PHP - Can I pass a function name as a function argument? - php

I have two classes that I use to access two different tables in my db. They both have a similar constructor that looks like that:
function __construct($db) {
$this->db = $db;
$userDAO = DAO_DBrecord::createUserDAO($this->db);
$this->userDAO = $userDAO;
}
The other class has the same constructor except that it uses createOtherTableDAO($this->db).
I am planning on having a couple other such classes, and it would be convenient if I could have them all inherit the same constructor, and pass createAppropriateTableDAO as an argument.
To clarify, in the first case above, createUserDAO($this->db) is a static function that calls a constructor in my DAO class. The function in the DAO looks as follows:
public static function createUserDAO($db) {
return new DAO_DBrecord($db, 'users');
}
I use this method to make sure the user model can only call a DAO on the users table.
I'm somewhat of a beginner, and I don't think I have ever seen anything like what I want.

Move the code to create the DAOs into a Factory and then inject the DAOs instead of hard coupling them into whatever these classes are supposed to represent. Or rather create the various Table Data Gateways ("classes that I use to access two different tables") as a whole in the Factory, e.g.
class TableDataGatewayFactory
…
public function create($gatewayName)
{
switch ($gatewayName) {
case 'user':
return new TableDataGateway(new UserDao($this->db)));
break;
default:
throw new Exception('No Gateway for $gatewayName');
}
}
}
As for $this->db, either pass that into the Factory via the ctor or move the creation into the Factory as well. It's somewhat doubled responsibility, but tolerable given that this Factory revolved around creating Database related collaborator graphs.
Apart from that: yes, call_user_func(array('ClassName', 'methodName')) would work. See the manual for
http://php.net/call_user_func and
http://php.net/manual/en/language.pseudo-types.php#language.types.callback

To answer your question first: No, you can't (without resorting to evilCode) pass a function name as a parameter.
But: What you want to archive is a poster-child-issue for an object oriented approach using inheritance.
You'd need a base-class:
class BaseClass
{
function __construct($db) {
$this->db = db;
}
}
and your implementations :
class MyClass extends BaseClass
{
function __construct($db) {
parent::__contruct($db);
$this->userDAO = DAO_DBrecord::createUserDAO($this->db);
}
}
Just for the record: the evilCode would have been
a) you could encapsulate your function in a create_function that can be used as an argument.
b) you could pass the function name as a string to your function and then pass it to eval in the receiving function.
But remember: When eval or create_function looks like the answer you're probably asking the wrong questions!
See: related question

There are several methods which you can use if you feel it necessary to pass the function name or indeed the function itself as a parameter of a function.
call_user_func($function,$args);
call_user_func is one of Php's native functions for invoking methods or functions which takes a function name and optional arguments parameter.
The functionality of call_user_func (when not pertaining to object methods) can be replicated without the using call_user_func using a variable with the string literal of the function name. For example:
function some_func()
{
echo "I'm a function!";
}
$function = "some_func";
$function(); /*Output: I'm a function!*/
And if you're feeling adventurous you can go a bit further and pass a closure / anonymous function as instead of the function name. For example:
$function = function()
{
echo "I'm another function!";
}
$function(); /*Output: I'm another function*/

You can achieve such behavior by using:
call_user_func
eval any literal

Related

What is the difference between Stateless class with empty constructor and Static class?

Assuming that I have to create a class that takes some text do some processing and return it ... with no dependency and it's a stateless class..
I'd like to know would be better to create a stateless class without constructor or just create a static class (in php it's just Static methods)
class like this:
class ClassName
{
public function processText($text)
{
// Some code
$text = $this->moreProcessing($text);
return $text;
}
protected function moreProcessing($text)
{
return $text;
}
}
and this:
class ClassName
{
public static function processText($text)
{
// Some code
$text = static::moreProcessing($text);
return $text;
}
protected static function moreProcessing($text)
{
return $text;
}
}
I Know that dependency injection into the class where these classes are used would be better but assume that I just won't have dependency injection..
My question is mainly would it be better to create static class for the simple example above?
Practically you will see no difference whatsoever.
It's only in the syntax, and the ability of a constructor to perform stuff automatically, though you still have to create instances to invoke the constructor, which in this case is not far off calling some equivalent static member function.
However, non-static member functions are supposed to affect internal state so, if you have no state, static member functions seem more conventional, and will be slightly less surprising to users of the class.
The best approach, though, is to stick your functions in a namespace. Classes are for data and functions operating on that data... even static ones.

PHP Call Function in a Class - Is there a simpler way?

I am very new to OOP and very rusty on PHP. I was wondering if this is a valid method to call a function from a class?
class newclass {
public function testfunc {
return '1';
}
}
Could I call it like this:
echo testfunc->newclass();
or like this:
echo newclass()::testfunc;
I always see it defined in examples like below and it seemed like extra code?:
$this = new newclass();
$this->testfunc();
echo $this;
Any help would be greatly appreciated as I'm just starting to wrap my head around this OOP thing. If I'm out to lunch maybe someone could suggest a link to a really good guide for a true beginner in classes/OOP. Thanks!
Both ways work and have their use cases.
Your first case is a regular function call using an instance of a class, your second case is a call to a static function.
Static should be used with care and the use of it is very often a sign that refactoring/redesign is necessary.
The point of object oriented programming is to model the world by writing classes (blueprints) and then create as many independent instances of that class with the word new as needed. Each instance is a little organism with the DNA of the class and you can call the same class method on every single instance without influencing the other instances.
A static call however is not related to an instance of a class and therefore there is no object being used. It's a global call of some tool functionality and in fact breaks the idea of encapsulation.
So, I'm not saying there are no use cases for static classes and methods but they should be used with care.
new is the keyword to instantiate the class. If you want to use a method without an instance of the class, it should be a static method. to have a static method, declare the method as static.
class foo
{
public static function bar()
{
return 'hello!';
}
}
How to use it?
echo foo::bar(); //Will print hello
You could make testfunc static and call it like so:
class newclass{
public static function testfunc{
return '1';
}
}
echo newclass::testfunc();
There is nothing like this echo testfunc->newclass(); and doing it like
$class = new newclass();
echo $class->testfunc();
is the proper way to do it when the method is an instance method and not a static one. Note, there is no ability to reference $this within the static method.
You can create a static wrapper for the constructor which would allow for chaining method calls on the same line.
<?php
class ClassA {
static function create() { return new self(); }
function method1() { ... }
}
ClassA::create()->method1();
you can include the php file that contains your functions
<?php
//print.php
function printHello(){
echo "Hello world";
}
?>
then include it and call the function...
<?php
include "print.php";
printHello();
?>

PHP and Python static methods in objects, two different worlds...?

i'm php coder, trying to get into python world, and it's very hard for me.
Biggest enjoy of static methods in php is automatic builder of instance. No need to declare object, if you needed it once, in every file (or with different constructor params , in one line)
<?php
class Foo {
function __constructor__(){
$this->var = 'blah';
}
public static function aStaticMethod() {
return $this->var;
}
}
echo Foo::aStaticMethod();
?>
we can call constructor from static method don't we? and we can access everything in class as it would be simple method ... we can even have STATIC CONSTRUCTOR in php class and call it like so: Object::construct()->myMethod(); (to pass different params every time)
but not in python???? #staticmethod makes method in class a simple function that doesn't see totally anything ??
class socket(object):
def __init__(self):
self.oclass = otherclass()
print 'test' # does this constructor called at all when calling static method??
#staticmethod
def ping():
return self.oclass.send('PING') # i can't access anything!!!
print Anidb.ping()
I can't access anything from that god damned static method, it's like a standalone function or something like this..??
Maybe I'm using the wrong decorator? Maybe there's something like php offers with static methods in python?
1) Please tell why static methods is isolated
2) Please tell me how to make the same behavior like php static methods have.
3) Please tell me alternative practical use of this, if php static methods behavior is a bad thing
P.s. the goal of all this to write totally less code as much as possible.
P.p.s Heavy commenting of sample code is appreciated
Thank you.
static methods in PHP are not as you believe, they can't access to instance members. No $this! with them.
<?php
class Foo {
public static $var = 'foo ';
function __construct(){
echo 'constructing ';
$this->var = 'blah ';
}
public function aMethod() {
return $this->var;
}
public static function aStaticMethod() {
#return $this->$var; -> you can't do that,
# $this can be accessed only in instance methods, not static
return self::$var;
}
}
$foo = new Foo();
echo $foo->aMethod();
echo Foo::aStaticMethod();
?>
Python has three kind of methods in objects static methods are like functions defined ouside classes, the only use to put them in object is to keep them with the class as helper functions. class methods can access only to variables defined in the class (decorator #classmethod). This is more or less what PHP calls static members or methods. The first parameter of such methods sould be cls, and content of class can be accessed through cls. Normal methods must get self as first parameter and are the only ones to be able to access to instance members.
If you want several objects of the same type you definitely need instances, and the other types are not what you are looking for. If you only have one instance of an object, you could use class methods instead (or PHP static methods).
But in most case you should not bother doing that if you don't know why and just stick with instances of objects and normal methods, doing otherwise is premature optimization and your code is likely to bite you later because of the many restrictions you introduce.
You want classmethod instead. That provides the class as the first argument.
EDIT:
class C(object):
foo = 42
#classmethod
def printfoo(cls):
print cls.foo
C.printfoo()
I see you've already accepted another answer, but I'm not sure that it will work with your code. Specifically, the oclass variable is only created for instances of the class, not for the class itself. You could do it like this:
class socket(object):
oclass = otherclass()
#classmethod
def ping(cls):
return cls.oclass.send('PING')
socket.ping()
However, using your existing code and removing all decorators, you could simply instantiate it and use a method on the same line:
socket().ping()

Is there a way to reassign $this?

First of all, I do not want to extend a class. I would ideally like to do this.
public function __construct() {
/* Set Framework Variable */
global $Five;
$this =& $Five;
}
I have a system where the variable $Five is a container class which contains other libraries. I could assign this to a local variable of Five... i.e.
public function __construct() {
/* Set Framework Variable */
global $Five;
$this->Five = $Five;
}
However, the reason why I am trying to avoid this is that function calls would be getting a little long.
$this->Five->load->library('library_name');
Its a little ugly. Far better would be.
$this->load->library('library_name');
What is the best solution for this?
I think that
$this->Five->load->library('library_name');
is going to be your best option unless you decide to have the class extend the helper class. AKA
class Something extends Helper_Class
However, this means that Helper_Class is instantiated every time you instantiate a class.
Another method would be to have a pseudo-static class that assigned all of the helper classes to class members
public function setGlobals($five)
{
$this->loader = $five->loader;
}
Then just call it
public function __construct($five)
{
someClass::setGlobals($five);
}
If $Five is a global, you could just global $Five everytime you want to use it, but putting that at the top of every function just seems like bad coding.
Also, I'd just like to do my public service announcement that Global variables are generally a bad idea, and you might want to search 'Dependency Injection' or alternative to globals. AKA
public function __construct($five);
instead of
global $five;
Globals rely on an outside variable to be present and already set, while dependency injection requests a variable that it is assuming to be an instance of the Five class.
If you are running PHP 5.1 (Thanks Gordon), you can insure the variable is an instance of the FiveClass by doing this:
public function__construct(FiveClass $five);
$this is a reference to the current instance of the class you are defining. I do not believe you can assign to it. If Five is a global you ought to be able to just do this:
$Five->load->library('library_name');
You might wanna go with some kind of implementation of the dependency injection pattern:
Dependency injection (DI) in computer
programming refers to the process of
supplying an external dependency to a
software component. It is a specific
form of inversion of control where the
concern being inverted is the process
of obtaining the needed dependency.
See also the documentation for the symfony DI container. I can highly recommend this DI container implementation if you want to improve the way you handle your 'globals'.
You could also have a read of this question on 'best ways to access global objects'.
How about making the relevant data members and methods of Five static class members? This
$this->Five->load->library('library_name');
would become this
Five::load->library('library_name');
and you wouldn't have to pass &$Five around everywhere.
You cannot overwrite $this (like e.g. in C++) but you can easily build an aggregate using __call() for method calls and __get(), __set(), __isset() for properties.
Example for __call():
class Five {
public function bar() {
echo __METHOD__, " invoked\n";
}
}
class Foo {
protected $Five = null;
public function __construct(Five $five=null) {
if ( is_object($five) ) {
$this->Five = $five;
}
}
public function __call($name, $args) {
// there's no accessible method {$name} in the call context
// let's see if there is one for the object stored in $five
// and if there is, call it.
$ctx = array($this->Five, $name);
if ( !is_null($this->Five) && is_callable($ctx) ) {
return call_user_func_array($ctx, $args);
}
else {
// ....
}
}
}
$foo = new Foo(new Five);
$foo->bar();
prints Five::bar invoked.
In my opinion the biggest draw back is that it is much harder to see "from the outside" what the object is capable of.
I'm pretty sure you can't reassign $this, as it's one of those special things that looks like a variable in PHP, but is treated slightly differently behind the scenes.
If your concerns are the semantics of your method calling getting too long, I'd make load a method call instead of an object property
$this->load()->library('library_name');
public function load()
{
return $this->Five;
}
maybe better for you will be to use PHP Magic Methods?
http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.overloading.php#language.oop5.overloading.methods

Is this a reasonable way to handle getters/setters in a PHP class?

I'm going to try something with the format of this question and I'm very open to suggestions about a better way to handle it.
I didn't want to just dump a bunch of code in the question so I've posted the code for the class on refactormycode.
base class for easy class property handling
My thought was that people can either post code snippets here or make changes on refactormycode and post links back to their refactorings. I'll make upvotes and accept an answer (assuming there's a clear "winner") based on that.
At any rate, on to the class itself:
I see a lot of debate about getter/setter class methods and is it better to just access simple property variables directly or should every class have explicit get/set methods defined, blah blah blah. I like the idea of having explicit methods in case you have to add more logic later. Then you don't have to modify any code that uses the class. However I hate having a million functions that look like this:
public function getFirstName()
{
return $this->firstName;
}
public function setFirstName($firstName)
{
return $this->firstName;
}
Now I'm sure I'm not the first person to do this (I'm hoping that there's a better way of doing it that someone can suggest to me).
Basically, the PropertyHandler class has a __call magic method. Any methods that come through __call that start with "get" or "set" are then routed to functions that set or retrieve values into an associative array. The key into the array is the name of the calling method after getting or setting. So, if the method coming into __call is "getFirstName", the array key is "FirstName".
I liked using __call because it will automatically take care of the case where the subclass already has a "getFirstName" method defined. My impression (and I may be wrong) is that the __get & __set magic methods don't do that.
So here's an example of how it would work:
class PropTest extends PropertyHandler
{
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct();
}
}
$props = new PropTest();
$props->setFirstName("Mark");
echo $props->getFirstName();
Notice that PropTest doesn't actually have "setFirstName" or "getFirstName" methods and neither does PropertyHandler. All that's doing is manipulating array values.
The other case would be where your subclass is already extending something else. Since you can't have true multiple inheritances in PHP, you can make your subclass have a PropertyHandler instance as a private variable. You have to add one more function but then things behave in exactly the same way.
class PropTest2
{
private $props;
public function __construct()
{
$this->props = new PropertyHandler();
}
public function __call($method, $arguments)
{
return $this->props->__call($method, $arguments);
}
}
$props2 = new PropTest2();
$props2->setFirstName('Mark');
echo $props2->getFirstName();
Notice how the subclass has a __call method that just passes everything along to the PropertyHandler __call method.
Another good argument against handling getters and setters this way is that it makes it really hard to document.
In fact, it's basically impossible to use any sort of document generation tool since the explicit methods to be don't documented don't exist.
I've pretty much abandoned this approach for now. It was an interesting learning exercise but I think it sacrifices too much clarity.
The way I do it is the following:
class test {
protected $x='';
protected $y='';
function set_y ($y) {
print "specific function set_y\n";
$this->y = $y;
}
function __call($function , $args) {
print "generic function $function\n";
list ($name , $var ) = split ('_' , $function );
if ($name == 'get' && isset($this->$var)) {
return $this->$var;
}
if ($name == 'set' && isset($this->$var)) {
$this->$var= $args[0];
return;
}
trigger_error ("Fatal error: Call to undefined method test::$function()");
}
}
$p = new test();
$p->set_x(20);
$p->set_y(30);
print $p->get_x();
print $p->get_y();
$p->set_z(40);
Which will output (line breaks added for clarity)
generic function set_x
specific function set_y
generic function get_x
20
generic function get_y
30
generic function set_z
Notice: Fatal error: Call to undefined method set_z() in [...] on line 16
#Brian
My problem with this is that adding "more logic later" requires that you add blanket logic that applies to all properties accessed with the getter/setter or that you use if or switch statements to evaluate which property you're accessing so that you can apply specific logic.
That's not quite true. Take my first example:
class PropTest extends PropertyHandler
{
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct();
}
}
$props = new PropTest();
$props->setFirstName("Mark");
echo $props->getFirstName();
Let's say that I need to add some logic for validating FirstNames. All I have to do is add a setFirstName method to my subclass and that method is automatically used instead.
class PropTest extends PropertyHandler
{
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct();
}
public function setFirstName($name)
{
if($name == 'Mark')
{
echo "I love you, Mark!";
}
}
}
I'm just not satisfied with the limitations that PHP has when it comes to implicit accessor methods.
I agree completely. I like the Python way of handling this (my implementation is just a clumsy rip-off of it).
Yes that's right the variables have to be manually declared but i find that better since I fear a typo in the setter
$props2->setFristName('Mark');
will auto-generate a new property (FristName instead of FirstName) which will make debugging harder.
I like having methods instead of just using public fields, as well, but my problem with PHP's default implementation (using __get() and __set()) or your custom implementation is that you aren't establishing getters and setters on a per-property basis. My problem with this is that adding "more logic later" requires that you add blanket logic that applies to all properties accessed with the getter/setter or that you use if or switch statements to evaluate which property you're accessing so that you can apply specific logic.
I like your solution, and I applaud you for it--I'm just not satisfied with the limitations that PHP has when it comes to implicit accessor methods.
#Mark
But even your method requires a fresh declaration of the method, and it somewhat takes away the advantage of putting it in a method so that you can add more logic, because to add more logic requires the old-fashioned declaration of the method, anyway. In its default state (which is where it is impressive in what it detects/does), your technique is offering no advantage (in PHP) over public fields. You're restricting access to the field but giving carte blanche through accessor methods that don't have any restrictions of their own. I'm not aware that unchecked explicit accessors offer any advantage over public fields in any language, but people can and should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I've always handled this issue in a similar with a __call which ends up pretty much as boiler plate code in many of my classes. However, it's compact, and uses the reflection classes to only add getters / setters for properties you have already set (won't add new ones). Simply adding the getter / setter explicitly will add more complex functionality. It expects to be
Code looks like this:
/**
* Handles default set and get calls
*/
public function __call($method, $params) {
//did you call get or set
if ( preg_match( "|^[gs]et([A-Z][\w]+)|", $method, $matches ) ) {
//which var?
$var = strtolower($matches[1]);
$r = new ReflectionClass($this);
$properties = $r->getdefaultProperties();
//if it exists
if ( array_key_exists($var,$properties) ) {
//set
if ( 's' == $method[0] ) {
$this->$var = $params[0];
}
//get
elseif ( 'g' == $method[0] ) {
return $this->$var;
}
}
}
}
Adding this to a class where you have declared default properties like:
class MyClass {
public $myvar = null;
}
$test = new MyClass;
$test->setMyvar = "arapaho";
echo $test->getMyvar; //echos arapaho
The reflection class may add something of use to what you were proposing. Neat solution #Mark.
Just recently, I also thought about handling getters and setters the way you suggested (the second approach was my favorite, i.e. the private $props array), but I discarded it for it wouldn't have worked out in my app.
I am working on a rather large SoapServer-based application and the soap interface of PHP 5 injects the values that are transmitted via soap directly into the associated class, without bothering about existing or non-existing properties in the class.
I can't help putting in my 2 cents...
I have taken to using __get and __set in this manor http://gist.github.com/351387 (similar to the way that doctrine does it), then only ever accessing the properties via the $obj->var in an outside of the class. That way you can override functionality as needed instead of making a huge __get or __set function, or overriding __get and __set in the child classes.

Categories