Since PHP has no notion of properties like C# what is the best way to expose certain attributes of a class? Is it recommended to have separate get and set functions or should the member variable be made public?
I am designing a class whose objects will be contained in another class. There should be a way to set/get properties of the object.
On the whole I would recommend exposing public variables on your PHP class, except where you need to perform a more complex action, in which case you would use getter and setter functions.
So where you would use this in C#
public string MyProp { get; set; }
I would recommend this in PHP
public $MyProp;
Using public attribute or private with getter/setter will both do the trick.
I will proceed like this :
If the attribute is critical, use a getter and setter like this :
class myClass
{
private $myAttr;
public function getmyAttr()
{
return $this->myAttr;
}
public function setmyAttr($attr)
{
//Do some verification on $attr
$this->myAttr = $attr;
}
}
If the attribute is less critical , you could simply set is visibility to public.
Because of the lack of strong type in php i will always prefer the private attribute with getter and setter. it let you ensure that the attribute is always what it should be (not "1" instead of 1 for example).
It depends, it is not very rare to make attributes public which are not very security sensitive. But if you do want to keep them private you could create something like this:
class withAttributes{
private $property;
public function getPrivateProperty{
return $this->property;
}
}
In the other class:
$object = new withAttributes();
$attribute = $object->getPrivateProperty();
Hope this helps
There's no idiomatic way built in the language, however you could try using the magic __get and __set methods to emulate something simillar.
Consider this pretty dumb example:
Class Foo {
private $bar;
private $baz;
public function __get($name) {
if (property_exists($this, $name)) {
if ($name == 'bar') {
return strtoupper($this->{$name});
} else {
return $this->{$name};
}
}
return null; // this is what php would do, consider throwning an exception instead
}
public function __set($name, $value) {
if (property_exists($this, $name)) {
if ($name == 'bar') {
$this->{$name} = strtolower($value);
} else {
$this->{$name} = $value;
}
}
// we just ignore this call, consider throwing exceptions, or you could make the class open to property addition in runtime too
}
}
$f = new Foo;
$f->bar = 'tickle me elmo';
print $f->bar; // prints uppercase
This way later on, if you decide to implement some read/write logic, you can hook it in the magic methods. From performance standpoint, these magic methods are slower than ordinary method calls, also arguably more surprising for the users of these classes than explicit getter/setter methods.
If you want to create something more like the built-in StdObject or basic array consider implementing the ArrayAccess interface for the [] syntax.
Related
I'm starting to work with classes in PHP.
I have been reading and I noticed PHP is all about arrays.
So I was wondering if it would be a good practice to use the class properties inside array and naming them after keys.
Like this:
private $prefix;
private $name;
public function setPrefix($p)
{
$this->prefix = $p;
}
public function getPrefix()
{
return $this->prefix;
}
public function setName($n)
{
$this->name = $n;
}
public function getName()
{
return $this->name;
}
That's the common way of doing this.
But instead do it like this:
private $data = array();
public function setData($property, $value)
{
$this->data[$property] = $value;
}
public function getData($property)
{
return $this->data[$property];
}
Would this be better than the common way? I believe that would be a generic class structure for any database table.
Would this be better than the common way?
NO. And in fact it have drawbacks.
It removes the public, protected and private encapsulation of your properties (which is in the essence of oop).
Adds a layer over every variable access. I don't really know the internals of php, but I really don't think it could be faster than native properties. (although the difference is probably absolutely irrelevant to any script)
IDE's won't be able to complete your code when accessing properties.
It can have it's uses, if your class is a container which needs to have an array of internal data, in which case you would class container implements ArrayAccess and use it like an array, instead of global get/set methods. Here the documentation for ArrayAccess()
$obj = new container();
$obj['key'] = "value";
echo $obj['key'];
Bottom line
Why try and reinvent the wheel? A property is a property. There is no logical or semantical improvement in wrapping every property inside another property. It's obsfucating everything. It won't be faster, it won't be clearer, it removes the oop concepts from your properties and it's just going against the current of using objects in the first place.
About easier database management
If you really want to easily pass an array to a prepared statement, you can get the properties of an object with get_object_vars($obj), no need to put them in an array before for this very purpose. Moreover, as noted by Cypher, you won't be able to use the built-in fetchObject() method, which completely nullify the time you will not have gained by having an easier time querying the database.
This will make it easy to automate DB Operations.
But will make it hard for to use the object by humans.
Yii(2) uses this setup as part of there ActiveRecords but extend it by
defining the properties as a comment
/**
* #property int $id
* #property string $name
*/
class SomeClass extends AbstractModel
And also implements magic methods: __get(), __set()` so you can easily set and get properties like this:
class AbstractModel{
public function __get($name){
if(isset($this->data[$name])){
return $this->data[$name];
}else{
throw new Exception("Undefined or property '$name'");
}
}
public function __set($name, $value){
if(isset($this->data[$name])){
return $this->data[$name] = $value;
}else{
throw new Exception("Undefined or property '$name'");
}
}
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Are Magic Methods Best practice in PHP?
These are simple examples, but imagine you have more properties than two in your class.
What would be best practice?
a) Using __get and __set
class MyClass {
private $firstField;
private $secondField;
public function __get($property) {
if (property_exists($this, $property)) {
return $this->$property;
}
}
public function __set($property, $value) {
if (property_exists($this, $property)) {
$this->$property = $value;
}
}
}
$myClass = new MyClass();
$myClass->firstField = "This is a foo line";
$myClass->secondField = "This is a bar line";
echo $myClass->firstField;
echo $myClass->secondField;
/* Output:
This is a foo line
This is a bar line
*/
b) Using traditional setters and getters
class MyClass {
private $firstField;
private $secondField;
public function getFirstField() {
return $this->firstField;
}
public function setFirstField($firstField) {
$this->firstField = $firstField;
}
public function getSecondField() {
return $this->secondField;
}
public function setSecondField($secondField) {
$this->secondField = $secondField;
}
}
$myClass = new MyClass();
$myClass->setFirstField("This is a foo line");
$myClass->setSecondField("This is a bar line");
echo $myClass->getFirstField();
echo $myClass->getSecondField();
/* Output:
This is a foo line
This is a bar line
*/
In this article: http://blog.webspecies.co.uk/2011-05-23/the-new-era-of-php-frameworks.html
The author claims that using magic methods is not a good idea:
First of all, back then it was very popular to use PHP’s magic functions (__get, __call etc.). There is nothing wrong with them from a first look, but they are actually really dangerous. They make APIs unclear, auto-completion impossible and most importantly they are slow. The use case for them was to hack PHP to do things which it didn’t want to. And it worked. But made bad things happen.
But I would like to hear more opinions about this.
I have been exactly in your case in the past. And I went for magic methods.
This was a mistake, the last part of your question says it all :
this is slower (than getters/setters)
there is no auto-completion (and this is a major problem actually), and type management by the IDE for refactoring and code-browsing (under Zend Studio/PhpStorm this can be handled with the #property phpdoc annotation but that requires to maintain them: quite a pain)
the documentation (phpdoc) doesn't match how your code is supposed to be used, and looking at your class doesn't bring much answers as well. This is confusing.
added after edit: having getters for properties is more consistent with "real" methods where getXXX() is not only returning a private property but doing real logic. You have the same naming. For example you have $user->getName() (returns private property) and $user->getToken($key) (computed). The day your getter gets more than a getter and needs to do some logic, everything is still consistent.
Finally, and this is the biggest problem IMO : this is magic. And magic is very very bad, because you have to know how the magic works to use it properly. That's a problem I've met in a team: everybody has to understand the magic, not just you.
Getters and setters are a pain to write (I hate them) but they are worth it.
You only need to use magic if the object is indeed "magical". If you have a classic object with fixed properties then use setters and getters, they work fine.
If your object have dynamic properties for example it is part of a database abstraction layer, and its parameters are set at runtime then you indeed need the magic methods for convenience.
I use __get (and public properties) as much as possible, because they make code much more readable. Compare:
this code unequivocally says what i'm doing:
echo $user->name;
this code makes me feel stupid, which i don't enjoy:
function getName() { return $this->_name; }
....
echo $user->getName();
The difference between the two is particularly obvious when you access multiple properties at once.
echo "
Dear $user->firstName $user->lastName!
Your purchase:
$product->name $product->count x $product->price
"
and
echo "
Dear " . $user->getFirstName() . " " . $user->getLastName() . "
Your purchase:
" . $product->getName() . " " . $product->getCount() . " x " . $product->getPrice() . " ";
Whether $a->b should really do something or just return a value is the responsibility of the callee. For the caller, $user->name and $user->accountBalance should look the same, although the latter may involve complicated calculations. In my data classes i use the following small method:
function __get($p) {
$m = "get_$p";
if(method_exists($this, $m)) return $this->$m();
user_error("undefined property $p");
}
when someone calls $obj->xxx and the class has get_xxx defined, this method will be implicitly called. So you can define a getter if you need it, while keeping your interface uniform and transparent. As an additional bonus this provides an elegant way to memorize calculations:
function get_accountBalance() {
$result = <...complex stuff...>
// since we cache the result in a public property, the getter will be called only once
$this->accountBalance = $result;
}
....
echo $user->accountBalance; // calculate the value
....
echo $user->accountBalance; // use the cached value
Bottom line: php is a dynamic scripting language, use it that way, don't pretend you're doing Java or C#.
I vote for a third solution. I use this in my projects and Symfony uses something like this too:
public function __call($val, $x) {
if(substr($val, 0, 3) == 'get') {
$varname = strtolower(substr($val, 3));
}
else {
throw new Exception('Bad method.', 500);
}
if(property_exists('Yourclass', $varname)) {
return $this->$varname;
} else {
throw new Exception('Property does not exist: '.$varname, 500);
}
}
This way you have automated getters (you can write setters too), and you only have to write new methods if there is a special case for a member variable.
I do a mix of edem's answer and your second code. This way, I have the benefits of common getter/setters (code completion in your IDE), ease of coding if I want, exceptions due to inexistent properties (great for discovering typos: $foo->naem instead of $foo->name), read only properties and compound properties.
class Foo
{
private $_bar;
private $_baz;
public function getBar()
{
return $this->_bar;
}
public function setBar($value)
{
$this->_bar = $value;
}
public function getBaz()
{
return $this->_baz;
}
public function getBarBaz()
{
return $this->_bar . ' ' . $this->_baz;
}
public function __get($var)
{
$func = 'get'.$var;
if (method_exists($this, $func))
{
return $this->$func();
} else {
throw new InexistentPropertyException("Inexistent property: $var");
}
}
public function __set($var, $value)
{
$func = 'set'.$var;
if (method_exists($this, $func))
{
$this->$func($value);
} else {
if (method_exists($this, 'get'.$var))
{
throw new ReadOnlyException("property $var is read-only");
} else {
throw new InexistentPropertyException("Inexistent property: $var");
}
}
}
}
Second code example is much more proper way to do this because you are taking full control of data which are given to class.
There are cases in which the __set and __get are useful but not in this case.
You should use stdClass if you want magic members, if you write a class - define what it contains.
The best practice would be to use traditionnal getters and setters, because of introspection or reflection. There is a way in PHP (exactly like in Java) to obtain the name of a method or of all methods. Such a thing would return "__get" in the first case and "getFirstField", "getSecondField" in the second (plus setters).
More on that: http://php.net/manual/en/book.reflection.php
I am now returning to setters and getters but I am also putting the getters and setters in the magic methos __get and __set. This way I have a default behavior when I do this
$class->var;
This will just call the getter I have set in the __get. Normally I will just use the getter directly but there are still some instances where this is just simpler.
Is it a good idea to create objects that cannot be changed in PHP?
For example a date object which has setter methods, but they will always return a new instance of the object (with the modified date).
Would these objects be confusing to other people that use the class, because in PHP you usually expect the object to change?
Example
$obj = new Object(2);
$x = $obj->add(5); // 7
$y = $obj->add(2); // 4
Immutable objects don't have setter methods. Period.
Everyone will expect a setXyz() method to have a void return type (or return nothing in loosely typed languages). If you do add setter methods to your immutable object it will confuse the hell out of people and lead to ugly bugs.
In my opinion objects should be immutable for value objects. Other than that it does not have much benefits unless you're sharing your object across your whole application.
There is some wrong answers here, an immutable object can have setters. Here's some implementation of immutable objects in PHP.
Example #1.
class ImmutableValueObject
{
private $val1;
private $val2;
public function __construct($val1, $val2)
{
$this->val1 = $val1;
$this->val2 = $val2;
}
public function getVal1()
{
return $this->val1;
}
public function getVal2()
{
return $this->val2;
}
}
As you can see once instantiated you cannot changed any value.
Example 2: with setters:
class ImmutableValueObject
{
private $val1;
private $val2;
public function __construct($val1, $val2)
{
$this->val1 = $val1;
$this->val2 = $val2;
}
public function getVal1()
{
return $this->val1;
}
public function withVal1($val1)
{
$copy = clone $this;
$copy->val1 = $val1;
return $copy; // here's the trick: you return a new instance!
}
public function getVal2()
{
return $this->val2;
}
public function withVal2($val2)
{
$copy = clone $this;
$copy->val2 = $val2;
return $copy;
}
}
There is several implementation possible and this is by no means an exclusive list. And remember that with Reflection there is always a way to get around that in PHP, so immutability is all in your head in the end!
It is also often good practice to put immutable objects as final.
EDIT:
changed setX for withX
added comment about final
An immutable object cannot be changed after its initial creation so having setter methods makes no sense as it goes against that base principle.
You could implement some workarounds to simulate immutability in PHP by manipulating class member visibility and overriding the magic __set() method but its not guaranteed immutable as immutability is not a feature of the PHP language.
I believe someone once wrote an extension to provide an immutable value type in PHP though so you could google for that.
Making object immutable in PHP is pretty easy. Here is an elegant and convenient approach.
All you need to do is to create the base abstract class with the specific __get() and __set() magic methods and extend this base class in the child object.
This is quite applicable if you use value objects (e.g. for DDD).
Here is the base class:
abstract class BaseValueObject
{
public function __get(string $propertyName)
{
return $this->$propertyName;
}
public function __set(string $propertyName, $value): void
{
throw new \Exception("Cannot set property {$propertyName}. The object is immutable.");
}
}
Now a child object (well, its class).
class CategoryVO extends BaseValueObject
{
public $id;
public $name;
public function __construct(array $data)
{
$this->id = $data['id'];
$this->name = $data['name'];
}
}
It would throw an exception at attempt to set some value. Basically it is immutable.
This is it.
Make as many immutable objects as you need. Create the new objects via constructor. Dispose them and re-create the new ones when needed (add a specific creator method if required, a static or an instance one, to the base class or to the extended one).
Yet such an object would conveniently expose all its properties as read-only (for some kind of serialization or the like), unlike if we would have made them private (but even though we could use JsonSerializable interface to make the serialization as flexible as we need with private properties or even more drastic transformations).
Finally one cannot mistakenly instantiate BaseValueObject as it is an abstract class. From all standpoints nice elegant solution.
I made a little trait avoiding using Reflection to ease the implementation of immutability: https://github.com/jclaveau/php-immutable-trait
Obviously, as it's not a language feature, it won't impeach mutation by magic but lighten the code of the mutators that must clone the current instance before being applied. Applied to Massimiliano's example it would produce
class ImmutableValueObject
{
use JClaveau\Traits\Immutable;
private $val1;
private $val2;
public function __construct($val1, $val2)
{
$this->val1 = $val1;
$this->val2 = $val2;
}
public function getVal1()
{
return $this->val1;
}
public function withVal1($val1)
{
// Just add these lines at the really beginning of methods supporting
// immutability ("setters" mostly)
if ($this->callOnCloneIfImmutable($result))
return $result;
// Write your method's body as if you weren't in an Immutable class
$this->val1 = $val1;
return $this;
}
public function getVal2()
{
return $this->val2;
}
public function withVal2($val2)
{
if ($this->callOnCloneIfImmutable($result))
return $result;
$this->val2 = $val2;
return $this;
}
}
You can see that you don't return $copy here but $this as Kanstantsin K noticed.
In native PHP https://secure.php.net/manual/en/class.datetimeimmutable.php has mutators that will return new instances with modification applied. So copy pasting sentences saying that immutable objects shouldn't have mutators doesn't seem super interesting.
The practice of using "withXXX" instead of "setXXX" is super interesting, thanks for the suggestion! I personnaly used "becomesXXX" for the api chainging the mutability of the instance (optionnal API in the trait SwitchableMutability).
Hoping it can help some people here!
PS: Suggestions on this little feature are really welcome :) : https://github.com/jclaveau/php-immutable-trait/issues
From an immutable object, you can get its values but there is no way to modify them. Here you can see an example of an immutable class:
<?php
declare(strict_types=1);
final class Immutable
{
/** #var string */
private $value;
public static function withValue(string $value): self
{
return new self($value);
}
public function __construct(string $value)
{
$this->value = $value;
}
public function value(): string
{
return $this->value;
}
}
// Example of usage:
$immutable = Immutable::withValue("my value");
$immutable->value();
If you want setters on a class and object this is perfectly fine, we do this all of the time as we need to set object data. Just simply don't call it immutable.
Many things in the dev world are subjective - our approaches, methodology etc - but "immutable" is a pretty solid definition:
"Immutable":
- Unchanging over time or unable to be changed.
If you want an immutable object it means it cannot be changed after instantiation. This is good for things such as data from a DB that needs to remain set in stone for the duration of the cycle.
If you need to call the object and set or change data on it after instantiation, this is not an immutable object.
Would you take 2 wheels off a car and calling it a motorbike?
There is some talk about methods on an "immutable" class being named without the word "set", but this doesn't stop the functionality of them being a method that sets data. You could call it thisDoesNotSetAnything(int $id) and allow data to be passed in which changes the object. It'll be a setter, and thus the object is mutable.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Are Magic Methods Best practice in PHP?
These are simple examples, but imagine you have more properties than two in your class.
What would be best practice?
a) Using __get and __set
class MyClass {
private $firstField;
private $secondField;
public function __get($property) {
if (property_exists($this, $property)) {
return $this->$property;
}
}
public function __set($property, $value) {
if (property_exists($this, $property)) {
$this->$property = $value;
}
}
}
$myClass = new MyClass();
$myClass->firstField = "This is a foo line";
$myClass->secondField = "This is a bar line";
echo $myClass->firstField;
echo $myClass->secondField;
/* Output:
This is a foo line
This is a bar line
*/
b) Using traditional setters and getters
class MyClass {
private $firstField;
private $secondField;
public function getFirstField() {
return $this->firstField;
}
public function setFirstField($firstField) {
$this->firstField = $firstField;
}
public function getSecondField() {
return $this->secondField;
}
public function setSecondField($secondField) {
$this->secondField = $secondField;
}
}
$myClass = new MyClass();
$myClass->setFirstField("This is a foo line");
$myClass->setSecondField("This is a bar line");
echo $myClass->getFirstField();
echo $myClass->getSecondField();
/* Output:
This is a foo line
This is a bar line
*/
In this article: http://blog.webspecies.co.uk/2011-05-23/the-new-era-of-php-frameworks.html
The author claims that using magic methods is not a good idea:
First of all, back then it was very popular to use PHP’s magic functions (__get, __call etc.). There is nothing wrong with them from a first look, but they are actually really dangerous. They make APIs unclear, auto-completion impossible and most importantly they are slow. The use case for them was to hack PHP to do things which it didn’t want to. And it worked. But made bad things happen.
But I would like to hear more opinions about this.
I have been exactly in your case in the past. And I went for magic methods.
This was a mistake, the last part of your question says it all :
this is slower (than getters/setters)
there is no auto-completion (and this is a major problem actually), and type management by the IDE for refactoring and code-browsing (under Zend Studio/PhpStorm this can be handled with the #property phpdoc annotation but that requires to maintain them: quite a pain)
the documentation (phpdoc) doesn't match how your code is supposed to be used, and looking at your class doesn't bring much answers as well. This is confusing.
added after edit: having getters for properties is more consistent with "real" methods where getXXX() is not only returning a private property but doing real logic. You have the same naming. For example you have $user->getName() (returns private property) and $user->getToken($key) (computed). The day your getter gets more than a getter and needs to do some logic, everything is still consistent.
Finally, and this is the biggest problem IMO : this is magic. And magic is very very bad, because you have to know how the magic works to use it properly. That's a problem I've met in a team: everybody has to understand the magic, not just you.
Getters and setters are a pain to write (I hate them) but they are worth it.
You only need to use magic if the object is indeed "magical". If you have a classic object with fixed properties then use setters and getters, they work fine.
If your object have dynamic properties for example it is part of a database abstraction layer, and its parameters are set at runtime then you indeed need the magic methods for convenience.
I use __get (and public properties) as much as possible, because they make code much more readable. Compare:
this code unequivocally says what i'm doing:
echo $user->name;
this code makes me feel stupid, which i don't enjoy:
function getName() { return $this->_name; }
....
echo $user->getName();
The difference between the two is particularly obvious when you access multiple properties at once.
echo "
Dear $user->firstName $user->lastName!
Your purchase:
$product->name $product->count x $product->price
"
and
echo "
Dear " . $user->getFirstName() . " " . $user->getLastName() . "
Your purchase:
" . $product->getName() . " " . $product->getCount() . " x " . $product->getPrice() . " ";
Whether $a->b should really do something or just return a value is the responsibility of the callee. For the caller, $user->name and $user->accountBalance should look the same, although the latter may involve complicated calculations. In my data classes i use the following small method:
function __get($p) {
$m = "get_$p";
if(method_exists($this, $m)) return $this->$m();
user_error("undefined property $p");
}
when someone calls $obj->xxx and the class has get_xxx defined, this method will be implicitly called. So you can define a getter if you need it, while keeping your interface uniform and transparent. As an additional bonus this provides an elegant way to memorize calculations:
function get_accountBalance() {
$result = <...complex stuff...>
// since we cache the result in a public property, the getter will be called only once
$this->accountBalance = $result;
}
....
echo $user->accountBalance; // calculate the value
....
echo $user->accountBalance; // use the cached value
Bottom line: php is a dynamic scripting language, use it that way, don't pretend you're doing Java or C#.
I vote for a third solution. I use this in my projects and Symfony uses something like this too:
public function __call($val, $x) {
if(substr($val, 0, 3) == 'get') {
$varname = strtolower(substr($val, 3));
}
else {
throw new Exception('Bad method.', 500);
}
if(property_exists('Yourclass', $varname)) {
return $this->$varname;
} else {
throw new Exception('Property does not exist: '.$varname, 500);
}
}
This way you have automated getters (you can write setters too), and you only have to write new methods if there is a special case for a member variable.
I do a mix of edem's answer and your second code. This way, I have the benefits of common getter/setters (code completion in your IDE), ease of coding if I want, exceptions due to inexistent properties (great for discovering typos: $foo->naem instead of $foo->name), read only properties and compound properties.
class Foo
{
private $_bar;
private $_baz;
public function getBar()
{
return $this->_bar;
}
public function setBar($value)
{
$this->_bar = $value;
}
public function getBaz()
{
return $this->_baz;
}
public function getBarBaz()
{
return $this->_bar . ' ' . $this->_baz;
}
public function __get($var)
{
$func = 'get'.$var;
if (method_exists($this, $func))
{
return $this->$func();
} else {
throw new InexistentPropertyException("Inexistent property: $var");
}
}
public function __set($var, $value)
{
$func = 'set'.$var;
if (method_exists($this, $func))
{
$this->$func($value);
} else {
if (method_exists($this, 'get'.$var))
{
throw new ReadOnlyException("property $var is read-only");
} else {
throw new InexistentPropertyException("Inexistent property: $var");
}
}
}
}
Second code example is much more proper way to do this because you are taking full control of data which are given to class.
There are cases in which the __set and __get are useful but not in this case.
You should use stdClass if you want magic members, if you write a class - define what it contains.
The best practice would be to use traditionnal getters and setters, because of introspection or reflection. There is a way in PHP (exactly like in Java) to obtain the name of a method or of all methods. Such a thing would return "__get" in the first case and "getFirstField", "getSecondField" in the second (plus setters).
More on that: http://php.net/manual/en/book.reflection.php
I am now returning to setters and getters but I am also putting the getters and setters in the magic methos __get and __set. This way I have a default behavior when I do this
$class->var;
This will just call the getter I have set in the __get. Normally I will just use the getter directly but there are still some instances where this is just simpler.
I'm learning Prado php framework for a while now, and I've been wondering about one feature, if it's from PHP or somehow implemented in Prado.
Namely, classes used in Prado can utilize properties (fields) that aren't declared in the class itself, but 'defined' by set and get methods.
Here's an example:
class myClass extends somePradoClass {
public function myPradoMethod() {
$MyVariable = 22;
echo $MyOtherVariable; // this one is read only (only get method defined)
}
public function getMyVariable() {
return 0;
}
public function setMyVariable($value) {
$this->isFieldFromParentClass = $value;
}
public function getMyOtherVariable() {
return $this->isOtherFieldFromParentClass;
}
}
Now, somehow it is perfectly fine to use $MyVariable and $MyOtherVariable throughout the class, as if they were declared as class properties.
So, question again: is this a PHP or Prado feature?
Thx
This is neither a PHP feature nor a Prado feature.
I don't know Prado, but PHP has not such feature, so Prado can't have it either ;)
What you are looking for however, are things such as this: $this->myUndefinedMember = $something
Your example uses local variables, these cannot be set and read from automagically.
This will invoke the magic __set method, if defined that is.
Prado could (I don't know if it does) define this method for a certain superclass that you usually use and then dynamically check whether a setter method has been defined for that variable name.
The signature is as follows:
public function __set($name, $value)
The maigc method __get($name) works analogously.
If you do not set it as public, you will only be able to use this property-like feature from within the class( or subclasses).
As a reference, see here on PHP5's feature or overloading properties and methods.
Update
A sample implementation could look like this:
class MyMagicSuperClass{
public function __get($name){
$getter_name = 'get'.ucwords($name);
if(method_exists($this, $getter_name){
return $this->$getter_name();
}
//error handling
}
public function __set($name, $value){
$setter_name = 'get'.ucwords($name);
if(method_exists($this, $setter_name){
return $this->$setter_name($value);
}
//error handling
}
}
I answer very late to this but I felt the answers posed very confusing to a simple feature.
To give a much simpler answer. Any Prado classes that inherits from TComponent use the __set and __get functions.
More about php magic functions here
So if u have a function that starts with "get" or "set" they will be called when use the rest of the function name as fields.
This is the actual prado code for __get the __set is about the same
public function __get($name)
{
$getter='get'.$name; $jsgetter = 'getjs'.$name;
if(method_exists($this,$getter))
{
// getting a property
return $this->$getter();
}
else if(method_exists($this,$jsgetter))
{
// getting a property
return (string)$this->$jsgetter();
}
else if(strncasecmp($name,'on',2)===0 && method_exists($this,$name))
{
// getting an event (handler list)
$name=strtolower($name);
if(!isset($this->_e[$name]))
$this->_e[$name]=new TList;
return $this->_e[$name];
}
else
{
throw new TInvalidOperationException('component_property_undefined',get_class($this),$name);
}
}