I have lots of code like this in my constructors:-
function __construct($params) {
$this->property = isset($params['property']) ? $params['property'] : default_val;
}
Some default values are taken from other properties, which was why I was doing this in the constructor. But I guess it could be done in a setter instead.
What are the pros and cons of this method and is there a better one?
Edit: I have some dependencies where if a property is not supplied in the $params array then the value is taken from another property, however that other property may be optional and have a default value, so the order in which properties are initialized matters.
This means that if I used getters and setters then it is not obvious which order to call them in because the dependencies are abstracted away in the getter instead of being in the constructer...
I would suggest you, to write proper getter/setter functions, which assert you the correct data-type and validations (and contain your mentioned default-value logic). Those should be used inside your constructor.
When setting multiple fields, which depend on each other, it seems to be nice to have a separate setter for this complex data. In which kind of way are they depending anyway?
e.g.:
// META-Config
protected $static_default_values = array(
"price" => 0.0,
"title" => "foobar"
// and so on
);
protected $fallback_getter = array(
"price" => "getfallback_price"
);
// Class Logic
public function __construct($params){
$this->set_properties($params);
}
public set_properties($properties){
// determines the sequence of the setter-calls
$high_prio_fields = array("price", "title", "unimportant_field");
foreach($high_prio_fields as $field){
$this->generic_set($field, $properties[$field]);
// important: unset fields in properties-param to avoid multiple calls
unset($properties[$field]);
}
foreach($properties as $field => $value){
$this->generic_set($field, $value);
}
}
// this could also be defined within the magic-setter,
// but be aware, that magic-functions can't be resolved by your IDE completely
// for code-completion!
private function generic_set($field, $value){
// check if setter exists for given field-key
$setter_func = "set_".$v;
if(method_exists($this, $setter_func){
call_user_func_array(array($this, $setter_func), array($v));
}
// else => just discard :)
}
// same comment as generic-set
private function generic_get($field){
// check if value is present in properties array
if(isset($this->properties[$field]){
return $this->properties[$field];
}
// check if fallback_getter is present
if(isset($this->fallback_getter[$field]){
return call_user_func_array(array($this, $this->fallback_getter[$field]));
}
// check for default-value in meta-config
if(isset($this->static_default_values[$field]){
return $this->static_default_values[$field];
}
// else => fail (throw exception or return NULL)
return null;
}
public function get_price(){
// custom getter, which ovverrides generic get (if you want to)
// custom code...
return $this->generic_get("price");
}
private function getfallback_price(){
return $this->properties["other_value"] * $this->properties["and_another_value"];
}
public function set_price($price){
$price = (float) $price; // convert to correct data-type
if($price >= 0.0){
$this->properties["price"] = $price;
}
// else discard setting-func, because given parameter seems to be invalid
// optional: throw exception or return FALSE on fail (so you can handle this on your own later)
}
Update to your edit:
the modified source-code should solve all your demands (order of setter-funcs, different resolvings of get-value).
Create "globally available" function array_get.
public static function array_get($array, $property, $default_value = null) {
return isset($array[$property]) ? $array[$property] : $default_value;
}
When having a lot of default options and you need to be able to overwrite them - as you have maybe seen in jQuery using .extend() before - I like to use this simple and quick method:
class Foo {
private $options;
public function __construct($override = array()) {
$defaults = array(
'param1' => 'foo',
'param2' => ...,
'paramN' => 'someOtherDefaultValue');
$this->options= array_replace_recursive($defaults, $override);
}
}
Especially for getting classes started this is a very easy and flexible way, but as already has been mentioned if that code is going to be heavily used then it probably not a bad idea to introduce some more control over those options with getters and setters, especially if you need to take actions when some of those options are get or set, like in your case dependencies if I understood your problem correctly.
Also note that you don't have to implement getters and setters yourself, in PHP you can use the __get and __set magic methods.
It follows some useless code that hopefully gives some ideas:
[...inside Foo...]
public function __set($key, $value){
switch(true){
//option exists in this class
case isset($this->options[$key]):
//below check if $value is callable
//and use those functions as "setter" handlers
//they could resolve dependencies for example
$this->options[$key] = is_callable($value) ? $value($key) : $value;
break;
//Adds a virtual setter to Foo. This so called 'magic' __set method is also called if the property doesn't exist in the class, so you can add arbitrary things.
case $key === 'someVirtualSetterProp': Xyzzy::Noop($value); break;
default:
try{ parent::__set($key, $value); } catch(Exception $e){ /* Oops, fix it! */ }
}
}
Note that in the above examples I squeezed in different approaches and it usually doesn't make sense to mix them like that. I did this only to illustrate some ideas and hopefully you will be able to decide better what suits your needs.
Related
I just found something "kinda strange" about PHP 7.4 and I am not sure if it is just me missing something or maybe if it is an actual bug. Mostly I am interested in your opinion/confirmation.
So in PHP, you can iterate over objects properties like this:
class DragonBallClass
{
public $goku;
public $bulma = 'Bulma';
public $vegeta = 'Vegeta';
}
$dragonBall = new DragonBallClass();
foreach ($dragonBall as $character) {
var_dump($character);
}
RESULT
NULL
string(5) "Bulma"
string(6) "Vegeta"
Now if we start using strongly typed properties like that:
class DragonBallClass
{
public string $goku;
public string $bulma = 'Bulma';
public string $vegeta = 'Vegeta';
}
$dragonBall = new DragonBallClass();
foreach ($dragonBall as $character) {
var_dump($character);
}
We will get a different result:
string(5) "Bulma"
string(6) "Vegeta"
Now what is different:
When you DO NOT assign a default value to strongly typed property it will be of Uninitialized type. Which of course makes sense. The problem is though that if they end up like this you cannot loop over them they will simply be omitted - no error, no anything as you can see in the second example. So I just lose access to them.
It makes sense but just imagine that you have a custom Request/Data class like this:
namespace App\Request\Request\Post;
use App\Request\Request\Request;
class GetPostsRequest extends Request
{
public string $title = '';
}
Do you see that ugly string assignment? If I want to make my properties on the class iterable then I have to either:
drop types
assign dummy values
I might want to have an object with typed properties without any values in them to loop over them and populate them if that makes sense.
Is there any better way of doing this? Is there any option to keep types and keep em iterable without having to do this dummy value abomination?
If you want to allow a typed attribute to be nullable you can simply add a ? before the type and give NULL as default value like that:
class DragonBallClass
{
public ?string $goku = NULL;
public string $bulma = 'Bulma';
public string $vegeta = 'Vegeta';
}
In this case NULL is a perfectly legitimate value (and not a dummy value).
demo
Also without using ?, you can always merge the class properties with the object properties lists:
class DragonBallClass
{
public string $goku;
public string $bulma = 'Bulma';
public string $vegeta = 'Vegeta';
}
$dragonBall = new DragonBallClass();
$classProperties = get_class_vars(get_class($dragonBall));
$objectProperties = get_object_vars($dragonBall);
var_dump(array_merge($classProperties, $objectProperties));
// array(3) {
// ["goku"]=>
// NULL
// ["bulma"]=>
// string(5) "Bulma"
// ["vegeta"]=>
// string(6) "Vegeta"
// }
Before we start - I think that the answer accepted by me and provided by Casimir is better and more correct than what I came up with(that also goes for the comments).
I just wanted to share my thoughts and since this is a working solution to some degree at least we can call it an answer.
This is what I came up with for my specific needs and just for fun. I was curious about what I can do to make it more the way I want it to be so don't freak out about it ;P I think that this is a quite clean workaround - I know it's not perfect though.
class MyRequest
{
public function __construct()
{
$reflectedProperties = (new \ReflectionClass($this))->getProperties();
foreach ($reflectedProperties as $property) {
!$property->isInitialized($this) ??
$property->getType()->allowsNull() ? $property->setValue($this, null) : null;
}
}
}
class PostRequest extends MyRequest
{
public ?string $title;
}
$postRequest = new PostRequest();
// works fine - I have access here!
foreach($postRequest as $property) {
var_dump($property);
}
The downfall of this solution is that you always have to make types nullable in your class. However for me and my specific needs that is totally ok. I don't mind, they would end up as nullables anyway and it might be a nice workaround for a short deadline situation if someone is in a hurry.
It still keeps the original PHP not initialized error though when the type is not nullable. I think that is actually kinda cool now. You get to keep all the things: Slim and lean classes, PHP error indicating the true nature of the problem and possibility to loop over typed properties if you agree to keep them nullable. All governed by native PHP 7 nullable operator.
Of course, this can be changed or extended to be more type-specific if that makes any sense.
Update: this answer may be obsolete, but the comments contain an interesting discussion.
#Robert's workaround is buggy; in this part:
foreach ($reflectedProperties as $property) {
!$property->isInitialized($this) ??
$property->getType()->allowsNull() ? $property->setValue($this, null) : null;
}
the ?? must be corrected to &&.
Moreover that's a misuse of the ternary conditional; just use a classic if:
foreach ($reflectedProperties as $property) {
if (!$property->isInitialized($this)
&& $property->getType()->allowsNull()
) {
$property->setValue($this, null);
}
}
or:
foreach ($reflectedProperties as $property) {
if (!$property->isInitialized($this) && $property->getType()->allowsNull()) {
$property->setValue($this, null);
}
}
Probably not what you want, but you could use reflection:
<?php
class DragonBallClass
{
public string $goku;
public string $bulma = 'Bulma';
public string $vegeta = 'Vegeta';
}
$ob = new DragonBallClass;
$reflector = new ReflectionClass($ob);
foreach($reflector->getProperties(ReflectionProperty::IS_PUBLIC) as $prop) {
echo $prop->name, ':', ($ob->{$prop->name} ?? 'NOT INITIALISED'), "\n";
}
Output:
goku:NOT INITIALISED
bulma:Bulma
vegeta:Vegeta
I'm aware that you can have PHP functions with optional arguments like so:
function do_something($argument = null)
{
// argument not provided
if ($argument === null)
........
}
Consider the case that null/false and other values are all valid arguments to my function. How can I determine whether an argument was provided or not?
do_something(null); // argument provided
do_something(false); // argument provided
do_something(0); // argument provided
do_something("test"); // argument provided
do_something(new stdClass()); // argument provided
do_something(); // nothing provided
How can I detect the last case? I have thought about using func_num_args which would work in most cases but it doesn't work if I have several optional arguments.
Is there anything that solves this problem?
func_num_args() should work exactly as you want it to, because you might be assuming something that's actually not the case: You can't have optional arguments left out if they are in the middle of your arguments list.
So let's look at this function:
function test1 ($param1 = null, $param2 = null) {
return func_num_args();
}
If I call that with different parameter combinations I get the following results:
test1() => 0
test1(true) => 1
test1(true, true) => 2
There is just no way to call the function in a way where $param2 would be set while $param1 isn't. So you can map every possible output of func_num_args() to exactly one parameter configuration.
In the example above you can rely on the fact that
if the return value is 1, $param2 definitely hasn't been set, while $param1 has been.
For 0 it's 100% sure that neither one has been given.
And, of course, if it's 2 both are there.
What you actually would need are named parameters, as many other languages have them. PHP doesn't at the moment. NikiC actually wrote an RFC that suggests the addition of named parameters to PHP, but I think that's still way off in the future. You can check that out here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/named_params
As these are not yet available, here are a few workarounds you can try:
Workaround 1
If you really need to be able to have all the parameters optional, try a parameter array:
function test1 (array $opts) {
if (!isset($opts['opt1'])) { $opts['opt1'] = 'default1'; }
if (!isset($opts['opt2'])) { $opts['opt2'] = 'default2'; }
}
Then you can call it like this:
test1(array('opt2' => true))
It would set the first parameter to "default1" while keeping the second. And there are definitely better and more elegant ways to do this (e.g. using an object instead), but the general idea is the same.
Workaround 2
You could also go with alias functions:
function test ($param1, $patam2) { ... ]
function testNoParam1 ($param2) {
test("default1", $param2);
}
That at least makes it very easy to read, but of course you need to pick the right function depending on the parameters you have.
Workaround 3
By adding a lot of additional code you could get really fancy and use a FactoryObject:
class FunctionExecutor {
private $param1 = "default1";
private $param2 = "default2";
public function param1($val) {
$this->param1 = $val;
return $this;
}
public function param2($val) {
$this->param2 = $val;
return $this;
}
public function execute() {
return yourFunction($this->param1, $this->param2);
}
}
This could be used like this:
$doSomething = new FunctionExecutor();
$returnValue = $doSomething->param2(42)->execute();
In this approach it would probably be a better idea to actually put your function into the object instead of defining it globally. Anyway...this is definitely a possibility, but not the most practical one. Just wanted to add it, because it has some benefits.
perhaps this will help: http://www.php.net//manual/en/function.func-get-args.php
$args = func_get_args();
if(!isset($arg[0])) {
echo 'no argument';
}
or
isset(func_get_arg(0));
Passing "null", "0", or "false" means that you allocate memory to store a variable, regardless it's scope, type, or size. Then it is used as a parameter to a function.
In PHP you cannot override functions by arguments, but you can access them by calling the "func_get_args()", and this is the only way to handle different numbers / types of arguments passed to a function:
function do_something() {
$args = func_get_args();
//do_something(stdClass, 1)
if($args[0] instanceof stdClass && is_numeric($args[1])) {
//handle
//return
//do_something(1, "string")
} else if(is_numeric($args[0]) && is_string($args[1])) {
//handle
//return
}
throw new Exception('invalid arguments');
}
do_something(new StdClass(), 100); //ok
do_something(100, "hell world") // ok
do_someting(); //throws Exception('invalid arguments');
In PHP 7, you can do:
function action(...$args) {
if (count($args) === 0) {
return action_default();
}
$var1 = array_shift($args);
$var2 = array_shift($args);
$var3 = array_shift($args);
// etc.
}
Say there is a class for objects, let's use a User as an example. The User class contains it's own Rules to validate it's data before submitting. Before saving to the database, the Rules will be checked and any errors will be returned. Otherwise the update will run.
class User extends DBTable // contains $Rules, $Data, $Updates, and other stuff
{
public __construct($ID)
{
parent::__construct($ID);
// I'll only list a couple rules here...
$this->Rules['Email'] = array(
'Empty' => 'ValidateEmpty', // pre-written functions, somewhere else
'Invalid' => 'ValidateBadEmail', // they return TRUE on error
'Duplicate' => function($val) { return existInDatabase('user_table', 'ID_USER', '`Email`="'. $val .'" AND `ID_USER`!='. $this->ID);}
);
$this->Rules['Password'] = array(
'Empty' => 'ValidateEmpty',
'Short' => function($val) { return strlen($val) < 8; }
);
this->Rules['PasswordConfirm'] = array(
'Empty' => 'ValidateEmpty',
'Wrong' => function($val) { return $val != $this->Updates['Password']; }
);
}
public function Save(&$Errors = NULL)
{
$Data = array_merge($this->Data, $this->Updates);
foreach($this->Rules as $Fields => $Checks)
{
foreach($Checks as $Error => $Check)
{
if($Check($Data[$Field])) // TRUE means the data was bad
{
$Errors[$Field] = $Error; // Say what error it was for this field
break; // don't check any others
}
}
}
if(!empty($Errors))
return FALSE;
/* Run the save... */
return TRUE; // the save was successful
}
}
Hopefully I posted enough here. So you'll notice that in the Duplicate error for Email, I want to check that their new email does not exist for any other user excluding themselves. Also PasswordConfirm tries to use $this->Updates['Password'] to make sure they entered the same thing twice.
When Save is run, it loops through the Rules and sets any Errors that are present.
Here is my problem:
Fatal error: Using $this when not in object context in /home/run/its/ze/germans/Class.User.php on line 19
This error appears for all closures where I want to use $this.
It seems like the combination of closures in an array and that array in a class is causing the problem. This Rule array thing works fine outside of a class (usually involving "use") and AFAIK closures are supposed to be able to use $this in classes.
So, solution? Work-around?
Thanks.
The problem is with the Wrong validator. The validation method is called from here:
if($Check($Data[$Field])) // TRUE means the data was bad
This call is not made in an object context (the lambda is not a class method). Therefore $this inside the body of the lambda causes an error because it only exists when in an object context.
For PHP >= 5.4.0 you can solve the problem by causing the capture of $this:
function($val) { return $val != $this->Updates['Password']; }
In this case you will be able to access Updates no matter what its visibility is.
For PHP >= 5.3.0 you need to make a copy of the object reference and capturing that instead:
$self = $this;
function($val) use($self) { return $val != $self->Updates['Password']; }
In this case however, you will only be able to access Updates if it is public.
So, I have a object with structure similar to below, all of which are returned to me as stdClass objects
$person->contact->phone;
$person->contact->email;
$person->contact->address->line_1;
$person->contact->address->line_2;
$person->dob->day;
$person->dob->month;
$person->dob->year;
$album->name;
$album->image->height;
$album->image->width;
$album->artist->name;
$album->artist->id;
etc... (note these examples are not linked together).
Is it possible to use variable variables to call contact->phone as a direct property of $person?
For example:
$property = 'contact->phone';
echo $person->$property;
This will not work as is and throws a E_NOTICE so I am trying to work out an alternative method to achieve this.
Any ideas?
In response to answers relating to proxy methods:
And I would except this object is from a library and am using it to populate a new object with an array map as follows:
array(
'contactPhone' => 'contact->phone',
'contactEmail' => 'contact->email'
);
and then foreaching through the map to populate the new object. I guess I could envole the mapper instead...
If i was you I would create a simple method ->property(); that returns $this->contact->phone
Is it possible to use variable variables to call contact->phone as a direct property of $person?
It's not possible to use expressions as variable variable names.
But you can always cheat:
class xyz {
function __get($name) {
if (strpos($name, "->")) {
foreach (explode("->", $name) as $name) {
$var = isset($var) ? $var->$name : $this->$name;
}
return $var;
}
else return $this->$name;
}
}
try this code
$property = $contact->phone;
echo $person->$property;
I think this is a bad thing to to as it leads to unreadable code is is plain wrong on other levels too, but in general if you need to include variables in the object syntax you should wrap it in braces so that it gets parsed first.
For example:
$property = 'contact->phone';
echo $person->{$property};
The same applies if you need to access an object that has disalowed characters in the name which can happen with SimpleXML objects regularly.
$xml->{a-disallowed-field}
If it is legal it does not mean it is also moral. And this is the main issue with PHP, yes, you can do almost whatever you can think of, but that does not make it right. Take a look at the law of demeter:
Law of Demeter
try this if you really really want to:
json_decode(json_encode($person),true);
you will be able to parse it as an array not an object but it does your job for the getting not for the setting.
EDIT:
class Adapter {
public static function adapt($data,$type) {
$vars = get_class_vars($type);
if(class_exists($type)) {
$adaptedData = new $type();
} else {
print_R($data);
throw new Exception("Class ".$type." does not exist for data ".$data);
}
$vars = array_keys($vars);
foreach($vars as $v) {
if($v) {
if(is_object($data->$v)) {
// I store the $type inside the object
$adaptedData->$v = Adapter::adapt($data->$v,$data->$v->type);
} else {
$adaptedData->$v = $data->$v;
}
}
}
return $adaptedData;
}
}
OOP is much about shielding the object's internals from the outside world. What you try to do here is provide a way to publicize the innards of the phone through the person interface. That's not nice.
If you want a convenient way to get "all" the properties, you may want to write an explicit set of convenience functions for that, maybe wrapped in another class if you like. That way you can evolve the supported utilities without having to touch (and possibly break) the core data structures:
class conv {
static function phone( $person ) {
return $person->contact->phone;
}
}
// imagine getting a Person from db
$person = getpersonfromDB();
print conv::phone( $p );
If ever you need a more specialized function, you add it to the utilities. This is imho the nices solution: separate the convenience from the core to decrease complexity, and increase maintainability/understandability.
Another way is to 'extend' the Person class with conveniences, built around the core class' innards:
class ConvPerson extends Person {
function __construct( $person ) {
Person::__construct( $person->contact, $person->name, ... );
}
function phone() { return $this->contact->phone; }
}
// imagine getting a Person from db
$person = getpersonfromDB();
$p=new ConvPerson( $person );
print $p->phone();
You could use type casting to change the object to an array.
$person = (array) $person;
echo $person['contact']['phone'];
In most cases where you have nested internal objects, it might be a good time to re-evaluate your data structures.
In the example above, person has contact and dob. The contact also contains address. Trying to access the data from the uppermost level is not uncommon when writing complex database applications. However, you might find your the best solution to this is to consolidate data up into the person class instead of trying to essentially "mine" into the internal objects.
As much as I hate saying it, you could do an eval :
foreach ($properties as $property) {
echo eval("return \$person->$property;");
}
Besides making function getPhone(){return $this->contact->phone;} you could make a magic method that would look through internal objects for requested field. Do remember that magic methods are somewhat slow though.
class Person {
private $fields = array();
//...
public function __get($name) {
if (empty($this->fields)) {
$this->fields = get_class_vars(__CLASS__);
}
//Cycle through properties and see if one of them contains requested field:
foreach ($this->fields as $propName => $default) {
if (is_object($this->$propName) && isset($this->$propName->$name)) {
return $this->$propName->$name;
}
}
return NULL;
//Or any other error handling
}
}
I have decided to scrap this whole approach and go with a more long-winded but cleaner and most probably more efficient. I wasn't too keen on this idea in the first place, and the majority has spoken on here to make my mind up for me. Thank for you for your answers.
Edit:
If you are interested:
public function __construct($data)
{
$this->_raw = $data;
}
public function getContactPhone()
{
return $this->contact->phone;
}
public function __get($name)
{
if (isset($this->$name)) {
return $this->$name;
}
if (isset($this->_raw->$name)) {
return $this->_raw->$name;
}
return null;
}
In case you use your object in a struct-like way, you can model a 'path' to the requested node explicitly. You can then 'decorate' your objects with the same retrieval code.
An example of 'retrieval only' decoration code:
function retrieve( $obj, $path ) {
$element=$obj;
foreach( $path as $step ) {
$element=$element[$step];
}
return $element;
}
function decorate( $decos, &$object ) {
foreach( $decos as $name=>$path ) {
$object[$name]=retrieve($object,$path);
}
}
$o=array(
"id"=>array("name"=>"Ben","surname"=>"Taylor"),
"contact"=>array( "phone"=>"0101010" )
);
$decorations=array(
"phone"=>array("contact","phone"),
"name"=>array("id","name")
);
// this is where the action is
decorate( $decorations, &$o);
print $o->name;
print $o->phone;
(find it on codepad)
If you know the two function's names, could you do this? (not tested)
$a = [
'contactPhone' => 'contact->phone',
'contactEmail' => 'contact->email'
];
foreach ($a as $name => $chain) {
$std = new stdClass();
list($f1, $f2) = explode('->', $chain);
echo $std->{$f1}()->{$f2}(); // This works
}
If it's not always two functions, you could hack it more to make it work. Point is, you can call chained functions using variable variables, as long as you use the bracket format.
Simplest and cleanest way I know of.
function getValueByPath($obj,$path) {
return eval('return $obj->'.$path.';');
}
Usage
echo getValueByPath($person,'contact->email');
// Returns the value of that object path
I'm currently working on an OO PHP application. I have a class called validation which I would like to use to check all of the data submitted is valid, however I obviously need somewhere to define the rules for each property to be checked. At the moment, I'm using arrays during the construction of a new object. eg:
$this->name = array(
'maxlength' => 10,
'minlength' => 2,
'required' => true,
'value' => $namefromparameter
)
One array for each property.
I would then call a static method from the validation class which would carry out various checks depending on the values defined in each array.
Is there a more efficient way of doing this?
Any advice appreciated.
Thanks.
I know the associative array is used commonly to configure things in PHP (it's called magic container pattern and is considered bad practice, btw), but why don't you create multiple validator classes instead, each of which able to handle one rule? Something like this:
interface IValidator {
public function validate($value);
}
$validators[] = new StringLengthValidator(2, 10);
$validators[] = new NotNollValidator();
$validators[] = new UsernameDoesNotExistValidator();
This has multiple advantages over the implementation using arrays:
You can document them (very important), phpdoc cannot parse comments for array keys.
Your code becomes typo-safe (array('reqiured' => true))
It is fully OO and does not introduce new concepts
It is more readable (although much more verbose)
The implementation of each constraint can be found intuitively (it's not in a 400-line function, but in the proper class)
EDIT: Here is a link to an answer I gave to a different question, but that is mostly applicable to this one as well.
Since using OO it would be cleaner if you used classes for validating properties. E.g.
class StringProperty
{
public $maxLength;
public $minlength;
public $required;
public $value;
function __construct($value,$maxLength,$minLength,$required)
{
$this->value = $value;
$this-> maxLength = $maxLength;
$this-> minLength = $minLength;
$this-> required = $required;
}
function isValidat()
{
// Check if it is valid
}
function getValidationErrorMessage()
{
}
}
$this->name = new StringProperty($namefromparameter,10,2,true);
if(!$this->name->isValid())
{
$validationMessage = $this->name-getValidationErrorMessage();
}
Using a class has the advantage of encapsulating logic inside of it that the array (basically a structure) does not have.
Maybe get inspired by Zend-Framework Validation.
So define a master:
class BaseValidator {
protected $msgs = array();
protected $params = array();
abstract function isValid($value);
public function __CONSTRUCT($_params) {
$this->params = $_params;
}
public function getMessages() {
// returns errors-messages
return $this->msgs;
}
}
And then build your custom validators:
class EmailValidator extends BaseValidator {
public function isValid($val=null) {
// if no value set use the params['value']
if ($val==null) {
$val = $this->params['value'];
}
// validate the value
if (strlen($val) < $this->params['maxlength']) {
$this->msgs[] = 'Length too short';
}
return count($this->msgs) > 0 ? false : true;
}
}
Finally your inital array could become something like:
$this->name = new EmailValidator(
array(
'maxlength' => 10,
'minlength' => 2,
'required' => true,
'value' => $namefromparameter,
),
),
);
validation could then be done like this:
if ($this->name->isValid()) {
echo 'everything fine';
} else {
echo 'Error: '.implode('<br/>', $this->name->getMessages());
}