foobar'), your object is fully primed to be used.
In general, you can use the factory to abstract from specific implementations. If you use the new <classname> operator, you instantiate a specific class every time. If you want to interchange this class with another implementation at a later time, you will have to manually change every new statement.
The factory pattern allows you to abstract from specific classes. A valid minimal use case might be something like this:
interface UserInterface {
public function getName();
}
class UserImplementationA implements UserInterface {
private $name;
public function getName() { return $this->name; }
}
class UserImplementationB implements UserInterface {
public function getName() { return "Fritz"; }
}
class UserFactory {
public function createUser() {
if (/* some condition */) return new UserImplementationA();
else return new UserImplementationB();
}
}
$f = new UserFactory();
$u = $f->createUser(); // At this point, you don't really have to care
// whether $u is an UserImplementationA or
// UserImplementationB, you can just treat it as
// an instance of UserInterface.
One use case (of many) when this becomes extremely useful is when working with unit tests. In Test-Driven Development, you often replace dependencies of classes with mock objects (objects that implement a certain interface, but don't really do anything). Using the factory pattern, it is quite easy to transparently substitute specific classes with mock classes.
public function build($name) {
$className = 'Models\\' . $name;
return new $className();
}
That would work for you.
Defining object factories is a good practice, when you would like to set some default properties to objects, and also, you will not have to worry in what namespace or directory some class exists.
Example:
public function createButton($name){
require("home/lib/display/Button.php") ;
$button = new Button($name, "some default param") ;
$button->visible = true ;
return $button ;
}
You just make default objects so quickly via such factories, besides keeping word new away.