I recently began to develop in php5 in an object oriented way and I'm stuck at something. I would really appreciate your help/recommendations.
Bear with me in this since it ended up in a mess :-(
This is my scenario (hope I can elaborate on this clearly): I have two dynamic classes, Client and Supplier which use methods of a static class called Vocabulary. Vocabulary is a class that pulls vocabulary terms from a source which can be: plain text file, mongodb database or mysql database. An entry in a configuration file determines which of the
aforementioned three types of sources the application will use.
class Client {
public function foo() {
...
Vocabulary::getTerm();
...
}
...
}
class Supplier {
public function bar() {
...
Vocabulary::getTerm();
...
}
...
}
class Vocabulary {
public static function useVocab($vocab) {
$_SESSION['vocab'] = $vocab;
}
public static function getTerm($termKey) {...}
...
}
I planned to create Vocabulary child classes for each of the types I want to support, for example: Vocabulary_file, Vocabulary_mongodb and Vocabulary_mysql.
Vocabulary_file will override its parent useVocab() because it needs to perform additional operations appart from setting the $_SESSION variable, but
Vocabulary_mongodb and Vocabulary_mysql don't need to override their useVocab() parent method (they just need the $_SESSION variable set).
All three Vocabulary "child" classes will override getTerm() method.
The following is what I tried and this is the mess I ended up with :-(
For Vocabulary_mongodb and Vocabulary_mysql, since useVocab() doesn't exist but is inherited from Vocabulary, "method_exists()" returns true and that call
causes an infinite loop.
I looks weird both calling the child explicitly in Vocabulary and calling the parent:: in the child class.
After lots of cups of coffee I have exhausted all my wits and my brain is damaged.
// Class Vocabulary modified to make it call the desired "child" class too
class Vocabulary {
// This would execute "child" class method
private static function _callChild($method, $args) {
$child_class = 'Vocabulary_' . Config::$vocab['type']; // Config::$vocab['type'] can be: file, mongodb or mysql
if (method_exists($child_class, $method)) {
return call_user_func_array($child_class . '::' . $method, $args);
} else {
return false;
}
}
public static function useVocab($vocab) {
$_SESSION['vocab'] = $vocab;
self::_callChild(__FUNCTION__, compact('vocab'));
}
public static function getTerm($termKey) {
$termKey = strtolower($termKey);
self::_callChild(__FUNCTION__, compact('termKey'));
}
...
}
class Vocabulary_file extends Vocabulary {
public static function useVocab($vocab) {
parent::useVocab($vocab);
// some specific stuff here
}
public static function getTerm($termKey) {
parent::getTerm($termKey);
// some specific stuff here
}
}
class Vocabulary_mongodb extends Vocabulary {
public static function getTerm($termKey) {
parent::getTerm($termKey);
// some specific stuff here
}
}
class Vocabulary_mysql extends Vocabulary {
public static function getTerm($termKey) {
parent::getTerm($termKey);
// some specific stuff here
}
}
I would like to know how can I design the Vocabulary classes in order to keep the Vocabulary::... like calls in Client and Supplier and let Vocabulary know which child class use for the type configured in "Config" class.
Any advice will be greatly appreciated.
Cheers
If you're using all static methods, you may as well not use OOP at all, it's basically all just global function calls. If you want inheritance with polymorphism to work, you pretty much need to instantiate your classes. The polymorphism then comes from the fact that the instantiated objects can be anything, but you're calling the same methods on them. E.g.:
abstract class Vocabulary {
abstract public function getTerm($termKey);
}
class Vocabulary_File extends Vocabulary {
public function getTerm($termKey) {
// get from file
}
}
class Vocabulary_MySQL extends Vocabulary {
public function getTerm($termKey) {
// get from database
}
}
You can use this polymorphic like this:
if (mt_rand(0, 1)) {
$vocab = new Vocabulary_File;
} else {
$vocab = new Vocabulary_MySQL;
}
// This call is polymorphic.
// What exactly it does depends on which class was instantiated.
$vocab->getTerm('foo');
This is how polymorphism is really useful. The interface (getTerm($termKey)) is defined and unchanging between classes, but the specific implementation changes. If your code is hardcoding calls to Vocabulary::getTerm(), that's not polymorphism. With your structure you're also violating an important OO design rule: The parent does not know about its children, and it does not interact with its children. The children override functionality of the parent, not the other way around.
You also shouldn't use the $_SESSION as a form of global storage. Keep objects self contained.
The keyword self suffers from inability to handle 'late-static-binding'. Basically, in the parent class, self thinks it's the parent class when it's inside it's own static functions (since self is still evaluated at compile time for legacy reasons).
You need to use static instead of self in the parent class (assuming you have php 5.3 or higher).
BTW: the parent keyword functions as you'd expect as the parent has to be known at compile time anyhow.
Here's an example:
public static function getTerm($termKey) {
$termKey = strtolower($termKey);
static::_callChild(__FUNCTION__, compact('termKey'));
}
If you're using php 5.2 and earlier, you have to try a hack around, like require all child classes to have static functions that return their class name. I hope you're on php 5.3 or higher...
Related
So let's say I have classes called parent and child, which will be then used from PHP file called caller.php
class Child extends Parent {
}
class Parent {
public function parentMethod(){
}
}
caller.php
PREVENTED:
$child = new Child();
$child->parentMethod();
ALLOWED:
$parent = new Parent();
$parent->parentMethod();
I want to prevent calling parentMethod like this. But if I created Parent object I want to be able to call the parentMethod. Is there some way that I can use to hide this method from being public in Child class, but still allowing parent object to call this method publicly?
Only solution I have come up with so far is making those methods protected and then creating an other class that would extend parent and then have public method for each function that it needs, but that doesn't sound very smart.
Actually, you should ask yourself: why do you need such restriction? You've defined your method as public - thus, you told PHP that it should be visible everywhere. So to prevent child calls you should use private visibility definition.
There is a way to check if call is made from parent class, like:
class ChildClass extends ParentClass {}
class ParentClass
{
public function parentMethod()
{
if(get_class($this) != __CLASS__)
{
throw new LogicException("Somehow due to business logic you're not allowed to call this from childs");
}
}
}
But I would not recommend to do that. Reasons are:
Readability. Your method is just ordinary public method. Looking to it it's impossible to say either you should use it with child calls or not. Thus, to maintain such code you'll need to check that restriction in code. Now imagine that you have ~50 methods like that. And dozen of classes like that.
Possibly, breaking Law of Demeter. Why should parent class be aware of it's childs when using such limitation?
Finally, it's just unexpected behavior. Looking to definition, anybody will see that you're extending one class by another. Thus, by definition all inherit methods with proper visibility must be inherited. And your logic changes that.
You may think about composition, not inheritance. That may be right way to implement your logic (however, I can't tell that for sure since I don't know whole background)
You can rearrange your code by adding a base parent class for both of your mentioned classes. Like so:
class Base {
public function inheritableMethod1() {}
public function inheritableMethod2() {}
}
class Child extends Base {
}
class Parent extends Base {
public function additionalMethod() {}
}
Move all inheritable methods from the Parent class to the Base, and leave there only those which must not be called on Child (the parentMethod in your example).
The base class optionally might be abstract to prevent instantiating it directly.
Check if Abstract Class suits your needs:
PHP: Class Abstraction
class Child extends Parent {
public function parentMethod(
# Code
}
}
Abstract class Parent {
abstract public function parentMethod();
}
I'm changing my class structure around to store common database methods in one class. Then extending it from a child class. This should cut down on code but also allows me to overwrite the parent methods when I need to.
I've done the following, for this example I've simplified to the basics compared to the original code which contains more classes.
class parent_object{
private $table_name;
public function all_records(){
$sql = "SELECT * FROM ".$this->table_name;
return $this->execute_sql($sql);
}
}
class child_object extends parent_object{
protected static $table_name="tbl_name";
public function __construct(){
parent::__construct(self::$table_name);
}
}
I want to call the all_records() statically to save myself creating a new object every time.
I'm stuck having to instantiate the child and then call the parent method
$child = new child_object();
$all = $child->all_records();
What I really want to be able to call the parent method statically:
$all = child_object::all_records();
I understand why I can't do it with my code, but would like some way that the child instantiates first then accesses the parent method.
I could write all_records() method in the child_object to instantiate itself and call the parent all_records() but that sort defeats the purpose of extending to cut down on code and the same methods in my child class.
I'm sure its quite simple or some new high level oop function can do it.
Thanks for your help.
The answer is relatively simple, you can turn all your properties into static properties, and then use static:: instead of self::.
http://php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.late-static-bindings.php
Solving your problem this way is considered a bad practice though. Good luck.
You could do something like this:
class child_object extends parent_object
{
protected static $table_name="tbl_name";
public static function factory()
{
return new child_object();
}
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct(self::$table_name);
}
}
Then when you use it you just do:
$all = child_object::factory()->all_records();
Assuming that I have to create a class that takes some text do some processing and return it ... with no dependency and it's a stateless class..
I'd like to know would be better to create a stateless class without constructor or just create a static class (in php it's just Static methods)
class like this:
class ClassName
{
public function processText($text)
{
// Some code
$text = $this->moreProcessing($text);
return $text;
}
protected function moreProcessing($text)
{
return $text;
}
}
and this:
class ClassName
{
public static function processText($text)
{
// Some code
$text = static::moreProcessing($text);
return $text;
}
protected static function moreProcessing($text)
{
return $text;
}
}
I Know that dependency injection into the class where these classes are used would be better but assume that I just won't have dependency injection..
My question is mainly would it be better to create static class for the simple example above?
Practically you will see no difference whatsoever.
It's only in the syntax, and the ability of a constructor to perform stuff automatically, though you still have to create instances to invoke the constructor, which in this case is not far off calling some equivalent static member function.
However, non-static member functions are supposed to affect internal state so, if you have no state, static member functions seem more conventional, and will be slightly less surprising to users of the class.
The best approach, though, is to stick your functions in a namespace. Classes are for data and functions operating on that data... even static ones.
I am new to PHP and just get into OOP. I have few generic methods used to set and get properties. I use them quite often in almost all the classes, i put those methods in a class and extends other classes from it. Now i can access the methods from child class but dont know how set and get attributes of child class through them ... parent class base.php
class Base
{
public function __construct()
{
}
function __set($propName, $propValue)
{
$this->$propName = $propValue;
}
function setProperties(array $data)
{
foreach($data as $propName => $propValue)
$this->$propName = $propValue;
}
function __get($propName)
{
return (isset($this->$propName))? $this->$propName : "Invalid property!";
}
function getProperties(array $properties)
{
foreach($properties as $propName)
$propVals[$propName] = $this->$propName;
return $propVals;
}
}
child class categories.php
class categories extends Base
{
private $id;
private $pid;
private $title;
private $status;
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct();
}
}
and i called it like
$objCat = new categories();
$objCat->setProperties(array('id'=>'10', 'pid'=>'6'));
print_r( $objCat->getProperties(array('id', 'pid')));
Need little guidance here. If its the right way? or at least is it possible to do it like this? if so how to accomplish this ...
thanks
Extending a class is something you only want to do when you can say class categories is a class Base. Something like that sort of utility class you have their is almost always the wrong way to go. PHP also has introduced something called traits for copy/paste code. However my personal preference is that it is something you will never want to use, because it tightly couples the traits to your class, which is something you want to avoid.
See for more information the Liskov Substitution principle in SOLID programming.
If it was up to me I would avoid those magic getters / setters either way and just add your own getters / setters methods to the class.
The mistake about some base class isn't something only you are doing (hell even I have done it in the past). Think about some class Database and a class Article. Because the Article class needs access to the database many people let the class extend the Database class. This isn't correct because an article isn't an database. Instead an instance of the database class should be injected into the article class by using dependency injection. The instance should either be injected into the class constructor (if all or many methods need access to it) or just the methods that need it. So when extending a class you have to be able to say class B is a class A.
Some other notes about your code:
Always make your class names PascalCase. This is not really required to make your code work, but it follows a naming convention often used.
And my personal preference a bit: please always add curly braces to your foreach statements. It is more clear what is happening when other people are reading your code.
I've encountered an architectural issue with my application. I've rolled my own (very basic) MVC, and one of my models is a database object: class MySQLDatabase { }
There's a number of places in which I'd want to use my database object, without creating duplicate instances. Inside my controller, I have declared public $db; and within the __construct { } I have $this->db = new MySQLDatabase;
Question:
How do I use $db within my other classes--they're all instantiated within the controller's __construct { } as well... would I declare global $db at the top of all my classes that require database connectivity?
I'm used to global variables being declared in the global scope as regular variables, and then using the global keyword to reference the global scope... I'm not sure if that applies to variables declared within a class (my controller.)
I would stay away from using globals or the Singleton pattern (which is essentially a global anyway), and try and find some alternatives. Additionally you are talking about a database connection, by using the Singleton pattern you are saying that there will never be more than one database connection, whilst that is generally true in smaller applications, as they grow larger you won't be able to accomodate multiple connections.
Once you make something global then you lose the automatic contraints of where it can be used/modified. Using MVC a view shouldn't be used for anything other than to display data, by using a global/singleton it is up to the developer to not make use of the globals. Whereas with a different design they don't have that option.
You mentioned you've created your own MVC framework, so I imagine the classes you want to use it in are your models? Correct me if they are anywhere else.
If your models extend from a common base class then you could pass your database object to that class as a static variable which can be assigned to any new instances in the construct or using a factory method in the factory method.
This isn't to say that globals or singletons should be avoided at all costs, but definitely try consider the alternatives that could lead to a neater design.
Here's some reading on the Singleton pattern if you're interested:
Patterns I Hate #1: Singleton
Why Singletons are Evil
Singleton Considered Stupid
Use your singletons wisely
There are many more out there...
If I understand correctly you have a single controller that instantiates the database object and it also takes care of instantiating other classes. If so, you could implement some form of dependency injection either passing the db object in the constructor of the other classes or creating a setter method.
A good blog article on the subject:
http://www.potstuck.com/2009/01/08/php-dependency-injection/
I Think you going about this the wrong way, you should not be performaing quesries to the database from you controller.
this means that the below is invalid.
class ControllerIndex extends Controller
{
public function index()
{
$this->db->selectAll("table");
}
}
There should be a layer that separates your controller from your database interface, this is where a Model comes in.
You should have a models folder that contain classes for actions taken such as users,posts,logging etc.
class Users_Model extends Model
{
public function getUser($id)
{
}
}
The model class should be part of your system core, and should extend your Database Class, this way within your main controller you should be loading the models via the ModelLoader class.
for example:
class ModelLoader
{
private $models = array();
public function __get($model)
{
//load (/application/models/?.php) and initiate it here
//Storing it in models array above
}
}
Then in your main controller:
class Controller
{
private $model;
public function __construct()
{
$this->model = new ModelLoader;
}
}
this way your bringing your loader into scope for the child controller:
class Controller_index extends Controller
{
public function index()
{
$user = $this->model->users->getUser(22);
}
}
Hope this helps!
I think what you need here is a singleton for you Database object :)
See here for more details : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singleton_pattern
Edit with sample singleton for php :
<?php
class UniqueObject {
private $_uniq = null;
//private cause you don't want to instanciate the classic way
private function __construct() {
//...
}
//check if unique object exists or not, then return it
public static function uniq() {
if(!self::$_uniq)
self::$_uniq = new UniqueObject();
return self::$_uniq;
}
}
//call your unique object whenever you need it
UniqueObject::uniq();
?>
(it's late, i hope i didn't do any mistake :))
Don't use singletons. It's much better to explicitly pass around data. For example:
abstract class Controller {
private static $conn; // could be an array for multiple connections
final protected function getDBConnection() {
if (!$this->conn) {
$this->conn = new DBConnection();
}
return $this->conn;
}
abstract public function process(Request $r);
}
class HomePageController extends Controller {
public function process(Request $r) {
$results = $this->getDBConnection()->query('SELECT stuff FROM foo;');
// do stuff with $results
}
}
You could also have an explicit model object you pass around, e.g. the one that represents the user, but that may be overkill for your project.
You'll need to use a singleton pattern. They give examples in the php docs
<?php
class Example
{
// Hold an instance of the class
private static $instance;
// A private constructor; prevents direct creation of object
private function __construct()
{
echo 'I am constructed';
}
// The singleton method
public static function singleton()
{
if (!isset(self::$instance)) {
$c = __CLASS__;
self::$instance = new $c;
}
return self::$instance;
}
// Example method
public function bark()
{
echo 'Woof!';
}
// Prevent users to clone the instance
public function __clone()
{
trigger_error('Clone is not allowed.', E_USER_ERROR);
}
}
?>
http://php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.patterns.php