PHP maintain class state - php

I'd like to have a library class that maintains state across the same request. My use case is that I want to pass 'messages' to the class, and then call them at any time from a view. Messages can be added from any part of the application.
I had originally done this via static methods, which worked fine. However, as part of the lib, I also need to call __construct and __destruct(), which can't be done on a static class.
Here's a very simple example of what I am trying to do:
class Messages
{
private static $messages = array();
public function __construct()
{
// do something
}
public function __destruct()
{
// do something else
}
public static function add($message)
{
self::$messages[] = $message;
}
public static function get()
{
return self::$messages;
}
}
I can then add messages anywhere in my code by doing
Messages::add('a new message');
I'd like to avoid using static if at all possible (testability). I have looked at DI, but it doesn't seem appropriate, unless I'm missing something.
I could create a class (non-static) instead, but how do I then ensure that all messages are written to the same object - so that I can retrieve them all later?
What's the best way to tackle this?

I looks like you could benefit from using the Singleton pattern - it is designed for an object that must have only one instance throughout a request. Basically, you create a private constructor and a static method to retrieve the sole instance. Here is an example of a singleton that will do what you describe.
<?php
class Messages
{
private static $_instance;
private $_messages = array();
private function __construct() {
// Initialize
}
static public function instance() {
if (! self::$_instance) {
self::$_instance = new self();
}
return self::$_instance;
}
public function add_message( $msg ) {
$this->_messages[] = $message;
}
public function get_messages() {
return $this->_messages;
}
private function __destruct() {
// Tear-down
}
}
$my_messages = Messages::instance();
$my_messages->add_message( 'How now, brown cow?' );
// ...
$your_messages = Messages::instance();
$msgs = $your_messages->get_messages();
echo $your_messages[0]; // Prints, "How now, brown cow?"
Since the constructor is private, you can only create a Messages object from within a method of the object itself. Since you have a static method, instance(), you can create a new Messages instance from there. However, if an instance already exists, you want to return that instance.
Basically, a singleton is the gatekeeper to its own instance, and it stubbornly refuses to ever let more than one instance of itself exist.

Sounds like you are wanting to do a Singleton class. This will create an instance in one class and allow you to access that same instance in another class. Check out http://www.developertutorials.com/tutorials/php/php-singleton-design-pattern-050729-1050/ for more information.

How about making it a singleton class?
class Messages
{
// singleton instance of Messages
private static $instance;
public function __construct() { ... }
public static function getInstance()
{
if (!self::$instance)
{
self::$instance = new Messages();
}
return self::$instance;
}
}
This would ensure that all your messages get written to the same object, and also allow you to call __construct and __destruct

What you need is the Singleton pattern:
final class Singleton {
// static variable to store the instance
private static $instance = NULL;
// disable normal class constructing
private function __construct() {}
// instead of using the normal way to construct the class you'll use this method
public static function getInstance() {
if (NULL === self::$instance) {
self::$instance = new self;
}
return self::$instance;
}
// disable external cloning of the object
private function __clone() {}
}
// get the instance across some of your scripts
$singleton = Singleton::getInstance();

Sounds a bit like you want a singleton, although as an anti-pattern I'd avoid it.
You could do a full static class where every static member calls a self::_isBuilt(); method to do your construct elements. Destruct is a little trickier.
The best case for your needs might be a normal (non-static) class that you build right away and then access from a global... not super neat, but allows construct/destruct and members, and your statics to use $this which could be helpful. If you don't like the global variable, you could also wrap it in a method (a trick used in JS a fair bit) but it's not really any neater.
As a normal global class:
$myClass=new myClass();
//Access anywhere as:
globals['myClass']->myFunction(..);
Wrapped in a function
function my_class() {
static $var=null;
if ($var===null) $var=new myClass();
return $var;
}
//Access anywhere as:
my_class()->myFunction(..);

Related

Singleton pattern returns different objects

So I am in a big mess here. I can say that my questions are few. I tried to make a singleton pattern but it returns me two different objects. This is what I made (saw in another post) and tried to test it.
class Singleton
{
private static $instance = [];
public function __construct(){}
public function __clone(){}
public function __wakeup(){
throw new Exception("Cannot unserialize singleton");
}
public static function getInstance()
{
$class = get_called_class();
if(!isset(self::$instance[$class])){
self::$instance[$class] = new static();
}
return self::$instance[$class];
}
}
class Dog extends Singleton
{
public $name;
public function __construct($name)
{
$this->name = $name;
}
}
$dog = new Dog("Jorko");
$dog2 = new Dog("Peshko");
echo $dog->name; // returns "Jorko"
echo $dog2->name; // returns "Pesho"
I thought the second object ($dog2) should not be created and I would get $dog again. And why are we creating empty __constructor in the class Singleton? Also, why are we using this get_called_class? I mean according to php manual Gets the name of the class the static method is called in.. That is what it returns but isn't new static. I thought that new static do the same thing. I am in a real mess. I searched around the web but can't get it clear in my head. Thank you a lot!
Actually this is not correct. To implement the singleton pattern correct the constructor has to be protected to prevent the creation of an object with the new operator. The magic methods __clone and __wakeup should be private to prevent cloning and unserializing of the object.
If you set the accessibility on these methods like i said, you can get an instance of the singleton object by using the static method getInstance() which is there for that very reason.

What is the point of using self::$_instance = new self()

I'm working on learning OOP PHP and have come across this:
//Store the single instance
private static $_instance;
/*
Get an instance of the database
#return database
*/
public static function getInstance () {
if (!self::$_instance) {
self::$_instance = new self();
}
return self::$_instance;
}
What is the point of setting $_instance to a new self()? I know that all this line is doing is creating a new instance of the class it's in but why would one need to do this? Is there any reason this would ever be needed? I don't ever even call it again in the class. Thanks for any help in advanced.
The idea is that whenever you call getInstance() throughout your code, you will always get the same instance.
This is useful in some cases where you only want to get access to the same object. Often objects like this might have a private constructor, which effectively forces you to always act on the same instance (also known as a singleton).
Generally people say 'Singletons are evil'. They are good to avoid because they can cause major design issues. In some cases they can still be a good idea though.
work example
class Singleton
{
public $data;
private static $instance = null;
public function __construct()
{
$this->data = rand();
}
public static function getInstance()
{
if (is_null(self::$instance))
self::$instance = new self;
return self::$instance;
}
//no clone
private function __clone() {}
//no serialize
private function __wakeup() {}
}
$singleton = Singleton::getInstance();
echo $singleton->data;
echo '<br>';
$singleton2 = Singleton::getInstance();
echo $singleton2->data;
echo '<br>';
This is the Singleton pattern.
It is used when you have an object that requires initialization and/or tear-down work and that work should be performed just once.
The instance cache forces there to only be one instance of the class, ever.

Singleton access / PHP Magic method __toString/ printing a static object

what I'm trying to achieve (PHP 5.3) is to have an accessor to my representation of, for example, the HTML Body of a page. Instead of echoing everything directly it should be added to an array of entries in that singleton. Example: myBodyClass::add('<h1>Title</h1>');
add() is declared as public static function add($strEntry) {}
Now should I just add them to a static array $entries like self::$entries[] = $strEntry; (class VersionB) or should I use an instance like self::getInstance()->entries[] = $strEntry;? (class VersionA) (whereby getInstance() would of course instanciate ´...new self;´ if necessary)
I don't quite understand the difference yet, I'm afraid.
The second part of my question is how to print the object. The PHP manual is a bit thin about why __toString() cannot be static - but then again I would understand a parser to have a problem distinguishing echo myBodyClass from a constant (so is that the reason?)
Ideally I would like to call add() as often as needed to add all parts of the body, and then use something like echo myHeaderClass, myBodyClass, myFooterClass; at the end of the script, which should invoke the __toString() methods within the classes.
Thanks for pointing me into the correct direction.
Code Example
class VersionA
{
private static $instance = null;
private $entries = array();
private final function __construct(){}
private final function __clone(){}
private static final function getInstance()
{
if (self::$instance === null) :
self::$instance = new self;
endif;
return self::$instance;
}
public static function add($sString)
{
self::getInstance()->entries[] = $sString;
}
public static function getHtml()
{
return implode("\r\n", self::getInstance()->entries);
}
}
class VersionB
{
private static $entries = array();
private final function __construct(){}
private final function __clone(){}
public static function add($sString)
{
self::$entries[] = $sString;
}
public static function getHtml()
{
return implode("\r\n", self::$entries);
}
}
(Copied from comments, as requested by OP...)
You're missing the point of a singleton. There is a difference between a singleton object and a static class. If you want to use methods that act on an object (like __toString()), then you need it to be an object; a static class isn't good enough. If you want to avoid calling getInstance all the time, then set a variable to the object, and pass it around everywhere like you would with other objects, per the Dependency Injection pattern. That would probably be best practice advice anyway.
The thing with a static class is that it isn't really OOP; it's just a bunch of global functions with a shared class name. One may as well use plain functions with a namespace declaration.
But the main reason for using a genuine singleton is swappability. Assuming you follow my advice above and create a single reference to the object that you pass around your code, it becomes a lot easier to swap in an alternative object since you don't have the hard-coded class name being referenced all over the place. This makes it a lot easier to write decent unit tests for your code that uses the class.
Hope that helps.
You should probably not use a static add method.
The idea of a singleton is that you create a single instance of a class so that external objects can interact with that instance. That means that your add method should not be static.
You could do something like:
class MyBodyClass
{
protected $entries = array();
protected $instance;
public static function getInstance()
{
if (is_null($this->instance)) {
$this->instance = new self();
}
return $this->instance;
}
private function __construct() {}
public function add($strEntry)
{
$this->entires[] = $strEntry;
}
}
And call it like this:
MyBodyClass::getInstance()->add('<h1>blah</h1>');
Something like this should work:
class MySingleton
{
public static function getInstance()
{
static $inst = null;
if ($inst === null) {
$inst = new MySingleton();
}
return $inst;
}
private function __construct() { }
public static function add() {}
public function __toString() {
echo 'Something';
}
}
$body = MySingleton::getInstance();
$body::add('Something');
echo $body;

How to emulate __destruct() in a static class?

I've coded a simple configuration class for my own framework.
There are simple functions like get(), set() or loadFile().
But all functions and variables are static.
And now I want to implement an autosave mechanism. I had the idea to create an instance (in my init() function) whose __destruct() will call the static destruct() function:
<?php
class Config
{
static private $autoSave;
static public function get() {} /* set(), save(), load(), etc. */
static public function init($autoSave)
{
self::$autoSave = $autoSave;
new Config();
}
static public function destruct()
{
if (self::$autoSave)
self::save();
}
public function __destruct()
{
Config::destruct();
}
}
?>
Are there any better solutions or is my design pattern completely wrong in this case?
Are there any better solutions or is my design pattern completely wrong in this case?
Destructors are called on objects only, not for static classes.
Instead you could convert your class from static to regular so you can create an instance of it. Then it will have the destructor. Additionally it makes your code easier to re-use and test.
Additionally you're able to implement magic methods for __get and __set or ArrayAccess which often is useful for easy data storage and access as for a configuration.
Alternatively, you can add a destructor object to a static class member to achieve what you're looking for:
class ConfigDestructor
{
public function __destruct()
{
Config::destruct();
}
}
class Config
{
static private $destructorInstance;
static private $autoSave;
static public function get() {} /* set(), save(), load(), etc. */
static public function init($autoSave)
{
if (null === self::$destructorInstance)
self::$destructorInstance = new ConfigDestructor();
self::$autoSave = $autoSave;
}
static public function destruct()
{
if (self::$autoSave)
self::save();
}
}
Just FYI: You wrote you want to add an auto-save functionality. There is a common gap to fall over for both __destruct() and register_shutdown_function:
Note: Working directory of the script can change inside the shutdown function under some web servers, e.g. Apache.
You should specify an absolute path to access the file you want to save into. See as well: PHP file creation/write within destructor.
Inside your init method, add a call to register_shutdown_function:
register_shutdown_function(array('Config', 'destruct'));
Have you looked at register_shutdown_function? You could add your method to the shutdown part of the script.
It could also be worth it to look at the Singleton pattern.
You can create an instance of this static class on autoregister.
$instance = array();
spl_autoload_register(function ($class)
{
...
global $instance;
if ($isStatic) $instance[] = new $class();
...
});
This is working fine for me.
... and for those who don't like readable code (it is untested):
class staticInstances()
{
private static $list = array();
public static function add($class)
{
self::$list[] = new $class();
}
function __distruct()
{
foreach (self::$list as $class)
unset(self::$list);
}
}
$staticInstances = new staticInstances();
spl_autoload_register(function ($class)
{
...
if ($isStatic) staticInstances::add($class);
...
});

What are good reasons to use static methods in PHP?

Does anyone have any good examples of using static methods instead of dynamic?
Singleton:
class SingletonClass {
private static $instance;
private function __construct() { }
public function __clone() {
trigger_error('Clone is not allowed.', E_USER_ERROR);
}
public static function init() {
if (!isset(self::$instance)) {
$c = __CLASS__;
self::$instance = new $c;
}
return self::$instance;
}
// other public, dynamic methods for singleton
}
$singleton = SingletonClass::init();
Track number of instances:
class CountMe {
public static $instances = 0;
public function __construct() {
CountMe::$instances++;
}
public function __destruct() {
CountMe::$instances--;
}
}
$a = new CountMe();
$b = new CountMe();
echo CountMe::$instances; // outputs 2
When you don't need access to instance members.
A database connection would be a good use for a static function. You dont need direct access to an entire DB object, you just need access to the connection resource. So you can call
$connection = new DatabaseConnection();
StaticClass::setDatabase($connection);
$result = StaticClass::getDatabaseConnection()->query();
But if you need access to the class for storage later or multiple instances of the same object, then you would not want to go static.
Your class also now lives in a global scope, so you can access it from any class, in any scope, anywhere in your codebase.
function getUsers()
{
$users = StaticClass::getDatabaseConnection()->query('SELECT * FROM users');
}
In a less code-oriented nature, here's how I define static methods (I'll use a bank as an example):
If you had a bank class and would like to open a new bank you would use:
$b = new Bank;
Now let's say you wanted to add a new employee to this bank. Simply call:
$b->addEmployee( 'Person' );
Since you are applying the action to the bank you created and not the company that owns the bank as a whole you use a member method. Now let's say the company's traded some assets and made money. To update their total money you would call this:
Bank::addToCompanyBalance( 1000000 );
Notice how since the action wasn't just being applied to the bank we created, we used a static method instead.
Granted this example is very oversimplified, but I like the analogy. In a more programmatic sense case, static members are good for:
Singletons
class Singleton
private static $instance;
private function __construct() {}
private function __clone() {}
public static function getInstance() {
if( !isset( self::$instance ) ) self::$instance = new IamOne;
return( self::$instance );
}
}
Creating classes that may fail
Ex. A file handler class may not always want to create a new object (Say the file passed doesn't exist or can't be opened).
With abstract classes
Some classes may not wish to have instances (Ex. A router that interprets a user's request). Abstract classes, however, can be called statically and therefore can use static methods.
Example: Use static methods to create instances of an object which might perhaps take different arguments.
Class DBConnection
{
public static function createFromConfiguration(Configuration $config)
{
$conn = new DBConnection();
$conn->setDsn($config->getDBDsn());
$conn->setUser($config->getDBUser());
$conn->setPassword($config->getDBPass());
return $conn;
}
public static function newConnection($dsn, $user, $password)
{
$conn = new DBConnection();
$conn->setDsn($dsn);
$conn->setUser($user);
$conn->setPassword($password);
return $conn;
}
}

Categories