I have an application in which a number of objects are all extending an abstract class which defines methods like create() edit() retrieve() and delete(). Since each of the child classes use the same logic for these functions, the abstract class defines that default behaviour, and in the few cases where it needs to be augmented, the child classes can override or use the hooks I've built in.
Now I'm having the situation where some of the child classes need to be made immutable, meaning that they shouldn't have edit() or delete() methods. This need sounds to me like a job for an interface named something like immutable which the immutable classes could implement. Problem is that interfaces don't stop methods from being called, they just enforce a method's existence. So this is obviously not going to work.
Making two parent classes, one for mutable objects and one for immutable ones is ugly and is probably asking for problems down the line which maintenance. I could have the immutable objects override the offending methods with an empty method that did nothing, but that also seems messy and like I'm not doing proper OOP at that point.
So what would you suggest as the best way to allow a large set of classes to all inherit a set of methods, but for some of them to not inherit all of the methods? (The application in question is written php, but general OOP techniques from any language can still be helpful).
create an immutable-base class as a child of the base class.
the immutable-base should implement final overrides of edit() and delete() which do nothing or throw an error.
Final, so that all immutable children are guaranteed not to be able to edit or delete
bonuses of this strategy
easily check if an object is immutable by testing for instanceof immutable-base
easily change objects from immutable and back again by modifing what it extends
Actually creating classes that have empty methods or throw errors is bad - such methods are confusing, they take up space and do nothing.
A better approach would be to make the immutable class the base class and make the mutable class extend it with adding methods for modification. This way each class has only those methods, that really belong there.
I like Java's approach to this. Throw an exception. Create an UnsupportedOperationException and for those implementations that shouldn't use a specific method throw one to let the user know they can't use this functionality for this implementation.
Another thought I wanted to throw out as a possible solution. Classes could implement an interface that looks like the following:
Interface Immutable {
const immutable = true;
}
and then the Base abstract class can write the delete() and edit() methods with
if (!$this->immutable) {
//do_stuff
}
This would also extend well to other classifications of class, like NonDeletable and NonEditable to allow for more fine grained behaviour.
Here is super short workaround, make your method final and start it with:
if(self::class!=static::class) return;#or throw an error
It will not prevent inheritance itself, but methods will not work in children classes (with error or without - is up to you).
As of PHP 5.4, you can use Traits.
For example, you could make a base class that only includes the methods that all child classes have:
class EntityManager {
public function create() {/*...*/}
public function retrieve() {/*...*/}
}
Then you could define a couple of traits:
trait EditTrait {
public function edit() {/*...*/}
}
trait DeleteTrait {
public function delete() {/*...*/}
}
You would then create an immutable child class like this:
class LogManager extends EntityManager {
...
}
And a mutable child class like this:
class ContactManager extends EntityManager {
use EditTrait;
use DeleteTrait;
...
}
Traits have some advantages over some of the other solutions here such as:
No duplication of code.
Single base class.
Methods that don't work or don't make sense, don't appear on classes that don't support them (especially important for docs and apis).
Related
Sorry if this is a duplicate question or a common design principle, I have searched around but was unable to find any answers to this question. I'm probably just searching with the wrong keywords.
I have been looking at a popular library Sabre/Event (https://sabre.io/event/) and in the code there is a simple class/inheritance model that I am trying to understand:
The class EventEmitter implements EventEmitterInterface and uses EventEmitterTrait (see below for code).
There is a comment in EventEmitterTrait above the class which says:
* Using the trait + interface allows you to add EventEmitter capabilities
* without having to change your base-class.
I am trying to understand why this comment says this, and why it allows adding capabilities without changing the base class, and how that is different from just putting the routines into EventEmitter itself.
Couldn't you just extend EventEmitter and add capabilities in the derived class?
Simplified code:
// EventEmitter.php
class EventEmitter implements EventEmitterInterface {
use EventEmitterTrait;
}
// EventEmitterInterface.php
interface EventEmitterInterface {
// ... declares several function prototypes
}
// EventEmitterTrait.php
trait EventEmitterTrait {
// ... implements the routines declared in EventEmitterInterface
}
You're basically asking two questions here.
What are interfaces and why are they useful?
What are traits and why are they useful?
To understand why interfaces are useful you have to know a little about inheritance and OOP in general. If you've ever heard the term spaghetti code before (it's when you tend to write imperative code that's so tangled together you can hardly make sense of it) then you should liken that to the term lasagna code for OOP (that's when you extend a class to so many layers that it becomes difficult to understand which layer is doing what).
1. Interfaces
Interfaces diffuse some of this confusion by allow a class to implement a common set of methods without having to restrict the hierarchy of that class. we do not derive interfaces from a base class. We merely implement them into a given class.
A very clear and obvious example of that in PHP is DateTimeInterface. It provides a common set of methods which both DateTime and DateTimeImmutable will implement. It does not, however, tell those classes what the implementation is. A class is an implementation. An interface is just methods of a class sans implementation. However, since both things implement the same interface it's easy to test any class that implements that interface, since you know they will always have the same methods. So I know that both DateTime and DateTimeImmutable will implement the method format, which will accept a String as input and return a String, regardless of which class is implementing it. I could even write my own implementation of DateTime that implements DateTimeInterface and it is guaranteed to have that method with that same signature.
So imagine I wrote a method that accepts a DateTime object, and the method expects to run the format method on that object. If it doesn't care which class, specifically, is given to it, then that method could simply typehint its prototype as DateTimeInterface instead. Now anyone is free to implement DateTimeInterface in their own class, without having to extend from some base class, and provide my method with an object that's guaranteed to work the same way.
So in relation to your EventEmitter example, you can add the same capabilities of a class (like DateTime) to any class that might not even extend from DateTime, but as long as we know it implements the same interface, we know for sure it has the same methods with the same signatures. This would mean the same thing for EventEmitter.
2. Traits
Traits, unlike interfaces, actually can provide an implementation. They are also a form of horizontal inheritance, unlike the vertical inheritance of extending classes. Because two completely different class that do not derive from the same base class can use the same Trait. This is possible, because in PHP traits are basically just compiler-assisted copy and paste. Imagine, you literally copied the code inside of a trait and just pasted it into each class that uses it right before compile time. You'd get the same result. You're just injecting code into unrelated classes.
This is useful, because sometimes you have a method or set of methods that prove reusable in two distinct classes even though the rest of those classes have nothing else in common.
For example, imagine you are writing a CMS, where there is a Document class and a User class. Neither of these two classes are related in any meaningful way. They do very different things and it makes no sense for one of them to extend the other. However, they both share a particular behavior in common: flag() method that indicates the object has been flagged by a user for purposes of violating the Terms of Service.
trait FlagContent {
public function flag(Int $userId, String $reason): bool {
$this->flagged = true;
$this->byUserId = $userId;
$this->flagReason = $reason;
return $this->updateDatabase();
}
}
Now consider that perhaps your CMS has other content that's subject to being flagged, like a Image class, or a Video class, or even a Comment class. These classes are all typically unrelated. It probably wouldn't make much sense just to have a specific class for flagging content, especially if the properties of the relevant objects have to be passed around to this class to update the database, for example. It also doesn't make sense for them to derive from a base class (they're all completely unrelated to each other). It also doesn't make sense to rewrite this same code in every class, since it would easier to change it in one place instead of many.
So what seems to be most sensible here is to use a Trait.
So again, in relation to your EventEmitter example, they're giving you some traits you can reuse in your implementing class to basically make it easier to reuse the code without having to extend from a base class (horizontal inheritance).
Per Sabre's Event Emitter's docs on "Integration into other objects":
To add Emitter capabilities to any class, you can simply extend it.
If you cannot extend, because the class is already part of an existing
class hierarchy you can use the supplied trait.
So in this case, the idea is if you're using your own objects that already are part of a class hierarchy, you may simply implement the interface + use the trait, instead of extending the Emitter class (which you won't be able to).
The Integration into other objects documentation says:
If you cannot extend, because the class is already part of an existing class hierarchy you can use the supplied trait".
I understand it's a workaround when you already have an OOP design you don't want to alter and you want to add event capabilities. For example:
Model -> AppModel -> Customer
PHP doesn't have multiple inheritance so Customer can extend AppModel or Emitter but not both. If you implement the interface in Customer the code is not reusable elsewhere; if you implement in e.g. AppModel it's available everywhere, which might not be desirable.
With traits, you can write custom event code and cherry-pick where you reuse it.
This is an interesting question and I will try to give my take on it. As you asked,
What is the purpose of using traits to define functions for an interface ?
Traits basically gives you the ability to create some reusable code or functionality which can then be used any where in your code base. Now as it stands, PHP doesn't support multiple inheritance therefore traits and interfaces are there to solve that issue. The question here is why traits though ?? Well imagine a scenario like below,
class User
{
public function hasRatings()
{
// some how we want users to have ratings
}
public function hasBeenFavorited()
{
// other users can follow
}
public function name(){}
public function friends(){}
// and a few other methods
}
Now lets say that we have a post class which has the same logic as user and that can be achieved by having hasRatings() and hasBeenFavorited() methods. Now, one way would be to simply inherit from User Class.
class Post extends User
{
// Now we have access to the mentioned methods but we have inherited
// methods and properties which is not really needed here
}
Therefore, to solve this issue we can use traits.
trait UserActions
{
public function hasRatings()
{
// some how we want users to have ratings
}
public function hasBeenFavorited()
{
// other users can follow
}
}
Having that bit of logic we can now just use it any where in the code where ever it is required.
class User
{
use UserActions;
}
class Post
{
use UserActions;
}
Now lets say we have a report class where we want to generate certain report on the basis of user actions.
class Report
{
protected $user;
public function __construct(User $user)
{
$this->user = $user
}
public function generate()
{
return $this->user->hasRatings();
}
}
Now, what happens if i want to generate report for Post. The only way to achieve that would be to new up another report class i.e. maybe PostReport.. Can you see where I am getting at. Surely there could be another way, where i dont have to repeat myself. Thats where, interfaces or contracts come to place. Keeping that in mind, lets redefine our reports class and make it to accept a contract rather than concrete class which will always ensure that we have access to UserActions.
interface UserActionable
{
public function hasRatings();
public function hasBeenFavorited();
}
class Report
{
protected $actionable;
public function __construct(UserActionable $actionable)
{
$this->actionable = $actionable;
}
public function generate()
{
return $this->actionable->hasRatings();
}
}
//lets make our post and user implement the contract so we can pass them
// to report
class User implements UserActionable
{
uses UserActions;
}
class Post implements UserActionable
{
uses UserActions;
}
// Great now we can switch between user and post during run time to generate
// reports without changing the code base
$userReport = (new Report(new User))->generate();
$postReport = (new Report(new Post))->generate();
So in nutshell, interfaces and traits helps us to achieve design based on SOLID principles, much decoupled code and better composition. Hope that helps
I have a class that is containing 10 methods. I always need to use one of those methods. Now I want to know, which approach is better?
class cls{
public function func1(){}
public function func2(){}
.
.
public function func10(){}
}
$obj = new cls;
$data = $obj->func3(); // it is random, it can be anything (func1, or func9 or ...)
OR
class cls{
public static function func1(){}
public static function func2(){}
.
.
public static function func10(){}
}
cls::func3(); // it is random, it can be anything (func1, or func9 or ...)
It is an interesting subject. I'm gonna give you a design oriented answer.
In my opinion, you should never use a static class/function in a good OOP architecture.
When you use static, this is to call a function without an instance of the class. The main reason is often to represent a service class which should not be instantiated many times.
I will give you 3 solutions (from the worst to the best) to achieve that:
Static
A static class (with only static functions) prevent you from using many OOP features like inheritance, interface implementation. If you really think of what is a static function, it is a function namespaced by the name of its class. You already have namespaces in PHP, so why add another layer?
Another big disadvantage is that you cannot define clear dependencies with your static class and the classes using it which is a bad thing for maintenability and scalability of your application.
Singleton
A singleton is a way to force a class to have only one instance:
<?php
class Singleton {
// Unique instance.
private static $instance = null;
// Private constructor prevent you from instancing the class with "new".
private function __construct() {
}
// Method to get the unique instance.
public static function getInstance() {
// Create the instance if it does not exist.
if (!isset(self::$instance)) {
self::$instance = new Singleton();
}
// Return the unique instance.
return self::$instance;
}
}
It is a better way because you can use inheritance, interfaces and your method will be called on an instanciated object. This means you can define contracts and use low coupling with the classes using it. However some people consider the singleton as an anti pattern especially because if you want to have 2 or more instances of your class with different input properties (like the classic example of the connection to 2 different databases) you cannot without a big refactoring of all your code using the singleton.
Service
A service is an instance of a standard class. It is a way to rationalize your code. This kind of architecture is called SOA (service oriented architecture). I give you an example:
If you want to add a method to sell a product in a store to a consumer and you have classes Product, Store and Consumer. Where should you instantiate this method? I can guarantee that if you think it is more logical in one of these three class today it could be anything else tomorrow. This leads to lots of duplications and a difficulty to find where is the code you are looking for. Instead, you can use a service class like a SaleHandler for example which will know how to manipulate your data classes.
It is a good idea to use a framework helping you to inject them into each others (dependency injection) in order to use them at their full potential. In the PHP community, you have a nice example of implementation of this in Symfony for instance.
To sum up:
If you do not have a framework, singletons are certainly an option even if I personally prefer a simple file where I make manual dependency injection.
If you have a framework, use its dependency injection feature to do that kind of thing.
You should not use static method (in OOP). If you need a static method in one of your class, this means you can create a new singleton/service containing this method and inject it to the instance of classes needing it.
The answer depends on what those methods do. If you're using them to mutate the state of the object at hand, you need to use the instance method calls. If they're independent functionality, then you can use the static versions, but then I'd question why they're part of a class at all.
So, there is a very basic difference in static methods.
To use static functions, you don't need to initialise the class as an object. For example, Math.pow(), here .pow() (in Java; but the explanation still holds) is a static method.
The general rule is to make the helper methods static.
So, for example, if you have a Math class, you wouldn't want to fill the garbage collector with classes which just help other, more important, classes.
You can use it as dynamic initializers, if you please!
Let's say you have a class RSAEncryptionHelper, now you can generally initialize it without any parameters and this will generate an object with a key size of (say) 512 bits; but you also have an overloaded object constructor which gets all of the properties from other classes:
$a = new RSAEncryptionHelper::fromPrimeSet(...);
Within a PHP class you can use class/methods/attributes: Abstract, Static, Private, Public, etc ...
The best way is to know how to mix them all within a class depending on the need, I will give you a basic example:
Within the Person class, you have private and public methods, but you have a method called "get_nationality" so this is a function that you need somewhere else but you do not have the Person class installed yet, so this method you put it as STATIC in this way you can invoke the "get_nationality" method without installing any Person class, this makes your business model more optimal and in turn now resources in the CPU.
Static functions are also very useful but
I usually make traits when I have to create functions that are independently related to a class.
I don't know if this approach is better or not but most times I found it useful.
Just sharing my approach here so that I can learn more about its pros and cons.
You can think a factory. You will give some materials, it will give you same output. Then you should use static function.
class ProductDetails
{
public static function getRow($id, PDO $pdo): SingleProduct
{
// this function will return an Object.
}
}
I am not defining the Object here. Just where you need a Single Product you can simply do that ProductDetails::getRow(10, $pdo);
Can anyone give me an example of the following desired OOP structure please.
I want a main class (super class) (interface or abstract class?) where all the other classes that are extending from it can have their functions called from instances of the main super class.
e.g.
class mainSupoerClass() {
}
class doWork exends mainSupoerClass(){
public function addEntity(){
//do stuff for entity
}
}
I want be able to do this:
$data = new mainSupoerClass;
$data->addEntity(); (doesnt belong to this class but its fetching the function from doWork class)
Can anyone give me a start on the correct OOP structure to carry out this work?
In simple terms, you can't. You have to instantiate the extended class and you'll get all functions within the instantiated class and also the parent class/classes.
Is there any reason you need this to be done this way?
That won't work the way you describe it. PHP (nor any other language) can know which derived class you refer too. It would work if you instantiate doWork instead of mainSupoerClass.
I think you are looking for the factory pattern, but I'm not sure.
With that pattern, you build an interface (either an interface or an abstract class), and let a factory instantiate any descendant of that class.
Now your code doesn't need to know which instance it is, because it can call any method declared in the interface/abstract base class.
An interface is more flexible in this regard. If you create an abstract class, you will need to derive all other classes from that class. Usually this won't be a problem, but sometimes you want a whole new implementation. In that case, an interface is better. You can implement the interface in a completely different class, and still make use of PHP's typehinting for validating that any object you pass to a function or method implements the interface.
Even it's called super-class, it does not mean that it has all classes defined elsewhere. The methodology is the following:
[super] --> [concrete]
and not
[concrete] --> [super]
So a concrete class extends the superclass. The concrete class will then have everything of the superclass plus what the concrete class has / overwrites - but not the other way round.
class Super
{
public function a() {}
}
class Concrete extends Super
{
public function b() {}
}
Super has ::a() and in addition Concrete has ::b(). But Super will never have ::b().
Additionally even you have multiple classes, there is always one instance regardless of how many classes it is compound of, commonly called object:
$object = new Concrete;
This makes a Concrete object.
You'll have to read. Try these:
Article: http://sourcemaking.com/design_patterns/abstract_factory
Code: http://sourcemaking.com/design_patterns/abstract_factory/php/2
It appears that the factory design pattern is what you are looking for.
I don't understand why you wanted to be able to do:
(doesnt belong to this class but its fetching the function from doWork class)
What's the reason behind it?
I am using php 5.3, and yes, there is a bug open for that, but some think this is not a bug, and this makes me wonder.
abstract class A{
private function bobo(array $in){
//do something
}
}
class B extends A{
private function bobo($shmoo,$shmaa){
//do something
}
}
This throws an error. Shouldn't inheritance ignore private methods?!
'Declaration of B::bobo() should be
compatible with that of A::bobo()'
Note that the bug report is slightly off, as PHP will log this message any time you have an error level of E_STRICT (or, more recently, regardless of your error level provided that you've set a custom error handler).
PHP's visibility rules clearly demonstrate that a child lacks the ability to see its parent's private members, which I doubt is all that surprising to anyone. If the child can't see its parent's methods, I don't understand how it can have a duty to obey their definitions.
I personally think that the bug being marked as bogus without any explanation of why it wasn't a real flaw (since it's non-obvious and I couldn't find any mention of it in the documentation) is a bit wrong, but yeah. That aside, I'm of the opinion line 2669 in zend_compile.c should actually read as follows:
} else if (child->prototype &&
(EG(error_reporting) & E_STRICT || EG(user_error_handler))) {
...which would avoid the error popping up when the parent's method was marked private. Given that you always have the option not logging E_STRICT though, and it doesn't really negatively impact anything, I suppose it's not really a big deal. I definitely don't see how it could have been intentional, but I'm not a PHP engine developer either.
I think there are two possibilities here. Either it's a bug or the documentation on PHP.net/manual is incorrect. Here are three sections of the PHP manual. First on inheritance:
Object Inheritance
Inheritance is a well-established
programming principle, and PHP makes
use of this principle in its object
model. This principle will affect the
way many classes and objects relate to
one another.
For example, when you extend a class,
the subclass inherits all of the
public and protected methods from the
parent class. Unless a class overrides
those methods, they will retain their
original functionality.
This is useful for defining and
abstracting functionality, and permits
the implementation of additional
functionality in similar objects
without the need to reimplement all of
the shared functionality.
And on abstract classes:
Class Abstraction
PHP 5 introduces abstract classes and methods. It is not allowed to create an instance
of a class that has been defined as abstract. Any class that contains at least one
abstract method must also be abstract. Methods defined as abstract simply declare the
method's signature they cannot define the implementation.
When inheriting from an abstract class, all methods marked abstract in the parent's
class declaration must be defined by the child; additionally, these methods must be
defined with the same (or a less restricted) visibility. For example, if the abstract
method is defined as protected, the function implementation must be defined as either
protected or public, but not private.
Finally, interfaces
Object Interfaces
Object interfaces allow you to create code which specifies which methods a class must
implement, without having to define how these methods are handled.
Interfaces are defined using the interface keyword, in the same way as a standard class,
but without any of the methods having their contents defined.
All methods declared in an interface must be public, this is the nature of an interface.
Suffice it to say: there is nothing in the documentation that mentions inheritance of private methods. If there is a relationship between the parent and child method signatures, then it is not documented and the bug report should at least show someone that the documentation needs to be updated (if the decision to have this behavior is intentional). And if there was not supposed to be a relationship, then well, it's a real bug.
That's my opinion...
In the bug report when you remove the interface there isn't an error.
That makes it "more" strange behavior because the interface is just empty.
I guess this is a design decision of the language. The Java language developers decided that this should be possible.
Private methods should certainly not be ignored by inheritance, consider for example Template method pattern where you may override behavior of a function in a derived class, but the parent class can still call that function
public class Parent {
public final function doThings() {
$this->initialize();
$this->customStuff();
$this->cleanup();
}
private final function initialize() {
// initialize processing
}
private final function cleanup() {
// cleanup processing
}
private function customStuff() {
// parent specific processing
}
}
public class Derived extends Parent {
private function customStuff() {
parent::customStuff();
// + derived class specific processing
}
}
Calling doThings method on Derived class instance will do parent specific processing, but because of possibility to override private methods it is still possible to take advantage of the extension point provided by the non-final parent class customStuff method.
EDIT: Also PHP method signature consists of only the method name as you can define a method taking zero parameters and still call it with multiple parameters. Function can then access the arguments using func_get_args function.
I am working on a simple abstract database class. In my usage of this class, I'll want to have some instance be a singleton. I was thinking of having a abstract class that is not a singleton, and then extend it into another abstract class that is a singleton. Is this possible? Recommended?
Edit: I want to have two abstract that are practically identical, except one is a singleton. So the only difference will be that one will have all the functions of the other, but will have the other properties and methods that make it behave like a singleton.
I'd like to have one base class code base for this so as I make changes, I don't have to keep two files in sync.
In the way that I do things, I believe that there's no use for an abstract singleton. This is because,
1) What you want to be a singleton is the final class you instantiate for use within the application whether it'd be a library, model, controller or view and NOT the abstract.
2) Adding the singleton method is easy and can be written in 8 lines. See below.
protected static $_instance;
public static function getInstance()
{
if (!isset(self::$_instance)) {
self::$_instance = new self();
}
self::$_instance;
}
3) PHP 5.3 below version doesn't support late static binding. This will result in instantiating the abstract class instead of the final class inheriting it and will not function as expected, as already mentioned by Gordon and nuqqsa. So, for backward compatibility, better avoid it.
The implementation of the singleton pattern must satisfy two requirements:
It must provide a mechanism to access the singleton class instance without creating a class object
It must persist the singleton object so that it is not instantiated more than once
As long as that's provided, the variations are multiple. There's nothing wrong with making the class abstract extending from another abstract, if that's what you need. BUT, as #Gordon says, be aware that overriding static methods/properties causes peculiar behaviours in PHP < 5.3.