PHP5 OOP Class Structure - php

I know there are loads of questions on this, I have done quite a bit of reading. I'd like to ask this in context of my project to see what suggestions you may have.
I have quite a large web application with many classes, e.g. users and articles (which i consider to be the main classes) and smaller classes such as images and comments. Now on a page, lets say for example an article, it could contain many instances of images and comments. Makes sense right? Now on say an articles page I call a static method which returns an array of article objects.
That's the background, so here are the questions.
Since building a large amount of the app I came to realise it would be very useful to have a core system class containing settings and shared functions. There for I extended all of my classes with a new core class. Seemed relatively simple and quick to implement. I know CodeIgniter does something similar. I feel now though my app is becoming a bit messy.
Question Is this a good idea? Creating an instance of core is exactly what I want when calling an instance of an article, but what about when i'm creating multiple instances using the static method, or calling multiple images or comments on a page. I'm calling the core class unnecessarily right? Really it only needs to be called once per page (for example the constructor defines various settings from the database, I don't want to this every time, only once per page obviously), but all instances of all classes should have access to that core class. Sounds exactly like I want the singleton approach, but I know that's a waste of time in PHP.
Here's an idea of what my code looks like at this point. I've tried to keep it as simple as I can.
class core {
public function __construct(){
...define some settings which are retrieve from the database
}
public function usefulFunction(){
}
}
class user extends core {
public function __construct(){
parent::__construct();
}
public function getUser($user_id){
$db = new database();
$user = /* Get user in assoc array from db */
$this->__setAll($user);
}
public static function getUsers(){
$db = new database();
$users = /* Get users from database in assoc array from db */
foreach($users as $user) {
$arrUsers[] = new self();
$arrUsers[]->__setAll($user);
}
return $arrUsers;
}
private function __setAll($attributes) {
foreach($attributes as $key => $value)
{
$this->__set($key, $value);
}
}
public function __set($key, $value) {
$this->$key = $value;
}
}
The other issue I'm having is efficiently using/sharing a database connection. Currently each method in a class requiring a database connection creates a new instance of the database, so on a page I might be doing this 5 or 10 times. Something like the dependency injection principle sounds much better.
Question Now if i'm passing the instance of the DB into the new user class, i know I need something like this...
class user{
protected $db;
public function __construct($db){
$this->db = $db;
}
... etc
}
$db = new database();
$user = new user($db);
... but when I want to run the static function users::getUsers() what is the best way to gain access to the database instance? Do i need to pass it as a variable in each static method? (there are many static methods in many classes). It doesn't seem like the best way of doing it but maybe there isn't another way.
Question If extending all of my classes off the core class as suggested in part 1, can I create an instance of the DB there and access that some how?
Question I also have various files containing functions (not oop) which are like helper files. What's the best way for these to access the database? Again i've been creating a new instance in each function. I don't really want to pass the db as a parameter to each one. Should I use globals, turn these helper files into classes and use dependency injection or something different all together?
I know there is lots of advice out there, but most info and tutorials on PHP are out of date and don't ever seem to cover something this complex...if you can call it complex?
Any suggestions on how to best layout my class structure. I know this seems like a lot, but surely this is something most developers face everyday. If you need any more info just let me know and thanks for reading!

You asked in a comment that I should elaborate why it is a bad idea. I'd like to highlight the following to answer that:
Ask yourself if you really need it.
Do design decisions for a need, not just because you can do it. In your case ask yourself if you need a core class. As you already have been asked this in comments you wrote that you actually do not really need it so the answer is clear: It is bad to do so because it is not needed and for not needing something it introduces a lot of side-effects.
Because of these side-effects you don't want to do that. So from zero to hero, let's do the following evolution:
You have two parts of code / functionality. The one part that does change, and the other part that is some basic functionality (framework, library) that does not change. You now need to bring them both together. Let's simplify this even and reduce the frame to a single function:
function usefulFunction($with, $four, $useful, $parameters)
{
...
}
And let's reduce the second part of your application - the part that changes - to the single User class:
class User extends DatabaseObject
{
...
}
I already introduced one small but important change here: The User class does not extend from Core any longer but from DatabaseObject because if I read your code right it's functionality is to represents a row from a database table, probably namely the user table.
I made this change already because there is a very important rule. Whenver you name something in your code, for example a class, use a speaking, a good name. A name is to name something. The name Core says absolutely nothing other that you think it's important or general or basic or deep-inside, or that it's molten iron. No clue. So even if you are naming for design, choose a good name. I thought, DatabaseObject and that was only a very quick decision not knowing your code even, so I'm pretty sure you know the real name of that class and it's also your duty do give it the real name. It deserves one, be generous.
But let's leave this detail aside, as it's only a detail and not that much connected to your general problem you'd like to solve. Let's say the bad name is a symptom and not the cause. We play Dr. House now and catalog the symptoms but just to find the cause.
Symptoms found so far:
Superfluous code (writing a class even it's not needed)
Bad naming
May we diagnose: Disorientation? :)
So to escape from that, always do what is needed and choose simple tools to write your code. For example, the easiest way to provide the common functions (your framework) is as easy as making use of the include command:
include 'my-framework.php';
usefuleFunction('this', 'time', 'really', 'useful');
This very simple tow-line script demonstrates: One part in your application takes care of providing needed functions (also called loading), and the other part(s) are using those (that is just program code as we know it from day one, right?).
How does this map/scale to some more object oriented example where maybe the User object extends? Exactly the same:
include 'my-framework.php';
$user = $services->store->findUserByID($_GET['id']);
The difference here is just that inside my-framework.php more is loaded, so that the commonly changing parts can make use of the things that don't change. Which could be for example providing a global variable that represents a Service Locator (here $services) or providing auto-loading.
The more simple you will keep this, the better you will progress and then finally you will be faced with real decisions to be made. And with those decisions you will more directly see what makes a difference.
If you want some more discussion / guidance for the "database class" please consider to take a read of the very good chapter about the different ways how to handle these in the book Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture which somewhat is a long title, but it has a chapter that very good discusses the topic and allows you to choose a fitting pattern on how to access your database quite easily. If you keep things easy from the beginning, you not only progress faster but you are also much easier able to change them later.
However if you start with some complex system with extending from base-classes (that might even do multiple things at once), things are not that easily change-able from the beginning which will make you stick to such a decision much longer as you want to then.

You can start with an abstract class that handles all of your Database queries, and then constructs them into objects. It'll be easy to set yourself up with parameterized queries this way, and it will standardize how you interact with your database. It'll also make adding new object models a piece of cake.
http://php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.abstract.php
abstract class DB
{
abstract protected function table();
abstract protected function fields();
abstract protected function keys();
public function find()
{
//maybe write yourself a parameterized method that all objects will use...
global $db; //this would be the database connection that you set up elsewhere.
//query, and then pack up as an object
}
public function save()
{
}
public function destroy()
{
}
}
class User extends DB
{
protected function table()
{
//table name
}
protected function fields()
{
//table fields here
}
protected function keys()
{
//table key(s) here
}
//reusable pattern for parameterized queries
public static function get_user( $id )
{
$factory = new User;
$params = array( '=' => array( 'id' => $id ) );
$query = $factory->find( $params );
//return the object
}
}
You'll want to do your database connection from a common configuration file, and just leave it as a global variable for this pattern.
Obviously this is just scratching the surface, but hopefully it gives you some ideas.

Summarize all answers:
Do not use single "God" class for core.
It's better to use list of classes that make their jobs. Create as many class as you need. Each class should be responsible for single job.
Do not use singletones, it's old technique, that is not flexible, use dependecy injection container (DIC) instead.

First, the the best thing to do would be to use Singleton Pattern to get database instance.
class Db{
protected $_db;
private function __construct() {
$this->_db = new Database();
}
public static function getInstance() {
if (!isset(self::$_db)) {
self::$_db = new self();
}
return self::$_db;
}
}
Now you can use it like db::getInstance(); anywhere.
Secondly, you are trying to invent bicycle called Active Record pattern, in function __setAll($attributes).
In third, why do you wrote this thing in class that extends Core?
public function __construct(){
parent::__construct();
}
Finally, class names should be capitalized.

Related

How to properly structure and pass objects in a MVC structure in PHP

Over the past two years, I have become fairly familiar with PHP MVC style architecture, and have developed all my projects using MVC structures since then.
One question that has continued to bother me is how to group functions and database calls. I run into needing to perform the same actions across models. I would prefer not to duplicate these operations and sql query inside each of the models, but would rather group all user operations into a separate class.
For example, say I have a website with a forum, a blog, and a profile page, each with a separate model, view, and controller. However, say each of these pages needs to perform the same operation to the user table.
My Model class is constructed with a database object automatically. If I need to call a function from the user class, is it ok to pass the db object to that new User class? ... to do something like the following? I am not sure if passing objects like I am doing is fine, or is there a much better way of setting things up? Am I wasting resources, or is this a clumsy way of doing things?
Profile Model
class Profile_Model extends Model{
public function __construct() {
parent::__construct();
}
public function someFunction(){
$this->db->insert( "SOME SQL" );
$user = new User( $this->db ); // OK TO PASS DB OBJECT LIKE THIS?
$user->setSomething();
}
public function anotherFunction(){
//do something else that does not need a user object
}
}
User Class
class User{
public function __construct($db){
$this->db = $db; // OK TO SET DB OBJECT AS CLASS VARIABLE AGAIN?
}
public function setSomething(){
$this->db->insert( "SOME SQL" );
}
}
I'm trying to give you a really basic example of how I'd implement this architecture; Since it's really basic and I'm just a passionate developer and nothing more it could be I'm breaking some architectural rules, so please take it as a proof of concept.
LET'S START quickly with the Controller part where you get some request. Now you need someone that takes care of doing the dirty work.
As you can see here I'm trying to pass all the "dependencies" via constructor. These way you should be able to easily replace it with Mocks when testing .
Dependency injection is one of the concepts here.
AND NOW the Model (please remember Model is a layer and not a single class)
I've used "Services (or cases)" that should help you to compose a group of behaviors with all the actors (Classes) involved in this behavior.
Idendifying common behaviours that Services (or Cases) should do, is one of the concepts here.
Keep in mind that you should have a big picture in mind (or somewhere else depending on the project) before starting, in order to respect principle like KISS, SOLID, DRY, etc..
And please pay attention to method naming, often a bad or long name (like mine for example) is a sign that the class has more than a single Responsability or there's smell of bad design.
//App/Controllers/BlogController.php
namespace App\Controllers;
use App\Services\AuthServiceInterface;
use App\Services\BlogService;
use App\Http\Request;
use App\Http\Response;
class BlogController
{
protected $blogService;
public function __construct(AuthServiceInterface $authService, BlogService $blogService, Request $request)
{
$this->authService = $authService;
$this->blogService = $blogService;
$this->request = $request;
}
public function indexAction()
{
$data = array();
if ($this->authService->isAuthenticatedUser($this->request->getSomethingRelatedToTheUser())) {
$someData = $this->blogService->getSomeData();
$someOtherData = $this->request->iDontKnowWhatToDo();
$data = compact('someData', 'someOtherData');
}
return new Response($this->template, array('data' => $data), $status);
}
}
Now we need to create this Service that we've used in the controller. As you can see we're not talking directly with the "storage or data layer" but instead we're calling an abstraction layer that will handle that for us.
Using a Repository Pattern to retrieve data from a data layer, is one of the concepts here.
this way we can switch to whatever repository (inMemory, other storage, etc) to retrieve our data without changing the interface that the Controller is using, same method call but get data from another place.
Design by interfaces and not by concrete classes is one of the concepts here.
//App/Services/BlogService.php
<?php
namespace App\Services;
use App\Model\Repositories\BlogRepository;
class BlogService
{
protected $blogRepository;
public function __construct(BlogRepositoryInterface $blogRepository)
{
$this->blogRepository = $blogRepository;
}
public function getSomeData()
{
// do something complex with your data, here's just simple ex
return $this->blogRepository->findOne();
}
}
At this point we define the Repository that contains the persistance handler and knows about our Entity.
Again decoupling storage Persister and knowledge of an entity (what "can" be coupled with a mysql table for example), is one of the concepts here.
//App/Model/Repositories/BlogRepository.php
<?php
namespace App\Models\Respositories;
use App\Models\Entities\BlogEntity;
use App\Models\Persistance\DbStorageInterface;
class DbBlogRepository extends EntityRepository implements BlogRepositoryInterface
{
protected $entity;
public function __construct(DbStorageInterface $dbStorage)
{
$this->dbStorage = $dbStorage;
$this->entity = new BlogEntity;
}
public function findOne()
{
$data = $this->dbStorage->select('*')->from($this->getEntityName());
// This should be part of a mapping logic outside of here
$this->entity->setPropA($data['some']);
return $this->entity;
}
public function getEntityName()
{
return str_replace('Entity', '', get_class($this->entity));
}
}
At the end a simple entity with Setters and Getters:
//App/Model/Entities/BlogEntity.php
<?php
namespace App\Models\Entities;
class BlogEntity
{
protected $propA;
public function setPropA($dataA)
{
$this->propA = $dataA;
}
public function getPropA()
{
return $this->propA;
}
}
AND NOW? how can you inject this classes passed as dependencies? Well, this is a long answer.
Indicatively you could use Dependency Injection as we've done here have a init/boot file where you define things like:
// Laravel Style
App::bind('BlogRepositoryInterface', 'App\Model\Repositories\DbBlogRepository');
App::bind('DbStorageInterface', 'App\Model\Persistence\PDOStorage');
or some config/service.yml file like:
// Not the same but close to Symfony Style
BlogService:
class: "Namespace\\ConcreteBlogServiceClass"
Or you may feel the need of a Container Class from where you can ask the service you need to use in your controller.
function indexAction ()
{
$blogService = $this->container->getService('BlogService');
....
Dulcis in fundo here are some useful links (You can find tons of docs about this):
Services in Domain-Driven Design
Wicked Domain Model
Dependency Injection Container
Inversion of Control and Dependency Injection
Managing common Dependencies with parent Services
Whenever you need to use an object from another class there is only one safe way to do it: Dependency Injection.
Example:
Instead of having:
public function myMethod(){
$anotherObject = new Object();
}
You should inject the object with the constructor:
function __construct($dependency) {
$this->anotherObject = $dependency;
}
Once you have this structure you can use type hint and an Inversion of Control container to build thing automatically, e.g. define:
function __construct(DependencyInterface $dependency) {
$this->anotherObject = $dependency;
}
And then set your IoC container to inject the right dependency when you need to use this object
Do you use any frameworks? If not, try having a look at some popular ones, like Zend Framework or Symfony. You'll find they solve your problem and probably many more and are a great way to expand your knowledge on how to structure your project.
That aside you are close. Although adding the database directly to your User-model is probably not want you want to do. If you can get Martin Fowler's Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture (PEAA) you will find a whole chapter outlining how to connect your models to your database. I prefer a Gateway-class (search for the Gateway-pattern or look at Zend_Db) when building something on my own, as it is relatively easy to implement and build.
Basically you have a class which performs queries and then will pass the data to your model. Just look at Data Source Architectural Patterns in Martin Fowler's pattern catalog (http://martinfowler.com/eaaCatalog/) to get a quick glance how to structure it and definitely read the book to get a real understanding when and how to use the patterns.
I hope this helps.
Part of the answer is to use dependency injection, but there is more to it than that. Cognitively speaking, grouping starts in the mind and is teased out better by brainstorming and modeling: Entity Relationship Diagrams and UML Diagrams.
Grouping of methods into classes and delegating tasks to injected objects makes sense, but there is usually room for one level of inheritance (at minimum). The use of abstract super classes and a Strategy Pattern for child classes that inherit base functionality from the abstract parent can help reduce code duplication (DRY).
All that being said, this is one reason why dependency injection containers are popular. They allow you to obtain the objects, and hence functionality, you need anywhere, without coupling object instantiation to usage.
Do a search for Pimple in Google. It may give you some ideas.

MVC .. should one database_model contain CRUD for all object_models? Active record vs. registry pattern

I'm writing a fairly simple "fact database" in PHP (with Codeigniter .. but I am trying to get away from the framework internals for learning purposes), and trying to better my MVC/OOP practices.
Previously I would have done this: a fact model, a user model, a source model .. and inside each of those models I would place the CRUD logic for each. So it would look like this..
$this->fact_model->save($fact);
$this->user_model->deactivate($uid);
$this->source_model->get_id($sid);
But after reading more, it seems to make sense to have a separate persistence model (ie 'database_model'). But then it seems it would have to contain a full range of CRUD for each type of object, which seems wasteful to me. I guess I'm looking for how to go to this...
$this->db_m->save(Fact $fact);
$this->db_m->update(User $user);
// .. etc .. but also ..
$this->db_m->get_user_id($uid);
// .. and ..
$htis->db_m->get_all_facts();
Is this heading in the right direction? Do I just end up testing for type inside the database model and switching when I need to? Or do I extend the database model for each type of object?
$this->fact_db_m->save(Fact $fact);
$this->fact_db_m->get_all();
$this->source_db_m->get_id($sid);
Or something like this, which I guess is the closest to CIs AR implementation.
$this->db_m->save('facts', Fact $fact);
$this->db_m->get('user', array('id'=>$uid));
I guess this is a case of "active record vs repository". I understand that repository is easier to test, and the CRUD logic is separate from the object data, and that separation makes sense to me. But still.. it means you have to write a separate repository model for each entity. Is this right?
BTW - I know Codeigniter has a Database class and uses active record, and in a way I am just kind of re-creating it with some of those approaches. I'm just trying to understand things without relying on the framework internals. Any comments? Is it just a matter of choice?
Trying to do a little research on my own, thanks to your question, I came across this article: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/dd569757.aspx , which explains the differences between different data access patterns.
I hope i understood the question correctly, but here goes.
My approach would be to use the separation of models, however the one twist i usually do. i will try to be clear.
Lets say my application is going to require 3 unique features. One for users, facts, sources, All of these models might need to use some common functions like SAVE or LOAD, or UPDATE, or DELETE. Instead of duplicating the common functions into each model, i would simply make a base class with all the common functions, a nd have the base class extend the CI_Model, then all my new model files ( users,facts,sources ) i would have extend my common class.
To better illustrate this, i will throw some basic code up
db_common_model Common Class (db_common_model.php)
class db_common_model extends CI_Model
{
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct();
}
/**
* All Common Functions Here */
public function save()
{
// Do stuff
}
public function update()
{
// Do stuff
}
public function etc()
{
// Do stuff
}
}
users_model Class (db_common_model.php)
class users_model extends db_common_model
{
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct();
}
/**
* user specific functions */
public function get_one()
{
// Do stuff
}
public function get_all()
{
// Do stuff
}
public function get_latest()
{
// Do stuff
}
public function etc()
{
// Do stuff
}
}
/**
* When using it in CI Controller
*/
$this->user_model->get_one(); // loads user specific function
$this->user_model->save(); // Calls all inherited methods from parent db_common_model
// Etc
This way of setting up your models allows you expand common features in the db_common_model, that are automatically available to all children classes.
This allows for clean organization, and allows you to not have to re-invent your common functions in every model.
Hope this helps.

Should a PHP user class extend a database class?

I am not sure if this is totally the wrong thing to do, so I am looking for a bit of advice.
I have set up a database class with the constructor establishing a PDO connection to a MySQL database.
I've been looking at singletons and global variables, but there always seems to be someone who recommends against either/or.
I'm experimenting with a user class which extends the database class, so I can call upon the PDO functions/methods but maintain separate user class code. Is this a stupid thing to do?
You should generally pass a connection into your user, so your user class would take a database type object into its constructor and then use that database object to execute queries against the database. That way your data access logic remains separate from your business logic. This is called composition, as opposed to what you're talking about, which is inhertance.
If you really wanted to be technical, it would be best to have a user object with nothing but public variables, and then you would use a 'service' to implement your business logic.
class UserService implements IUserService
{
private $_db;
function __construct(IDb $db) {
$this->_db = db;
}
function GetAllUsers() {
$users = Array();
$result = $this->_db->Query("select * from user")
foreach($result as $user) {
//Would resolve this into your user domain object here
users[] = $user;
}
return users;
}
}
Well, ask yourself if User is a special case of Database. I'm not sure how others perceive it, but I would be kind of offended. I think what you need is to read about the Liskov substitution principle.
As for solving your "people tell me that globals are bad" issue, here are two videos you should watch:
The Clean Code Talks - Don't Look For Things!
The Clean Code Talks - Global State and Singletons
The idea behind class extensions in OOP is for child classes to be related to the parent classes. For instance, a school might have a Person class with extension classes of Faculty and Students. Both of the child classes are people, so it makes sense for them to extend the Person class. But a User is not a type of Database, so some people might get upset if you make it an extension.
Personally, I would send the database object as an argument to the User class in the constructor and simply assign that object to a class property. For instance:
class User
{
protected $db;
function __construct($username, $password, $db)
{
//some code...
$this->db = $db;
}
}
Alternatively, though some might yell at you for it, you can use the global keyword to inherit a variable in the global scope for use within your methods. The downside is that you would then have to declare it global in every method that needs it, or you could do:
class User
{
protected $db;
function __construct($username, $password)
{
global $db;
//some code...
$this->db = $db;
}
}
But in answer to your question, no I don't think you should make User an extension of Database; even though it would do what you need, it isn't a proper OOP practice.
It is pretty simple according to the definition of an object. It is the encapsulation of data and the operation which is performed on that data so if we only consider the theoretical point of view it would leads us in pleasurable environment.
My suggestion would be to create an abstract data access class with the generalized basic crud operations and a simple query execution using either PDO, ADO or some other database abstraction library. Now use this class as a parent for most of your model classes like the User.
Now the basic CRUD is provided by the abstract data access class and you can write the behavior specific to the user object like getting all posts for the user by consuming the simple query interface of the abstract parent class.
This approach will bring more modularity in term of coupling functionality and more readability and reuse-ability.
I don't see anything wrong with it for specific cases. You could use it for something as simple as wrapping a user's DB credentials in an object so they don't have to specify them everywhere the DB object is used.
$db = new UserDB();
would be a bit nicer than
$db = new StandarDB($username, $password, $default_db);

php static functions vs instance functions, basics

I'm trying to learn when static functions should be used, and have had a difficult time finding an answer my questions. I am creating a class User, which is related to a class Group. If I have a user id and I want to get a user object from that, is it better to do something like
$existingUser = User::get($userId);
where the class is defined like this
class User()
{
public static function get($id){
$user = new User();
return $user->findById($id);
}
public function findById($id) {
//find and populate user object
}
}
or
$existingUser=new User();
$existingUser->findById($userId);
where the class is defined like this
class User()
{
public function findById($id) {
//find and populate user object
}
}
What about if I were to write a function which returns an array of Group objects based on a user id?
class User()
{
//stuff
$groupArray = Group::getAllByUserId($this->getId())
//stuff
}
or
class User()
{
//stuff
$group = new Group();
$groupArray = $group->findAllByUserId($this->getId());
//stuff
}
The second method creates an empty group object which is never used. Does it matter?
Am I misunderstanding the concept of static? I know it is useful for not having to instantiate a class, so if the function instantiates one anyway, does that kind of defeat the purpose? If so, what would be an example of when a static function would be used?
Anything else I should be considering in this over simplified example?
You don't need a static function int he case you show above.
Static functions are really just global functions with a namespace.
Use them when the global state of the application needs to be controlled, or if multiple copies of the function lead to inonsistant results.
Callbacks sometimes need to be static, especially if they are passed as a string.
I'm trying to learn when static functions should be used
Oh, it's so simple: never.
To understand it, read:
http://www.objectmentor.com/resources/articles/ocp.pdf
http://misko.hevery.com/code-reviewers-guide/flaw-brittle-global-state-singletons/
I find a good rule of thumb is thinking "If I don't have a [class-name], would I expect to be able to call [method-name]?"
If I don't have a user, would I expect to be able to call findByID?
Probably not. This is one of the exceptions I come across; a "load" or a "save" method sometimes makes sense to be static.
A perfect example of when to use non-static methods is (most methods in) a Database class - you should always have a database object before you try to run a query on it.
An example of when to use a static method would be a "helper" class, essentially a collection of handy functions. Say you have some methods that help you output HTML, you might have HTML::image(), HTML::url() and HTML::script(). On these, you shouldn't need a HTML object to create an image, URL, and so on.
As for stopping multiple copies of objects being created (one argument for using static methods), you should use a Singleton pattern instead (Google it) to ensure only one copy of the object ever exists.
You should probably check out this question on Active Record vs data mapper:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2169832/data-mapper-vs-active-record
One take from this question is that static methods on the class for loading/saving aren't really the core functionality of the class in most cases. Further, storing and loading is a kind of abstract concept that is separate from your class objects in most cases.
Isa "user" a data storage and retrieval object? In most cases, no, it is a person represented in your system that has various properties and functions. When you start tying the persistence of that object into the object, you break encapsulation and make it harder to maintain the code. What if next week you want to load your users out of memcache? It's hardly relevant to if a user can have some property or functionality.

Is a general class necessary for a site PHP site?

I have a CORE class that pertains only to my specific site, ie, it performs site specific functions. I have a database class (for mysql), and other classes like access, validator, upload, template etc etc... I know that php classes can only extend one class each, so almost all of my classes extend the database class. I was looking over a public twitter class used on the twitter API. In it, there are functions to do almost everything you could do by going directly to the website, insert, delete, whatever... Should I put all site relatie functions inside my Core class and keep it out of the general scope of my scripts. Right now I have something like this....
Heres an example, as of right now I have functions like
$core = new Core();
$core->get_user_info($user_id);
$core->get_user_articles($user_id);
Inside that function, i perform database queries to select the needed information so i dont have to do it directly since it can get messy.
I also have functions to delete things, like
$core->Delete_Article($article_id);
However, I dont have functions to insert. Instead I use the Database class directly to add information, like so.
$article = array(user_id => $_SESSION['user_id'], body => $_POST['body']);
$db = new Database();
$db->Insert($article, 'articles');
or
$user = array(name => $_POST['name'], email => $_POST['email']);
$db->Insert($user, 'users');
Now, in the topic of separation of one aspect from another, should I put ALL of my database select/insert/update/delete queries inside my general CORE class and do ALL the database actions in the background
Like instead of $db->Insert(), i could use $core->insert_user() or just continue as I'm doing.
This is a pretty common mistake for people new to object-oriented programming. You don't want to extend a class just because it has some functions that you need. In fact, you may want to avoid extending classes at all while you're getting started. Although most intros to OOP make a big deal out of inheritance, I would steer clear for the moment.
Instead, think of how you can group together functions in terms of the way they're used. For example, say you're managing users. You need to keep track of user information, add users, delete them, etc. You could create classes like this:
class User {
function getName()...
function getID()...
}
class UserAdmin {
function addUser(User $user)...
function getUser($id)...
function deleteUser($id)...
}
These classes are organized according to concepts, not according to what functions you need to call.
When you do need reusable functions for things like database access, you'll generally want another separate object doing the work. So instead of having your UserAdmin class extend a Database class to format its SQL:
// wrong
class UserAdmin extends Database {
function getUser($id) {
$this->openConnection();
$this->runQuery("select * from users where id = {1}", $id);
}
}
... you can just use the Database class from within your UserAdmin class:
// right
class UserAdmin {
function getUser($id) {
$db = new Database();
$db->openConnection();
$db->runQuery("select * from users where id = {1}", $id);
}
}
class Database {
function openConnection() ...
function runQuery() ...
}
Initially it will seem like more work, but it keeps your various classes independent. That makes them easier to write, maintain, and test.
Because PHP is reloading everything on each page view, I do not see much advantage to instanciating classes for everything. If you break the functionality up into files that are roughly coorspond to your database schema, you can scale up and up without adding more and more functions that are loaded on each page hit.
It matters when you have dozens or hundreds of tables / classes.
Specifically for PHP, we prefer this style:
class Member
{
public static function Insert($aData)
{
//Insert member and return ID
}
public static function Select($Member_ID)
{
//select member and return Array
}
public static function List($aFilter)
{
//Return list of members filtered by specific criteria
}
}
To take it one step further, we have a static class App which holds relevant "singletonish" variables.
class App
{
public static $DB = NULL;
}
App::$DB = new Connection();
Now, anywhere in your app, you can say:
App::$DB->Query(...);
Generally, what I do is add a simple query() method to my database class which just takes SQL is an argument. Then I abstract all my general CRUD methods to the specific class. so if you have an Article class, the the deleteArticle() method would go in that class, and would extend the Article class with the database class. use $db->query($sql) within that class. and so on with your other classes...

Categories