I'm wondering how to force sub classes to implement a given interface method.
Let's say I have the following classes :
interface Serializable
{
public function __toString();
}
abstract class Tag // Any HTML or XML tag or whatever like <div>, <p>, <chucknorris>, etc
{
protected $attributes = array();
public function __get($memberName)
{
return $this->attributes[$member];
}
public function __set($memberName, $value)
{
$this->attributes[$memberName] = $value;
}
public function __construct() { }
public function __destruct() { }
}
I would like to force any sub class of "Tag" to implement the "Serializable" interface. For example, if i a "Paragraph" class, it would look this way :
class Paragraph extends Tag implements View
{
public function __toString()
{
print '<p';
foreach($this->attributes as $attribute => $value)
print ' '.$attribute.'="'.$value.'"';
print '>';
// Displaying children if any (not handled in this code sample).
print '</p>';
}
}
How can i force a developer to make his "Paragraph" class implement the methods from the interface "Serializable"?
Thanks for taking the time to read.
Just have the abstract class implement the interface:
interface RequiredInterface
{
public function getName();
}
abstract class BaseClass implements RequiredInterface
{
}
class MyClass extends BaseClass
{
}
Running this code will result in the error:
Fatal error: Class MyClass contains 1 abstract method and must
therefore be declared abstract or implement the remaining methods
(RequiredInterface::getName)
This requires the developer to code the methods of RequiredInterface.
PHP code example:
class Foo {
public function sneeze() { echo 'achoooo'; }
}
abstract class Bar extends Foo {
public abstract function hiccup();
}
class Baz extends Bar {
public function hiccup() { echo 'hiccup!'; }
}
$baz = new Baz();
$baz->sneeze();
$baz->hiccup();
It is possible for an abstract class to extend Serializable, as abstract classes do not need to be base classes
This adds a __constructor to your class Paragraph which checks to see if Serializable is implemented.
class Paragraph extends Tag implements View
{
public function __construct(){
if(!class_implements('Serializable')){
throw new error; // set your error here..
}
}
public function __toString()
{
print '<p';
foreach($this->attributes as $attribute => $value)
print ' '.$attribute.'="'.$value.'"';
print '>';
// Displaying children if any (not handled in this code sample).
print '</p>';
}
}
Related
Is there any way to define abstract class properties in PHP?
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public $tablename;
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' $property
public $tablename = 'users';
}
There is no such thing as defining a property.
You can only declare properties because they are containers of data reserved in memory on initialization.
A function on the other hand can be declared (types, name, parameters) without being defined (function body missing) and thus, can be made abstract.
"Abstract" only indicates that something was declared but not defined and therefore before using it, you need to define it or it becomes useless.
No, there is no way to enforce that with the compiler, you'd have to use run-time checks (say, in the constructor) for the $tablename variable, e.g.:
class Foo_Abstract {
public final function __construct(/*whatever*/) {
if(!isset($this->tablename))
throw new LogicException(get_class($this) . ' must have a $tablename');
}
}
To enforce this for all derived classes of Foo_Abstract you would have to make Foo_Abstract's constructor final, preventing overriding.
You could declare an abstract getter instead:
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public function get_tablename();
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
protected $tablename = 'tablename';
public function get_tablename() {
return $this->tablename;
}
}
Depending on the context of the property, if I want to force declaration of an abstract class property in an extended class, I like to use a constant with the static keyword for the property in the abstract object constructor or setter/getter methods. You can optionally use final to prevent the method from being overridden in extended classes.
Example: https://3v4l.org/WH5Xl
abstract class AbstractFoo
{
public $bar;
final public function __construct()
{
$this->bar = static::BAR;
}
}
class Foo extends AbstractFoo
{
//const BAR = 'foobar'; //uncomment to prevent exception
}
$foo = new Foo();
//Fatal Error: Undefined class constant 'BAR'
However, the extended class overrides the parent class properties and methods if redefined.
For example; if a property is declared as protected in the parent and redefined as public in the extended class, the resulting property is public. Otherwise, if the property is declared private in the parent it will remain private and not available to the extended class.
http://www.php.net//manual/en/language.oop5.static.php
As stated above, there is no such exact definition.
I, however, use this simple workaround to force the child class to define the "abstract" property:
abstract class Father
{
public $name;
abstract protected function setName(); // now every child class must declare this
// function and thus declare the property
public function __construct()
{
$this->setName();
}
}
class Son extends Father
{
protected function setName()
{
$this->name = "son";
}
function __construct(){
parent::__construct();
}
}
The need for abstract properties can indicate design problems. While many of answers implement kind of Template method pattern and it works, it always looks kind of strange.
Let's take a look at the original example:
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public $tablename;
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' $property
public $tablename = 'users';
}
To mark something abstract is to indicate it a must-have thing. Well, a must-have value (in this case) is a required dependency, so it should be passed to the constructor during instantiation:
class Table
{
private $name;
public function __construct(string $name)
{
$this->name = $name;
}
public function name(): string
{
return $this->name;
}
}
Then if you actually want a more concrete named class you can inherit like so:
final class UsersTable extends Table
{
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct('users');
}
}
This can be useful if you use DI container and have to pass different tables for different objects.
I've asked myself the same question today, and I'd like to add my two cents.
The reason we would like abstract properties is to make sure that subclasses define them and throw exceptions when they don't. In my specific case, I needed something that could work with statically.
Ideally I would like something like this:
abstract class A {
abstract protected static $prop;
}
class B extends A {
protected static $prop = 'B prop'; // $prop defined, B loads successfully
}
class C extends A {
// throws an exception when loading C for the first time because $prop
// is not defined.
}
I ended up with this implementation
abstract class A
{
// no $prop definition in A!
public static final function getProp()
{
return static::$prop;
}
}
class B extends A
{
protected static $prop = 'B prop';
}
class C extends A
{
}
As you can see, in A I don't define $prop, but I use it in a static getter. Therefore, the following code works
B::getProp();
// => 'B prop'
$b = new B();
$b->getProp();
// => 'B prop'
In C, on the other hand, I don't define $prop, so I get exceptions:
C::getProp();
// => Exception!
$c = new C();
$c->getProp();
// => Exception!
I must call the getProp() method to get the exception and I can't get it on class loading, but it is quite close to the desired behavior, at least in my case.
I define getProp() as final to avoid that some smart guy (aka myself in 6 months) is tempted to do
class D extends A {
public static function getProp() {
// really smart
}
}
D::getProp();
// => no exception...
As you could have found out by just testing your code:
Fatal error: Properties cannot be declared abstract in ... on line 3
No, there is not. Properties cannot be declared abstract in PHP.
However you can implement a getter/setter function abstract, this might be what you're looking for.
Properties aren't implemented (especially public properties), they just exist (or not):
$foo = new Foo;
$foo->publicProperty = 'Bar';
PHP 7 makes it quite a bit easier for making abstract "properties". Just as above, you will make them by creating abstract functions, but with PHP 7 you can define the return type for that function, which makes things a lot easier when you're building a base class that anyone can extend.
<?php
abstract class FooBase {
abstract public function FooProp(): string;
abstract public function BarProp(): BarClass;
public function foo() {
return $this->FooProp();
}
public function bar() {
return $this->BarProp()->name();
}
}
class BarClass {
public function name() {
return 'Bar!';
}
}
class FooClass extends FooBase {
public function FooProp(): string {
return 'Foo!';
}
public function BarProp(): BarClass {
// This would not work:
// return 'not working';
// But this will!
return new BarClass();
}
}
$test = new FooClass();
echo $test->foo() . PHP_EOL;
echo $test->bar() . PHP_EOL;
if tablename value will never change during the object's lifetime, following will be a simple yet safe implementation.
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract protected function getTablename();
public function showTableName()
{
echo 'my table name is '.$this->getTablename();
}
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' getTablename()
protected function getTablename()
{
return 'users';
}
}
the key here is that the string value 'users' is specified and returned directly in getTablename() in child class implementation. The function mimics a "readonly" property.
This is fairly similar to a solution posted earlier on which uses an additional variable. I also like Marco's solution though it can be a bit more complicated.
Just define the property in the base class without assigning it a (default) value.
Getting the property value without redefining it with a default value or assigning it a value will throw an Error.
<?php
class Base {
protected string $name;
public function i_am() : string {
return $this->name;
}
}
class Wrong extends Base {
...
}
class Good extends Base {
protected string $name = 'Somebody';
}
$test = new Good();
echo $test->i_am(), '<br>'; // Will show "Nobody"
$test = new Wrong();
echo $test->i_am(), '<br>'; // Will throw an Error:
// Error: Typed property Base::$name must not be accessed before initialization in ....
?>
You can define a static property in an abstract class.
<?php
abstract class Foo {
private static $bar = "1234";
public static function func() {
echo self::$bar;
}
}
Foo::func(); // It will be printed 1234
Too late to answer the question, but you may use the difference between self and static as follows
<?php
class A { // Base Class
protected static $name = 'ClassA';
public static function getSelfName() {
return self::$name;
}
public static function getStaticName() {
return static::$name;
}
}
class B extends A {
protected static $name = 'ClassB';
}
echo A::getSelfName(); // ClassA
echo A::getStaticName(); // ClassA
echo B::getSelfName(); // ClassA
echo B::getStaticName(); // ClassB
I have an abstract class that declares the methods required to its children. It also has a construstor that its children inherits. How can I make the abstract class affect the children of the classes that extends it. To further clarify my question, here is my case:
The Abstract Class (abstract.php):
<?php
include_once 'database.php';
include_once 'validation.php';
abstract class DataOperations extends DatabaseConnection {
//The error string shared by all children of DataOperations
//This will be the message to be displayed in case validation failure
public $validator;
public $err_valid_string;
/**
* The DataOperations' constructor ensures that all of its children can perform database operation
* by automatically starting it for them. In case a child overrides this constructor, this child
* must explicitly start the connection to prevent fatal errors. Also, $validator must be re-instantiated
*/
public function __construct() {
$this->startDBConnection();
$this->validator = new InputValidator();
}
public function __destruct() {
}
abstract public function validateData();
abstract public function loadRecord($key, $cascade);
abstract public function saveRecord();
abstract public function updateRecord();
abstract public function deleteRecord();
}
?>
Now, here is the child object that extends the DataOperations abstract class
class Guest extends DataOperations {
//some properties here
public function validateData() {
//implementation
}
public function newRecord(implementation) {
//implementation
}
public function loadRecord($key, $cascade){
//implementation
}
public function saveRecord() {
//implementation
}
public function updateRecord() {
//implementation
}
public function deleteRecord() {
//implementation
}
}
?>
And here is another class, which is a child of Guest
class Booking extends Guest {
//some properties here
public function validateData() {
//implementation
}
public function newRecord(implementation) {
//implementation
}
public function loadRecord($key, $cascade){
//implementation
}
public function saveRecord() {
//implementation
}
public function updateRecord() {
//implementation
}
public function deleteRecord() {
//implementation
}
}
?>
The problem is, if I remove a method in Booking, say deleteRecord(), PHP won't throw an error because I think abstract class doesn't affect its 'grandchildren'. How can I fix this? I thought of using interfaces but my system already has 11 classes that depends to some methods of the abstract class. It will require intensive refactoring.
As you himself stated interface is best suited solution. Like
include_once 'database.php';
include_once 'validation.php';
interface DbInterface {
abstract public function validateData();
abstract public function loadRecord($key, $cascade);
abstract public function saveRecord();
abstract public function updateRecord();
abstract public function deleteRecord();
}
class DataOperations extends DatabaseConnection {
//The error string shared by all children of DataOperations
//This will be the message to be displayed in case validation failure
public $validator;
public $err_valid_string;
/**
* The DataOperations' constructor ensures that all of its children can perform database operation
* by automatically starting it for them. In case a child overrides this constructor, this child
* must explicitly start the connection to prevent fatal errors. Also, $validator must be re-instantiated
*/
public function __construct() {
$this->startDBConnection();
$this->validator = new InputValidator();
}
public function __destruct() {
}
}
class Guest extends DataOperations implements DbInterface {
- - -
}
class Booking extends Guest implements DbInterface {
- - -
}
First as you see I removed abstract from parent class as I assuming only those methods are abstract. Second as per your problem of 11 classes depend on Abstract class, I would say As you only remove abstract methods, Class implementing abstract methods now should implement interface. It is one time needed task. While classes using other normal methods of abstract class work like previous.
The best and cleanest way would be to have your "BOOKING" class extend the "DATAOPERATIONS" class, instead of GUEST, because looks like you don't have any extra methods in the BOOKING class. other wise make and interface and implement it. That is not the preferred way but you would have to give more info your situation.
To be clear, re-declaring a method in a child class will overwrite the parent class's implementation of that method when called from the child class, while not affecting any additional functionality provided by extending the parent class:
class a
{
function hello()
{
echo "Hello";
}
function goodbye()
{
echo "Goodbye";
}
}
/**
* class b overwrites class a's implementation of method goodbye but will retain
* it's definition for method hello
*/
class b extends a
{
function goodbye()
{
echo "See ya!";
}
}
$object = new b();
$object->hello(); // Hello
$object->goodbye();// See ya!
It appears that you want to implement a consistent interface across multiple class definitions. If this is the case, you will likely want to explore using PHP's interfaces.
These allow you to specify the methods that must exist in your class definition along with their set of arguments (collectively known as the signature). Your class definitions will implement an interface and if your definition does not meet the interface implementation specification, a fatal error will be thrown.
From the PHP manual:
// Declare the interface 'iTemplate'
interface iTemplate
{
public function setVariable($name, $var);
public function getHtml($template);
}
// Implement the interface
// This will work
class Template implements iTemplate
{
private $vars = array();
public function setVariable($name, $var)
{
$this->vars[$name] = $var;
}
public function getHtml($template)
{
foreach($this->vars as $name => $value) {
$template = str_replace('{' . $name . '}', $value, $template);
}
return $template;
}
// This will not work
// Fatal error: Class BadTemplate contains 1 abstract methods
// and must therefore be declared abstract (iTemplate::getHtml)
class BadTemplate implements iTemplate
{
private $vars = array();
public function setVariable($name, $var)
{
$this->vars[$name] = $var;
}
}
You can find more information about interface in the PHP manual:
http://us2.php.net/interface
Finally, it looks like you are hoping to define a common constructor for the child classes. Your child classes can both extend the DataOperations class while implementing a separate interface:
class Guest extends DataOperations implements DatabaseWriter
...
Whilst developing an object-orientated HMVC that has a super-object, at some point during the application process, it required the utilisation of namespaces. Here, namespaces will act as a method of "versioning" different code that can be accessed the same way. In the scaled down example below, I am able to execute the class Foo with the method qux if I am in version A or B. I understand that if I utilise self:: rather than $this the problem will disappear, however, I wish to avoid this. At the moment, I get the following PHP error:
Fatal error: Using $this when not in object context
So my question is, how can I use $this in this particular context?
namespace
{
$gamma = new \Gamma();
$gamma->execute('A', 'Foo', 'qux');
// ...
class Alpha
{
// ...
}
class Beta extends Alpha
{
public function foo($input)
{
echo $this->bar($input);
}
public function bar($input)
{
return $input;
}
}
class Gamma extends Beta
{
public function execute($space, $class, $method)
{
call_user_func_array(array($space . '\\' . $class, $method), array());
}
}
}
namespace A
{
class Foo extends \Gamma
{
public function qux()
{
$this->foo('I like turtles');
}
}
}
namespace B
{
class Foo extends \Gamma
{
public function qux()
{
$this->foo('I like strawberries');
}
}
}
The expected output is:
"I like turtles"
Any advice, answers, guidance are much appreciated. :3
Solved.
I was passing the class via the call_user_func_array function statically. Therefore, I was unable to use $this. Thus, an initiation of the requested class would be required, and passed through as a variable, like so:
// ... Continuing from Beta::execute() ...
$class = $space . '\\' . $class;
$class = new $class();
call_user_func_array(array($class, $method), array());
This is what abstract methods are for.
You should declare Master as an abstract class, and qux as an abstract method:
abstract class Master
{
public function __construct()
{
$this->qux();
}
abstract public function qux();
}
class Foo extends Master
{
public function qux()
{
....
}
}
Is there any way to define abstract class properties in PHP?
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public $tablename;
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' $property
public $tablename = 'users';
}
There is no such thing as defining a property.
You can only declare properties because they are containers of data reserved in memory on initialization.
A function on the other hand can be declared (types, name, parameters) without being defined (function body missing) and thus, can be made abstract.
"Abstract" only indicates that something was declared but not defined and therefore before using it, you need to define it or it becomes useless.
No, there is no way to enforce that with the compiler, you'd have to use run-time checks (say, in the constructor) for the $tablename variable, e.g.:
class Foo_Abstract {
public final function __construct(/*whatever*/) {
if(!isset($this->tablename))
throw new LogicException(get_class($this) . ' must have a $tablename');
}
}
To enforce this for all derived classes of Foo_Abstract you would have to make Foo_Abstract's constructor final, preventing overriding.
You could declare an abstract getter instead:
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public function get_tablename();
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
protected $tablename = 'tablename';
public function get_tablename() {
return $this->tablename;
}
}
Depending on the context of the property, if I want to force declaration of an abstract class property in an extended class, I like to use a constant with the static keyword for the property in the abstract object constructor or setter/getter methods. You can optionally use final to prevent the method from being overridden in extended classes.
Example: https://3v4l.org/WH5Xl
abstract class AbstractFoo
{
public $bar;
final public function __construct()
{
$this->bar = static::BAR;
}
}
class Foo extends AbstractFoo
{
//const BAR = 'foobar'; //uncomment to prevent exception
}
$foo = new Foo();
//Fatal Error: Undefined class constant 'BAR'
However, the extended class overrides the parent class properties and methods if redefined.
For example; if a property is declared as protected in the parent and redefined as public in the extended class, the resulting property is public. Otherwise, if the property is declared private in the parent it will remain private and not available to the extended class.
http://www.php.net//manual/en/language.oop5.static.php
As stated above, there is no such exact definition.
I, however, use this simple workaround to force the child class to define the "abstract" property:
abstract class Father
{
public $name;
abstract protected function setName(); // now every child class must declare this
// function and thus declare the property
public function __construct()
{
$this->setName();
}
}
class Son extends Father
{
protected function setName()
{
$this->name = "son";
}
function __construct(){
parent::__construct();
}
}
The need for abstract properties can indicate design problems. While many of answers implement kind of Template method pattern and it works, it always looks kind of strange.
Let's take a look at the original example:
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public $tablename;
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' $property
public $tablename = 'users';
}
To mark something abstract is to indicate it a must-have thing. Well, a must-have value (in this case) is a required dependency, so it should be passed to the constructor during instantiation:
class Table
{
private $name;
public function __construct(string $name)
{
$this->name = $name;
}
public function name(): string
{
return $this->name;
}
}
Then if you actually want a more concrete named class you can inherit like so:
final class UsersTable extends Table
{
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct('users');
}
}
This can be useful if you use DI container and have to pass different tables for different objects.
I've asked myself the same question today, and I'd like to add my two cents.
The reason we would like abstract properties is to make sure that subclasses define them and throw exceptions when they don't. In my specific case, I needed something that could work with statically.
Ideally I would like something like this:
abstract class A {
abstract protected static $prop;
}
class B extends A {
protected static $prop = 'B prop'; // $prop defined, B loads successfully
}
class C extends A {
// throws an exception when loading C for the first time because $prop
// is not defined.
}
I ended up with this implementation
abstract class A
{
// no $prop definition in A!
public static final function getProp()
{
return static::$prop;
}
}
class B extends A
{
protected static $prop = 'B prop';
}
class C extends A
{
}
As you can see, in A I don't define $prop, but I use it in a static getter. Therefore, the following code works
B::getProp();
// => 'B prop'
$b = new B();
$b->getProp();
// => 'B prop'
In C, on the other hand, I don't define $prop, so I get exceptions:
C::getProp();
// => Exception!
$c = new C();
$c->getProp();
// => Exception!
I must call the getProp() method to get the exception and I can't get it on class loading, but it is quite close to the desired behavior, at least in my case.
I define getProp() as final to avoid that some smart guy (aka myself in 6 months) is tempted to do
class D extends A {
public static function getProp() {
// really smart
}
}
D::getProp();
// => no exception...
As you could have found out by just testing your code:
Fatal error: Properties cannot be declared abstract in ... on line 3
No, there is not. Properties cannot be declared abstract in PHP.
However you can implement a getter/setter function abstract, this might be what you're looking for.
Properties aren't implemented (especially public properties), they just exist (or not):
$foo = new Foo;
$foo->publicProperty = 'Bar';
PHP 7 makes it quite a bit easier for making abstract "properties". Just as above, you will make them by creating abstract functions, but with PHP 7 you can define the return type for that function, which makes things a lot easier when you're building a base class that anyone can extend.
<?php
abstract class FooBase {
abstract public function FooProp(): string;
abstract public function BarProp(): BarClass;
public function foo() {
return $this->FooProp();
}
public function bar() {
return $this->BarProp()->name();
}
}
class BarClass {
public function name() {
return 'Bar!';
}
}
class FooClass extends FooBase {
public function FooProp(): string {
return 'Foo!';
}
public function BarProp(): BarClass {
// This would not work:
// return 'not working';
// But this will!
return new BarClass();
}
}
$test = new FooClass();
echo $test->foo() . PHP_EOL;
echo $test->bar() . PHP_EOL;
if tablename value will never change during the object's lifetime, following will be a simple yet safe implementation.
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract protected function getTablename();
public function showTableName()
{
echo 'my table name is '.$this->getTablename();
}
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' getTablename()
protected function getTablename()
{
return 'users';
}
}
the key here is that the string value 'users' is specified and returned directly in getTablename() in child class implementation. The function mimics a "readonly" property.
This is fairly similar to a solution posted earlier on which uses an additional variable. I also like Marco's solution though it can be a bit more complicated.
Just define the property in the base class without assigning it a (default) value.
Getting the property value without redefining it with a default value or assigning it a value will throw an Error.
<?php
class Base {
protected string $name;
public function i_am() : string {
return $this->name;
}
}
class Wrong extends Base {
...
}
class Good extends Base {
protected string $name = 'Somebody';
}
$test = new Good();
echo $test->i_am(), '<br>'; // Will show "Nobody"
$test = new Wrong();
echo $test->i_am(), '<br>'; // Will throw an Error:
// Error: Typed property Base::$name must not be accessed before initialization in ....
?>
You can define a static property in an abstract class.
<?php
abstract class Foo {
private static $bar = "1234";
public static function func() {
echo self::$bar;
}
}
Foo::func(); // It will be printed 1234
Too late to answer the question, but you may use the difference between self and static as follows
<?php
class A { // Base Class
protected static $name = 'ClassA';
public static function getSelfName() {
return self::$name;
}
public static function getStaticName() {
return static::$name;
}
}
class B extends A {
protected static $name = 'ClassB';
}
echo A::getSelfName(); // ClassA
echo A::getStaticName(); // ClassA
echo B::getSelfName(); // ClassA
echo B::getStaticName(); // ClassB
I think there is a problem in php's OOP implementation.
EDIT: Consider more illustrative example:
abstract class Animal {
public $name;
// public function Communicate(Animal $partner) {} // Works
public abstract function Communicate(Animal $partner); // Gives error
}
class Panda extends Animal {
public function Communicate(Panda $partner) {
echo "Hi {$partner->name} I'm a Panda";
}
}
class Human extends Animal {
public function Communicate(Human $partner) {
echo "Hi {$partner->name} I'm a Human";
}
}
$john = new Human(); $john->name = 'John';
$mary = new Human(); $mary->name = 'Mary';
$john->Communicate($mary); // should be ok
$zuzi = new Panda(); $zuzi->name = 'Zuzi';
$zuzi->Communicate($john); // should give error
The problem is that when Animal::Communicate is an abstract method, php tells that the following methods are illegal:
"public function Communicate(Panda $partner)"
"public function Communicate(Human $partner)"
but when Animal::Communicate is non-abstract but has zero-implementation Php thinks that these methods are legal. So in my opinion it's not right because we are doing override in both cases, and these both cases are equal, so it seems like it's a bug...
Older part of the post:
Please consider the following code:
Framework.php
namespace A
{
class Component { ... }
abstract class Decorator {
public abstract function Decorate(\A\Component $component);
}
}
Implementation.php
namespace B
{
class MyComponent extends \A\Component { ... }
}
MyDecorator.php
namespace A
{
class MyDecorator extends Decorator {
public function Decorate(\B\MyComponent $component) { ... }
}
}
The following code gives error in MyDecorator.php telling
Fatal error: Declaration of MyDecorator::Decorate() must be compatible with that of A\Decorator::Decorate() in MyDecorator.php on line ...
But when I change the Framework.php::Decorator class to the following implementation:
abstract class Decorator {
public function Decorate(\A\Component $component) {}
}
the problem disappears.
I'm not sure (haven't tested it ;), but you declare this abstract function:
public abstract function Decorate(\A\Component $component);
So you should implement this EXACTLY like that. But you did this:
public function Decorate(\B\MyComponent $component) { ... }
That's not the same. Could you try to change that to \A\Component?
To all comments: fact of the matter is that this piece of PHP "runs"
namespace A
{
class Component { }
abstract class Decorator {
public abstract function Decorate(\A\Component $component);
}
}
namespace B
{
class MyComponent extends \A\Component { }
}
namespace A
{
class MyDecorator extends Decorator {
public function Decorate(\A\Component $component) {}
}
}
And this doesn't:
<?php
namespace A
{
class Component { }
abstract class Decorator {
public abstract function Decorate(\A\Component $component);
}
}
namespace B
{
class MyComponent extends \A\Component { }
}
namespace A
{
class MyDecorator extends Decorator {
public function Decorate(\B\MyComponent $component) {}
}
}
?>
With this error: PHP Fatal error: Declaration of A\MyDecorator::Decorate() must be compatible with that of A\Decorator::Decorate() in line 18
Now you can discuss all you like about how that should or should not be, but that's the problem with the code.
so, to satisfy my own curiosity: this is illegal too:
<?php
class Component { }
abstract class Decorator {
public abstract function Decorate(Component $component);
}
class MyComponent extends Component { }
class MyDecorator extends Decorator {
public function Decorate(MyComponent $component) {}
}
?>
It's not the namespaces or anything. It just doesn't seem legal.
See http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=36601, this issues has been reported as a bug but was rejected because of laziness :D
It has nothing to do with it being abstract. It has to do with the type hinting. The two definitions of the method are not compatible because you explicitly set the argument to be of type \A\Component and then try to overload the method with \B\Component you cant do that because it changes the method signature. Any subsequent declaration of Decorate must use the same type hint as its parent declaration in order for the method signatures to be compatible.
This might assist someone, and am not late.
The best way to handle such is by using an interface.
Consider below;
<?php
interface Componentor{}
class Component implements Componentor { }
abstract class Decorator {
public abstract function Decorate(Componentor $component);
}
class MyComponent extends Component { }
class MyDecorator extends Decorator {
public function Decorate(Componentor $component) {}
}
?>
Usage;
<?php
$c=new Component();
//TODO ....blah blah blah...
$decor=new MyDecorator();
//TODO ....blah blah blah...
$decor->Decorate($c);
?>