OOP concept understanding - php

I recently started learning the basics of OOP in PHP.
I am new to a whole lot of concepts.
In the traditional procedural way of doing things, if I had a repetitive task, I wrote a function and called it each time.
Since this seems to be a regular occurence, I created a small library of 5-10 functions, which I included in my procedural projects and used.
In OOP, what is the valid way of using your functions and having them accessible from all objects?
To make things closer to the real world, I created a thumbnail class, that takes an image filename as an argument and can perform some operations on it.
In procedural programming. when I had a function for creating thumbnails, I also had a function to create a random md5 string, check a given folder if said string existed, and repeat if it did, so I could generate a unique name for my thumbnails before saving them.
But if I wanted to generate another unique name for another purpose, say saving a text file, I could call that function again.
So, long story short, what is the valid OOP way to have the method randomise_and_check($filename) (and all other methods in my library) accessible from all the objects in my application?

Great question. The first thing you want to do is identify the primary objects you will be working with. An easy way to do this is to identify all the nouns related to your project. In your example it sounds like you will be working with images and strings, from this we can create two classes which will contain related attributes (functions, member variables, etc). And as you wisely mentioned, we need to ensure that the algorithms you are converting into OOP can be called from any context, so we try to keep them abstract as possible (within reason).
So for your specific situation I would suggest something like:
// Good object reference, abstract enough to cover any type of image
// But specific enough to provide semantic API calls
class Image
{
// Using your example, but to ensure you follow the DRY principle
// (Don't repeat yourself) this method should be broken up into two
// separate methods
public static function randomise_and_check($fileUri)
{
// Your code here
....
// Example of call to another class from within this class
$hash = String::generateHash();
}
}
// Very abstract, but allows this class to grow over time, by adding more
// string related methods
class String
{
public static function generateHash()
{
return md5(rand());
}
}
// Calling code example
$imageStats = Image::radomise_and_check($fileUri);
There are several other approaches and ideas that can be employed, such as whether or not to instantiate objects, or whether we should create a parent class from which we can extend, but these concepts will become evident over time and with practice. I think the code snippet provided should give you a good idea what you can do to make the jump from procedural to OOP. And, as always, don't forget to read the docs for more info.
-- Update --
Adding an OOP example:
class Image
{
protected $sourceUri;
public function setSourceUri($sourceUri)
{
$this->sourceUri = $sourceUri;
}
public function generateThumb()
{
return YourGenerator::resize($this->getSourceUri);
}
}
$image = new Image();
$image->setSourceUri($imageUri);
$thumbnail = $image->generateThumbnail();

The way I see it, you have two options:
Don't worry about cramming yourself into OOP and just make them standard, global functions in some utilities.php file you include wherever you want to use it. This is my preferred method.
If you take the more OOP approach, you could make them static functions ("methods") in some utilities class. From the PHP documentation:
<?php
class Foo {
public static function aStaticMethod() {
// ...
}
}
Foo::aStaticMethod();
$classname = 'Foo';
$classname::aStaticMethod(); // As of PHP 5.3.0
?>

Create an (abstract) Util-class with static functions:
example from my Util class:
abstract Class Util{
public static function dump($object){
echo '<pre class=\"dump\">' . print_r($object, true) . '</pre>';
}
}
How to use:
<?
$object = new Whatever();
//what's in the object?
Util::dump($object);
?>

For a beginner, OOP development is not all that different from procedural (once you master the basic concepts it gets quite a bit different, but that's not important to learning the basics).
You deal in OO concepts all the time, you just don't realize it. When you click on a file in your file manager, and manipulate that file.. you're using Object Oriented concepts. The file has attributes (size, type, read-only, etc..) and things you can do with it (open, copy, delete).
You just apply those concepts to development by creating objects that have properties and things you can do with it (methods).
In the OOP world, you don't typically make things available to everything else. OOP is all about "encapsulation", which is limiting access to only that which is needed. Why would you make a "haircut" method available to an orange juice object? You wouldn't. You only make the "haircut" method available to objects that need haircuts.

Writing reusable OO software is very difficult. Even professionals can't get it right a lot of the time. It requires a mixture of experience, training, practice, and frankly luck in some cases.
You should read about Dependency Injection as it seems to apply to your specific problem. Basically, you have an object that depends on some abstraction, maybe the "Image Library" functionality. In your controller, you would create an instance of the "Image Library" object and inject that dependency into whatever other objects required it.
That is, you need to stop thinking on the global scope altogether. Instead, you have to compartmentalize functionailties in a sane way and tie them together. Basically, objects should only know about as little as they need to know (also look up Law of Demeter and SOLID). I reiterate, this is tough to do correctly, and most of the time you can still have an application that works beautifully even if it's done incorrectly.
If you want to be very strict about this you should apply this line of thinking to everything, but if you have a function that wraps something very simple like return isset($_POST[$key]) ? $_POST[$key] : $default; I see no real harm in creating a global function for that. You could create an HttpPost wrapper class, but that is overkill in most circumstances IMO.

The short answer: use ordinary function. OOP encourages you to think about data and associated routines, using static functions instead of ordinary does not make your program more object-oriented. Following the single programming paradigm is not practical, combine them when you see that this will make your program cleaner.

Related

Lazy evaluation container for dynamic programming?

I have some pattern that works great for me, but that I have some difficulty explaining to fellow programmers. I am looking for some justification or literature reference.
I personally work with PHP, but this would also be applicable to Java, Javascript, C++, and similar languages. Examples will be in PHP or Pseudocode, I hope you can live with this.
The idea is to use a lazy evaluation container for intermediate results, to avoid multiple computation of the same intermediate value.
"Dynamic programming":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_programming
The dynamic programming approach seeks to solve each subproblem only once, thus reducing the number of computations: once the solution to a given subproblem has been computed, it is stored or "memo-ized": the next time the same solution is needed, it is simply looked up
Lazy evaluation container:
class LazyEvaluationContainer {
protected $values = array();
function get($key) {
if (isset($this->values[$key])) {
return $this->values[$key];
}
if (method_exists($this, $key)) {
return $this->values[$key] = $this->$key();
}
throw new Exception("Key $key not supported.");
}
protected function foo() {
// Make sure that bar() runs only once.
return $this->get('bar') + $this->get('bar');
}
protected function bar() {
.. // expensive computation.
}
}
Similar containers are used e.g. as dependency injection containers (DIC).
Details
I usually use some variation of this.
It is possible to have the actual data methods in a different object than the data computation methods?
It is possible to have computation methods with parameters, using a cache with a nested array?
In PHP it is possible to use magic methods (__get() or __call()) for the main retrieval method. In combination with "#property" in the class docblock, this allows type hints for each "virtual" property.
I often use method names like "get_someValue()", where "someValue" is the actual key, to distinguish from regular methods.
It is possible to distribute the data computation to more than one object, to get some kind of separation of concerns?
It is possible to pre-initialize some values?
EDIT: Questions
There is already a nice answer talking about a cute mechanic in Spring #Configuration classes.
To make this more useful and interesting, I extend/clarify the question a bit:
Is storing intermediate values from dynamic programming a legitimate use case for this?
What are the best practices to implement this in PHP? Is some of the stuff in "Details" bad and ugly?
If I understand you correctly, this is quite a standard procedure, although, as you rightly admit, associated with DI (or bootstrapping applications).
A concrete, canonical example would be any Spring #Configuration class with lazy bean definitions; I think it displays exactly the same behavior as you describe, although the actual code that accomplishes it is hidden from view (and generated behind the scenes). Actual Java code could be like this:
#Configuration
public class Whatever {
#Bean #Lazy
public OneThing createOneThing() {
return new OneThing();
}
#Bean #Lazy
public SomeOtherThing createSomeOtherThing() {
return new SomeOtherThing();
}
// here the magic begins:
#Bean #Lazy
public SomeThirdThing getSomeThirdThing() {
return new SomeThirdThing(this.createOneThing(), this.createOneThing(), this.createOneThing(), createSomeOtherThing());
}
}
Each method marked with #Bean #Lazy represents one "resource" that will be created once it is needed (and the method is called) and - no matter how many times it seems that the method is called - the object will only be created once (due to some magic that changes the actual code during loading). So even though it seems that in createOneThing() is called two times in createOneThing(), only one call will occur (and that's only after someone tries to call createSomeThirdThing() or calls getBean(SomeThirdThing.class) on ApplicationContext).
I think you cannot have a universal lazy evaluation container for everything.
Let's first discuss what you really have there. I don't think it's lazy evaluation. Lazy evaluation is defined as delaying an evaluation to the point where the value is really needed, and sharing an already evaluated value with further requests for that value.
The typical example that comes to my mind is a database connection. You'd prepare everything to be able to use that connection when it is needed, but only when there really is a database query needed, the connection is created, and then shared with subsequent queries.
The typical implementation would be to pass the connection string to the constructor, store it internally, and when there is a call to the query method, first the method to return the connection handle is called, which will create and save that handle with the connection string if it does not exist. Later calls to that object will reuse the existing connection.
Such a database object would qualify for lazy evaluating the database connection: It is only created when really needed, and it is then shared for every other query.
When I look at your implementation, it would not qualify for "evaluate only if really needed", it will only store the value that was once created. So it really is only some sort of cache.
It also does not really solve the problem of universally only evaluating the expensive computation once globally. If you have two instances, you will run the expensive function twice. But on the other hand, NOT evaluating it twice will introduce global state - which should be considered a bad thing unless explicitly declared. Usually it would make code very hard to test properly. Personally I'd avoid that.
It is possible to have the actual data methods in a different object than the data computation methods?
If you have a look at how the Zend Framework offers the cache pattern (\Zend\Cache\Pattern\{Callback,Class,Object}Cache), you'd see that the real working class is getting a decorator wrapped around it. All the internal stuff of getting the values stored and read them back is handled internally, from the outside you'd call your methods just like before.
The downside is that you do not have an object of the type of the original class. So if you use type hinting, you cannot pass a decorated caching object instead of the original object. The solution is to implement an interface. The original class implements it with the real functions, and then you create another class that extends the cache decorator and implements the interface as well. This object will pass the type hinting checks, but you are forced to manually implement all interface methods, which do nothing more than pass the call to the internal magic function that would otherwise intercept them.
interface Foo
{
public function foo();
}
class FooExpensive implements Foo
{
public function foo()
{
sleep(100);
return "bar";
}
}
class FooCached extends \Zend\Cache\Pattern\ObjectPattern implements Foo
{
public function foo()
{
//internally uses instance of FooExpensive to calculate once
$args = func_get_args();
return $this->call(__FUNCTION__, $args);
}
}
I have found it impossible in PHP to implement a cache without at least these two classes and one interface (but on the other hand, implementing against an interface is a good thing, it shouldn't bother you). You cannot simply use the native cache object directly.
It is possible to have computation methods with parameters, using a cache with a nested array?
Parameters are working in the above implementation, and they are used in the internal generation of a cache key. You should probably have a look at the \Zend\Cache\Pattern\CallbackCache::generateCallbackKey method.
In PHP it is possible to use magic methods (__get() or __call()) for the main retrieval method. In combination with "#property" in the class docblock, this allows type hints for each "virtual" property.
Magic methods are evil. A documentation block should be considered outdated, as it is no real working code. While I found it acceptable to use magic getter and setter in a really easy-to-understand value object code, which would allow to store any value in any property just like stdClass, I do recommend to be very careful with __call.
I often use method names like "get_someValue()", where "someValue" is the actual key, to distinguish from regular methods.
I would consider this a violation of PSR-1: "4.3. Methods: Method names MUST be declared in camelCase()." And is there a reason to mark these methods as something special? Are they special at all? The do return the value, don't they?
It is possible to distribute the data computation to more than one object, to get some kind of separation of concerns?
If you cache a complex construction of objects, this is completely possible.
It is possible to pre-initialize some values?
This should not be the concern of a cache, but of the implementation itself. What is the point in NOT executing an expensive computation, but to return a preset value? If that is a real use case (like instantly return NULL if a parameter is outside of the defined range), it must be part of the implementation itself. You should not rely on an additional layer around the object to return a value in such cases.
Is storing intermediate values from dynamic programming a legitimate use case for this?
Do you have a dynamic programming problem? There is this sentence on the Wikipedia page you linked:
There are two key attributes that a problem must have in order for dynamic programming to be applicable: optimal substructure and overlapping subproblems. If a problem can be solved by combining optimal solutions to non-overlapping subproblems, the strategy is called "divide and conquer" instead.
I think that there are already existing patterns that seem to solve the lazy evaluation part of your example: Singleton, ServiceLocator, Factory. (I'm not promoting singletons here!)
There also is the concept of "promises": Objects are returned that promise to return the real value later if asked, but as long as the value isn't needed right now, would act as the values replacement that could be passed along instead. You might want to read this blog posting: http://blog.ircmaxell.com/2013/01/promise-for-clean-code.html
What are the best practices to implement this in PHP? Is some of the stuff in "Details" bad and ugly?
You used an example that probably comes close to the Fibonacci example. The aspect I don't like about that example is that you use a single instance to collect all values. In a way, you are aggregating global state here - which probably is what this whole concept is about. But global state is evil, and I don't like that extra layer. And you haven't really solved the problem of parameters enough.
I wonder why there are really two calls to bar() inside foo()? The more obvious method would be to duplicate the result directly in foo(), and then "add" it.
All in all, I'm not too impressed until now. I cannot anticipate a real use case for such a general purpose solution on this simple level. I do like IDE auto suggest support, and I do not like duck-typing (passing an object that only simulates being compatible, but without being able to ensure the instance).

Is it ever okay to have a class as a collection of methods and no properties?

I'm writing a bunch of generic-but-related functions to be used by different objects. I want to group the functions, but am not sure if I should put them in a class or simply a flat library file.
Treating them like a class doesn't seem right, as there is no one kind of object that will use them and such a class containing all these functions may not necessarily have any properties.
Treating them as a flat library file seems too simple, for lack of a better word.
What is the best practice for this?
Check out namespaces:
http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.namespaces.rationale.php
Wrapping them in a useless class is a workaround implementation of the concept of a namespace. This concept allows you to avoid collisions with other functions in large projects or plugin/module type deployments.
EDIT
Stuck with PHP 5.2?
There's nothing wrong with using a separate file(s) to organize utility functions. Just be sure to document them with comments so you don't end up with bunchafunctions.php, a 20,000 file of procedural code of dubious purpose.
There's also nothing wrong with prefixes. Using prefixes is another way to organize like-purpose functions, but be sure to avoid these "pseudo-namespaces" already reserved by the language. Specifically, "__" is reserved as a prefix by PHP [reference]. To be extra careful, you can also wrap your function declarations in function_exists checks, if you're concerned about conflicting functions from other libraries:
if (!function_exists('myFunction')) {
function myFunction() {
//code
}
}
You can also re-consider your object structure, maybe these utility functions would be more appropriate as methods in a base class that all the other objects can extend. Take a look at inheritance: http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.inheritance.php. The base class pattern is a common and very useful one:
abstract class baseObject {
protected function doSomething () {
print 'foo bar';
}
public function getSomething () {
return 'bar foo';
}
}
class foo extends baseObject {
public function bar () {
$this->doSomething();
}
}
$myObject = new foo();
$myObject->bar();
echo $myObject->getSomething();
You can experiment with the above code here: http://codepad.org/neRtgkcQ
I would usually stick them in a class anyway and mark the methods static. You might call it a static class, even though PHP actually has no such thing (you can't put the static keyword in front of a class). It's still better than having the functions globally because you avoid possible naming conflicts. The class becomes a sort of namespace, but PHP also has its own namespace which may be better suited to your purpose.
You might even find later that there are indeed properties you can add, even if they too are static, such as lazy-loaded helper objects, cached information, etc.
I'd use classes with static methods in such case:
class Tools {
static public function myMethod() {
return 1*1;
}
}
echo Tools::myMethod();
EDIT
As already mentioned by Chris and yes123: if the hoster already runs PHP 5.3+, you should consider using namespace. I'd recommend a read of Matthew Weier O'Phinney's article Why PHP Namespaces Matter, if you're not sure if it's worth switching to namespaces.
EDIT
Even though the ones generalizing usage of static methods as "bad practice" or "nonsense" did not explain why they consider it to be as such - which imo would've been more constructive - they still made me rethinking and rereading.
The typical arguments will be, that static methods can create dependencies and because of that can make unit testing and class renaming impossible.
If unit testing isn't used at all (maybe programming for home/personal use, or low-budget projects, where no one is willing to pay the extra costs of unit testing implementations) this argument becomes obsolete, of course.
Even if unit testing is used, creation of static methods dependencies can be avoided by using $var::myMethod(). So you still could use mocks and rename the class...
Nevertheless I came to the conclusion that my answer is way too generalized.
I think I better should've wrote: It depends.
As this most likely would result in an open ended debate of pros and cons of all the different solutions technically possible, and of dozens of possible scenarios and environments, I'm not willing going into this.
I upvoted Chris' answer now. It already covers most technical possibilities and should serve you well.
Treating them as a class does give you the benefit of a namespace, though you could achieve the same thing by prefixing them like PHP does with the array_* functions. Since you don't have any properties, that basically implies that all your methods are static (as Class::method()). This isn't an uncommon practice in Java.
By using a class, you also have the ability, if necessary, to inherit from a parent class or interface. An example of this might be class constants defined for error codes your functions might return.
EDIT: If PHP 5.3+ is available, the Namespace feature is ideal. However, PHP versions still lag in a lot of hosts and servers, especially those running enterprise-stable Linux distributions.
I've seen it a few different ways, all have their warts but all worked for the particular project in which they were utilized.
one file with all of the functions
one file with each function as its own class
one massive utilities class with all of the methods
one utils.php file that includes files in utils folder with each
function in its own file
Yes, it's OK formally... As any class is methods + properties. But when you pack in class just some functions -- it`s become not ideal OOP. If you have bunch of functions, that groupped, but not used some class variables -- it' seems, that you have somewhere a design problem.
My current feeling here is "Huston, we have a problem".
If you use exactly functions, there one reason to wrap them in static class - autoloader.
Of course, it creates high coupling, and it's may to be bad for testing (not always), but... Simple functions are not better than static class in this case :) Same high coupling, etc.
In ideal OOP architecture, all functions will be methods of some objects. It's just utopia, but we should to build architecture as close as we can to ideal.
Writing a bunch of "generic-but-related" functions is usually bad idea. Most likely you don't see problem clear enough to create proper objects.
It is bad idea not because it is "not ideal OOP". It is not OOP at all.
"The base class pattern" brought by Chris is another bad idea - google for: "favor composition over inheritance".
"beeing extra careful" with function_exists('myFunction') is not but idea. It is a nightmare.
This kind of code is currently avoided even in modern javascript...

Functions outside the class

I just want to tell you that I am newbie to OOP and it is quite hard to me, but here is my code:
class functions
{
function safe_query($string)
{
$string = mysql_escape_string(htmlspecialchars($string));
return $string;
}
}
class info
{
public $text;
function infos($value)
{
echo functions::safe_query($value);
}
}
Is there any way to make this sentence : echo functions::safe_query($value); prettier? I can use extends, than I could write echo $this->safe_query($value);, but is it a best way? Thank you.
edit: and maybe I even can to not use class functions and just make separate file of functions and include that?
Yes, just define your function outside of a class definition.
function safe_query($string){
return mysql_escape_string(htmlspecialchars($string));
}
Then call it like this
safe_query($string);
Using a functional class is perfectly fine, but it may not the best way to design your application.
For instance, you might have a generic 'string' or 'data' class with static methods like this (implementation missing, obviously):
class strfunc{
public static function truncate($string, $chars);
public static function find_prefix($array);
public static function strip_prefix($string);
public static function to_slug($string); #strtolower + preg_replace
etc.
}
The point of a class like this is to provide you with a collection of generic, algorithmic solutions that you will reuse in different parts of your application. Declaring methods like these as static obviates their functional nature, and means they aren't attached to any particular set of data.
On the other hand, some behaviors, like escaping data for a query, are more specific to a particular set of data. It would probably be more appropriate to write something like this, in that case:
class db_wrapper{
public function __construct($params); #connect to db
public function escape($string);
public function query($sql);
public function get_results();
}
In this case, you can see that all of the methods are related to a database object. You might later use this object as part of another object that needs to access the database.
The essence of OOP is to keep both the data and its relevant behavior (methods) in one place, called an object. Having behavior and data in the same place makes it easier to control data by making sure that the behavior attached to the data is the only behavior allowed to change it (this is called encapsulation).
Further, having the data and behavior in one place means that you can easily pass that object (data and behavior) around to different parts of your application, increasing code reuse. This takes the form of composition and inheritance.
If you're interested in a book, The Object-Oriented Thought Process makes for a decent read. Or you can check out the free Building Skills in Object-Oriented Design from SO's S.Lott. (Tip: PHP syntax is more similar to Java than Python.)
Functions outside a class litter the global namespace, and it's an open invitation to slide back to procedural programming. Since you're moving to the OOP mindset, functions::safe_query($value); is definitely prettier (and cleaner) than a function declared outside a class. refrain from using define() too. but having a functions class that's a mix of unrelated methods isn't the best approach either.
Is there any way to make this sentence
: echo functions::safe_query($value);
prettier?
Not really. IMO having a functions class serves no purpose, simply make it a global function (if it's not part of a more logical class, such as Database) so you can do safe_query($value); instead.
and maybe I even can to not use class
functions and just make separate file
of functions and include that?
Create files for logical blocks of code, not for what type of code it is. Don't create a file for "functions", create a file for "database related code".
Starting with OOP can be a real challenge. One of the things I did was looking at how things were done in the Zend Framework. Not only read the manual (http://www.framework.zend.com/manual/en/zend.filter.input.html, but also look at the source code. It will take some effort but it pays of.
Looking at the context of your question and the code example you posted, I would advice you to look at some basic patterns, including a simple form of MVC, and the principles they are based upon.

PHP: Real world OOP example

I am trying to learn OOP. The so called 'real world' examples in the books I am reading aren't helping.
All the examples like Pet, Car, Human aren't helping me anymore. I need REAL LIFE examples that like registration, user profile pages, etc.
An example:
$user->userName = $_POST['userName'];//save username
$user->password = $_POST['password'];//save password
$user->saveUser();//insert in database
I've also seen:
$user->user = (array) $_POST;
where :
private $user = array();
Holds all the information in an array.
And within that same class lies
$user->getUser($uid);
// which sets the $this->user array equal to mysqli_fetch_assoc() using
//the user id.
Are there any real world examples implementing OOP in the many different php applications (registration, login, user account, etc)?
OOP is not only about how a single class looks and operates. It's also about how instances of one or more classes work together.
That's why you see so many examples based on "Cars" and "People" because they actually do a really good job of illustrating this principle.
In my opinion, the most important lessons in OOP are encapsulation and polymorphism.
Encapsulation: Coupling data and the logic which acts on that data together in a concise, logical manner
Polymorphism: The ability for one object to look-like and/or behave-like another.
A good real-world example of this would be something like a directory iterator. Where is this directory? Maybe it's a local folder, maybe it's remote like an FTP server. Who knows!
Here's a basic class tree that demonstrates encapsulation:
<?php
interface DirectoryIteratorInterface
{
/**
* #return \Traversable|array
*/
public function listDirs();
}
abstract class AbstractDirectoryIterator implements DirectoryIteratorInterface
{
protected $root;
public function __construct($root)
{
$this->root = $root;
}
}
class LocalDirectoryIterator extends AbstractDirectoryIterator
{
public function listDirs()
{
// logic to get the current directory nodes and return them
}
}
class FtpDirectoryIterator extends AbstractDirectoryIterator
{
public function listDirs()
{
// logic to get the current directory nodes and return them
}
}
Each class/object is responsible for its own method of retrieving a directory listing. The data (variables) are coupled to the logic (class functions i.e, methods) that use the data.
But the story is not over - remember how I said OOP is about how instances of classes work together, and not any single class or object?
Ok, so let's do something with this data - print it to the screen? Sure. But how? HTML? Plain-text? RSS? Let's address that.
<?php
interface DirectoryRendererInterface
{
public function render();
}
abstract class AbstractDirectoryRenderer implements DirectoryRendererInterface
{
protected $iterator;
public function __construct(DirectoryIteratorInterface $iterator)
{
$this->iterator = $iterator;
}
public function render()
{
$dirs = $this->iterator->listDirs();
foreach ($dirs as $dir) {
$this->renderDirectory($dir);
}
}
abstract protected function renderDirectory($directory);
}
class PlainTextDirectoryRenderer extends AbstractDirectoryRenderer
{
protected function renderDirectory($directory)
{
echo $directory, "\n";
}
}
class HtmlDirectoryRenderer extends AbstractDirectoryRenderer
{
protected function renderDirectory($directory)
{
echo $directory, "<br>";
}
}
Ok, now we have a couple class trees for traversing and rendering directory lists. How do we use them?
// Print a remote directory as HTML
$data = new HtmlDirectoryRenderer(
new FtpDirectoryIterator('ftp://example.com/path')
);
$data->render();
// Print a local directory a plain text
$data = new PlainTextDirectoryRenderer(
new LocalDirectoryIterator('/home/pbailey')
);
$data->render();
Now, I know what you're thinking, "But Peter, I don't need these big class trees to do this!" but if you think that then you're missing the point, much like I suspect you have been with the "Car" and "People" examples. Don't focus on the minutiae of the example - instead try to understand what's happening here.
We've created two class trees where one (*DirectoryRenderer) uses the other (*DirectoryIterator) in an expected way - this is often referred to as a contract. An instance of *DirectoryRenderer doesn't care which type of instance of *DirectoryIterator it receives, nor do instances of *DirectoryIterator care about how they're being rendered.
Why? Because we've designed them that way. They just plug into each other and work. This is OOP in action.
Purchase a book like "PHP and Mysql everyday apps for Dummies".
Its old I know [2005] but it shows concepts of User Logins, Forum, Shopping Carts, etc in both Procedural and Object Oriented with Mysqli.
It helped me learn Object Oriented PHP, I studied it a lot. Well worth the money.
OOP is much like grouping bits of your program into reuseable pieces. Its not that hard to be honest with you its just the idea of packing your functions into classes.
Real world mini example of OOP stuff below:
CLASS DATABASE
CLASS SESSIONS
CLASS WEBFORMS
CLASS EMAIL
CLASS ACCOUNTS (Example Functions below)
FUNCTION SELECTACCOUNT
FUNCTION CHECKPASSWORD
FUNCTION CHECKUSERNAME
FUNCTION CREATEACCOUNT
I hope you keep at it, PHP 6 will be re-engineered to support OOP more than ever.
Good Luck!
Whilst I know that this question has been answered already, I feel as though I can add value here.
I don't believe that you should use PHP as a programming language to learn OOP. If you wish to learn OOP for web applications, you should really be looking at C# or Java. Once you have learned OOP, then you can apply this knowledge to PHP. One example of a book I used to learn OOP was Big Java by Cay S. Horstmann
Why do I say this??? Because there are literally millions of examples on PHP of how to do stuff, however not many are examples of how to program properly. Further to this, PHP allows you to take many shortcuts, which would not be acceptable with the likes of Java. As such, if you program PHP with a Java head, then I believe that you will be a stronger programmer. OOP is not language specific, it is a programming paradigm.
If you must learn OOP using PHP, then I would recommend that you take a look at some real source code in public repositories of github. You can search them in packagist.org. If they are a decent public repository, they will contain a readme.md file which would show you how to use the composer packages. e.g https://github.com/moltin/laravel-cart is an example of a shopping cart package which you would be able to use in your application. Notice how you don't need to look at the package source code to understand what the packages do. The package has been written, and you don't care about how they work, but you use them so you only need to know how to use them. This is exactly what OOP is about.
I don't care how the shopping cart class adds an item to the cart, I just want to create a new cart and add something to it.
What you are doing however is diving into the source code as a tool to understand how OOP works.
Further to this, and probably more importantly, for web application development, I would research the MVC design pattern.
The MVC design Pattern stands for Model, View, Controller. Where in the case of a web application, The Model is responsible for modelling the database, the view is responsible for displaying content to the user. The controller is responsible for interacting with the model and handling user input.
I then think you should try to install the Laravel Framework or other "decent modern framework" on your local machine. Why do I say modern, because modern frameworks require a minumum PHP version of 5.3+ which mean that the PHP on your machine would support real OOP similar to that which you would get from the likes of Java.
There are many tutorials which will show you how to build web applications in laravel. Immediately, you will see that when you create a controller, you extend a BaseController. When you create a Model, you extend Eloquent. This means that you will already be using Polymorphism in your code. You will see that by using classes, they are being encapsulated, and you will see that each class has a specific role.
When you would like to interact with the database, you will initially create a new Model object within the controller methods. As you start to learn more, you will start learning how to inject dependencies into the controller, then learning how to dump your models and create repositories and program to interfaces instead.
A decent book on learning Laravel for beginners would be https://leanpub.com/codebright by Dale Rees. I met Dale at a Laravel meetup about 2 weeks ago.
Further to this, as you become more proficient building web applications, you will start to learn how to apply the following principles to your programming:
Single Responsibility Principle
Open Closed Principle
Liskov Substitution Principle
Interface Segragation Principle
Dependency Inversion Principle
As astropanic said, you could take a look at the source code of a good PHP framework or library. I recommend Zend Framework, it's very modular and has a great, professional design. I would say it is a very good piece of object-oriented PHP code.
Still, I think it's not that easy to learn from a huge piece of production code, since it wasn't really made to teach you anything. But if you want real-world object-oriented PHP code, the Zend Framework (or Symfony, or maybe CakePHP) is probably the way to go.
I'd advise you to stay away from any framework at this moment, if you do not know OOP, digging into zend or any other framework would be too much.
PHP OOP is quit funny... like ha ha funny, because it's supported, but PHP is not an OOP language like java or c#.
Short example just to underline my statement:
// define class
class User {
// define properties and methods
public $name = "";
}
// instantiate class
$user = new User; // or new User() or new user, it's all the same
echo $user->name;
but if you want to do OOP "on the fly" you can do the following:
$user = (object) array('name' => 'Peter');
and then
$user->name;
but you can use OOP like you would in java or c# but not to the same extend - and have in mind, popular systems like wordpress and drupal are not pure OOP! but you can do inheritance and other classing OOP stuff in PHP as well.
I haven't gone far in PHP OOP, but the more i get into it the more easier it becomes. The objects examples are just there for you to understand how OOP works. I understand and been through this before, OOP is just about properties and methods ( normal variables and functions). I programed in real OOP myself applying the examples from my tutorials and didn't necessarily have to be in real world. That is just like been spoon fed and you would never understand OOP and would be easy to forget. My advice learn to understand. If you understand, you can do anything and would realize the power of OOP. I downloaded this book and i think you should too. But that is just like someone building your apps for you...
Here a link to the book PHP and Mysql everyday Apps For Dummies
you're right 99% of the tutorials that you'll find online are too basic, and they don't make sense. My suggestion to anybody trying to learn object oriented programming is:
find some code that you've written in procedural programming and try to convert it into OOP.
Take all your variables and make them a properties of a class, find a suitable class name. Then take all your functions, if you have functions, and group them within a class. If you wrote your code without using functions, first try to convert your code into a group of functions. find suitable function names, a function should define what a piece of code does. Once you have your functions move them into a class.
I'll give you a simple example of a pagination code that I converted into a reusable pagination class. find the full tutorial on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X38IRlyY_ww&t=91s , link to the source code is on the description box
class Paginator{
/*the class need to know the current page to calculate the offset
the offset tell my sql how many rows to skip */
private $current_page;
//the limit is the number of results to display per page
private $limit;
/*pagination links to display below the results with next
and previous button*/
private $pagination_links;
//the last page of your pagination links
private $last_page;
.
. etc
public function __contruct($number_of_rows_found,$results_to_display_per_page){
//the paginator uses the number_of_rows_found to determine the last page
$this->last_page = $number_of_rows_found/$results_to_display_per_page;
//get the current page, set it to 1 by default
$this->current_page = isset($_GET['page']) ? ($_GET['page'] : 1;
}
public function generate_pagination_links(){
this method uses the last_page property to generate pagination links
if the last page is 3, this will give you 3 pagination links
for ($page = 1; $page <= $this->last_page; $page++) {
//use
}
}
public function get_offset_and_limit(){
//this method calculates the offset based on the current page
return "LIMIT $this->per_page OFFSET ".($this->page - 1) * $this->per_page;
}
.
.
.etc
}
}
Then to use the pagination class, you create a new instance of it, and pass the
number of results you want to display per page, and the the number of results returned
by your query as parameters. The pagination class will generate pagination links for
you and calculate the offset and limit. That's a good example of a php reusable
class, you can use it in your multiple projects without having to rewrite or change it.
$paginator = New Paginator($rows_found,8);
$pagination_links = $paginator->get_pagination_links();
$offset_and_limit = $paginator->get_offset_and_limit();
//apend the limit and offset to your sql query
$query = $query. ' '.$offset_and_limit;
$connection = getdbconnection();
$stmt = $connection->prepare($query);
$stmt->execute();
$movies = $stmt->fetchAll();
Ofcourse there're more advanced concepts into OOP that are not covered in this example, but this should give you a basic understanding of how classes and objects work
I suggest also to see my wrapper Arrayzy. It's a native PHP arrays easy manipulation library in OOP way.
So if you work with native PHP array functions - you could do the same things in OOP and Arrayzy helps you with it, for example:
// Functional programming:
$array = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
$resultArray = array_merge($array, ['c', 'd']);
and
// Object-oriented programming:
$obj = Arrayzy\MutableArray::create(['a', 'b', 'c']);
$obj->mergeWith(['c', 'd']);
$resultArray = $obj->toArray();
In both cases the result array will be:
Array(
0 => 'a'
1 => 'b'
2 => 'c'
3 => 'c'
4 => 'd'
)
Check how does this mergeWith method (or other) works under the hood.
I think this is a nice example which shows that almost everything functional code you could replace with OOP code like in this library. But with OOP you get much more and you could also check Functional programming vs OOP question to learn more details what's a cons and props of it.

Is it really that wrong not using setters and getters?

I'm kind of new in PHP. For some reason in other types of programming languages like JAVA I have no problem with using setters and getters for every single variable, but when I'm programming in PHP probably because it is so flexible it feels kind of like a waste of time. It feels simpler to just set the class attributes as public most of the time and manipulating them like that. The thing is that when I do it like this I feel like I'm doing something wrong and going against OO principles.
Is it really that wrong not using setters and getters? Why or why not? How do you guys do it most of the time?
The main problem with not using property accessors is that if you find out you ever need to change a field to a property later on – to make it a computed property in a subclass, for instance – you’ll break clients of your API. For a published library, this would be unacceptable; for an internal one, just quite a lot of work fixing things.
For private code or small apps, it could be feasible to just wing it. An IDE (or text editor) will let you generate accessor boilerplate and hide it using code folding. This arguably makes using getters and setters mechanically fairly easy.
Note that some programming languages have features to synthesise the default field+getter+setter – Ruby does it via metaprogramming, C# has auto-implemented properties. And Python sidesteps the issue completely by letting you override attribute access, letting you encapsulate the attribute in the subclass that needs it instead of having to bother with it up front. (This is the approach I like best.)
The point of getters or setters is that you can still add logic to your modifications of the field in one place instead of everyplace you want to modify or retrieve the field. You also gain control at class level what happens with the field.
If we're talking strictly about PHP here and not about C#, Java, etc (where the compiler will optimise these things), I find getters and setters to be a waste of resources where you simply need to proxy the value of a private field and do nothing else.
On my setup, I made two crappy classes, one with five private fields encapsulated by five getter/setter pairs proxying the field (which looked almost exactly like java code, funnily enough) and another with five public fields, and called memory_get_usage() at the end after creating an instance. The script with the getter/setters used 59708 bytes of memory and the script with the public fields used 49244 bytes.
In the context of a class library of any significant size, such as a web site framework, these useless getters and setters can add up to a HUGE black hole for memory. I have been developing a framework for my employer in PHP (their choice, not mine. i wouldn't use it for this if i had the choice but having said that, PHP is not imposing any insurmountable restrictions on us) and when I refactored the class library to use public fields instead of getters/setters, the whole shebang ended up using 25% less memory per request at least.
The __get(), __set() and __call() 'magic' methods really shine for handling interface changes. When you need to migrate a field to a getter/setter (or a getter/setter to a field) they can make the process transparent to any dependent code. With an interpreted language it's a bit harder to find all usages of a field or method even with the reasonably good support for code sensitivity provided by Eclipse PDT or Netbeans, so the magic methods are useful for ensuring that the old interface still delegates to the new functionality.
Say we have an object which was developed using fields instead of getters/setters, and we want to rename a field called 'field' to 'fieldWithBetterName', because 'field' was inappropriate, or no longer described the use accurately, or was just plain wrong. And say we wanted to change a field called 'field2' to lazy load its value from the database because it isn't known initially using a getter...
class Test extends Object {
public $field;
public $field2;
}
becomes
class Test extends Object {
public $fieldWithBetterName = "LA DI DA";
private $_field2;
public function getField2() {
if ($this->_field2 == null) {
$this->_field2 = CrapDbLayer::getSomething($this->fieldWithBetterName);
}
return $this->_field2;
}
public function __get($name) {
if ($name == 'field')) {
Logger::log("use of deprecated property... blah blah blah\n".DebugUtils::printBacktrace());
return $this->fieldWithBetterName;
}
elseif ($name == 'field2') {
Logger::log("use of deprecated property... blah blah blah\n".DebugUtils::printBacktrace());
return $this->getField2();
}
else return parent::__get($name);
}
}
$t = new Test;
echo $t->field;
echo $t->field2;
(As a side note, that 'extends Object' bit is just a base class I use for practically everything which has a __get() and a __set() declaration which throws an exception when undeclared fields are accessed)
You can go backwards with __call(). This example is quite brittle, but it's not hard to clean up:
class Test extends Object {
public $field2;
public function __call($name, $args) {
if (strpos($name, 'get')===0) {
$field = lcfirst($name); // cheating, i know. php 5.3 or greater. not hard to do without it though.
return $this->$field;
}
parent::__call($name, $args);
}
}
Getter and setter methods in PHP are good if the setter has to do something, or if the getter has to lazy load something, or ensure something has been created, or whatever, but they're unnecessary and wasteful if they do nothing other than proxy the field, especially with a few techniques like the ones above to manage interface changes.
I am probably not going to get many upvotes on this one, but personally getters and even more so setters feel like a code smell to me. Designs should be behavior driven, not data driven. Of course, this is just an opinion. If you have an object that depends on a particular data field of another object this is very tight coupling. Instead it should depend on the behavior of that object which is far less brittle than its data.
But yes, property like getters and setters are a step up from a dependency on a field directly for this very reason. It is less brittle and loosens up the coupling between the objects.
Did you consider to use magic functions __set/__get? Using them you can easily merge all getter/setter function in only 2 functions!
There is a way to emulate get/set without actually using get/set function class, so your code remains tidy:
$person->name = 'bob';
echo $person->name;
Take a look at this class I have coded.
Typically, when using this class, you would declare all your properties protected (or private). In the event where you'd want to add a behaviour on a property, say strtolower() + ucfirst() on the "name" property, all you'd need to do is declare a protected set_name() function in your class and the behavior should get picked up automatically. Same can be accomplished with get_name().
// Somewhere in your class (that extends my class).
protected function set_name($value) { $this->name = ucfirst(strtolower($value)); }
//
// Now it would store ucfirst(strtolower('bob')) automatically.
$person->name = 'bob';
P.S.
Another cool thing is you can make up non-existing fields such as
echo $person->full_name;
without having such fields (as long as there is a get_full_name() function).
If you access these variable in your script lots of time and if you update yoru class often you should use setters and getter because but if you dont this , when you improve your class you have to update all files which uses this variable .
Secondly main reason why you do this is you should not access variable directly because class structure may change and this data can be providen differently.While you are getting data from class you should not care about how this data is generated .Class have to care about this data proccessing so you only should care what will you get.

Categories