The following code will have PHP unhappy that customMethod() is private. Why is this the case? Is visibility determined by where something is declared rather than defined?
If I wanted to make customMethod only visible to boilerplate code in the Template class and prevent it from being overriden, would I just alternatively make it protected and final?
Template.php:
abstract class Template() {
abstract private function customMethod();
public function commonMethod() {
$this->customMethod();
}
}
CustomA.php:
class CustomA extends Template {
private function customMethod() {
blah...
}
}
Main.php
...
$object = new CustomA();
$object->commonMethod();
..
Abstract methods cannot be private, because by definition they must be implemented by a derived class. If you don't want it to be public, it needs to be protected, which means that it can be seen by derived classes, but nobody else.
The PHP manual on abstract classes shows you examples of using protected in this way.
If you fear that customMethod will be called outside of the CustomA class you can make the CustomA class final.
abstract class Template{
abstract protected function customMethod();
public function commonMethod() {
$this->customMethod();
}
}
final class CustomA extends Template {
protected function customMethod() {
}
}
Abstract methods are public or protected. This is a must.
Nothing in PHP that is private in a child class is visible to a parent class. Nothing that is private in a parent class is visible to a child class.
Remember, visibility must flow between the child class up to the parent class when using abstract methods in PHP. Using the visibility private in this scenario with PHP would completely encapsulate CustomA::customMethod inside of CustomA. Your only options are public or protected visibility.
Since you cannot make an instance of the abstract class Template, privacy from client-code is maintained. If you use the final keyword to prevent future classes from extending CustomA, you have a solution. However, if you must extend CustomA, you will have to live with how PHP operates for the time being.
Related
I coded a bunch of classes extending an abstract class in PHP. The abstract class has variables as well as the class which extends the abstract class.
I would like to create a method inside the abstract class, which return all the class variables of the child classes but don't have to be recoded in every subclass.
This snippet works fine in a subclass in order to get all variables, the ones from the abstract class and the other classes:
get_class_vars(get_class($this))
However, if I move this snippet to the abstract class, it doesnt work. Here's what I did:
public function test($test)
{
var_dump(get_class($test));
var_dump(get_class_vars(get_class($test)));
}
This code returns the class name of the passed class correctly, but the get_class_vars() does only return the variables of the abstract class, no matter which class is passed here.
What did I do wrong here?
<?php
abstract class Entity
{
protected int $top;
public function test()
{
var_dump(get_called_class());
var_dump(get_class_vars(get_called_class()));
}
}
class Sub extends Entity
{
public String $test; // CHANGED FROM PRIVATE TO PUBLIC!
}
$test = new Sub();
$test->test();
I found the solution - it was a "private" issue. The variable in the subclass needs to be at least a protected variable in order to be seen from the top class.
Let's say that I have some functions in my abstract parent class. I want these to only be accessible by the children classes, so I mark the functions protected (non-static).
abstract class ParentClass
{
protected function myFunction()
{
//implementation
}
}
My problem is the following: I have a few children classes and most of them use the aforementioned protected functions. I want to create a child class though, which allows the programmer to use those functions directly.
So basically:
class ChildClass extends ParentClass
{
public static function myAwesomeFunction()
{
parent::myFunction();
}
}
This is what I want to do. I want the user to be able to call the function (can be with the same name - myFunction in the child class) in a static way from the child class, but not from the parent class (that's why I don't want to make the function public, plus since I want it to be static, marking the class abstract doesn't help with this).
To be able to call
ChildClass::myAwesomeFunction();
but not to be able to do
ParentClass:myFunction();
Is there a trick to achieve this? If not, what is the best practice to do this? Is the only way really to enumerate all the functions I want and have them call the parent's method (like I have in my example)?
You could define the abstract to be protected static and then use the self keyword in the child:
abstract class A
{
protected static function _foo() {
echo "foo\n";
}
}
class B extends A
{
public static function foo() {
self::_foo();
}
}
A::_foo(); // fatal
B::foo(); // works
Given that, I'm not really crazy about this technique, and I would generally recommend avoiding static methods -- then it simply becomes a matter of defining the abstract protected and letting the child inherit it.
I just wrote code like this:
<?php
class test
{
// Force Extending class to define this method
abstract protected function getValue();
abstract protected function prefixValue($prefix);
// Common method
public function printOut() {
print $this->getValue() . "\n";
}
}
class testabs extends test{
public function getValue()
{
}
public function prefixValue($f)
{
}
}
$obj = new testabs();
?>
When I run this code, I received the error below:
Fatal error: Class test contains 2 abstract methods and must therefore be declared abstract or implement the remaining methods (test::getValue, test::prefixValue) in C:\wamp64\www\study\abstract.php on line 12
I understand the first part of this error. I changed the class test to abstract and the error is gone, but the or part i can't understand.
If you are going to add abstract methods, then you will need to make the class abstract as well. That way, the class cannot be instantiated- only non-abstract sub-classes can be.
The method visibility (refer to the second sub-section Method Visiblilty) is not the same in the sub-class. Depending on whether you want the methods to be called by code outside of sub-classes, you can declare the (abstract) methods in class test with visibility public, or else declare the sub-class methods also with visibility protected.
And note the second paragraph from the Class Abstraction page, which explains this:
When inheriting from an abstract class, all methods marked abstract in the parent's class declaration must be defined by the child; additionally, these methods must be defined with the same (or a less restricted) visibility. For example, if the abstract method is defined as protected, the function implementation must be defined as either protected or public, but not private
<?php
abstract class test{
// Force Extending class to define this method
abstract protected function getValue();
abstract protected function prefixValue($prefix);
// Common method
public function printOut() {
print $this->getValue() . "\n";
}
}
class testabs extends test{
protected function getValue()
{
}
/**
* this method can be called from other methods with this class
* or sub-classes, but not called directly by code outside of this class
**/
protected function prefixValue($f)
{
}
}
$obj = new testabs();
// this method cannot be called here because its visibility is protected
$obj->prefixValues();// Fatal Error
?>
The key technical differences between an abstract class and an interface are:
Abstract classes can have constants, members, method stubs (methods without a body) and defined methods, whereas interfaces can only have constants and methods stubs.
Methods and members of an abstract class can be defined with any visibility, whereas all methods of an interface must be defined as public (they are defined public by default).
When inheriting an abstract class, a concrete child class must define the abstract methods, whereas an abstract class can extend another abstract class and abstract methods from the parent class don't have to be defined.
Similarly, an interface extending another interface is not responsible for implementing methods from the parent interface. This is because interfaces cannot define any implementation.
A child class can only extend a single class (abstract or concrete), whereas an interface can extend or a class can implement multiple other interfaces.
A child class can define abstract methods with the same or less restrictive visibility, whereas a class implementing an interface must define the methods with the exact same visibility (public).
Your class has abstract functions but is not declared as abstract, so you have two choices. Either declare the class as abstract or provide an implementation of the abstract functions.
The first option (which you tried) allows the class to exist and be used by a concrete subclass that implements the functions. The second option means that the class is fully defined and can be used as is.
When your class has abstract methods it has to be declared abstract too.
So the following is correct:
<?php
abstract class test
{
// Force Extending class to define this method
abstract protected function getValue();
abstract protected function prefixValue($prefix);
// Common method
public function printOut() {
print $this->getValue() . "\n";
}
}
I am not asking a typical question about why some code failed, yet I am asking about why it worked.It has worked with me while coding, and I needed it to fail.
Case
a base abstract class with a protected constructor declared abstract
a parent class extends the abstract class with public constructor (Over ridding)
a child class extends the very same abstract class with a protected constructor
abstract class BaseClass {
abstract protected function __construct();
}
class ChildClass extends BaseClass {
protected function __construct(){
echo 'It works';
}
}
class ParentClass extends BaseClass {
public function __construct() {
new ChildClass();
}
}
// $obj = new ChildClass(); // Will result in fatal error. Expected!
$obj = new ParentClass(); // that works!!WHY?
Question
Parent class instantiates child class object, and it works!!
how come it does?
as far as I know,object cannot be instantiated if its constructor declared protected, except only internally or from within any subclasses by inheritance.
The parent class is not a subclass of the child class,it doesn't inherit a dime from it ( yet both extend the same base abstract class), so how come instantiation doesn't fail?
EDIT
This case only happens with an abstract BaseClass that has also an abstract constructor.If BaseClass is concerete, or if its protected constructor is not abstract, instantiation fails as expected.. is it a PHP bug?
For my sanity, I need really an explanation to why PHP behaves this way in this very specific case.
Thanks in advance
Why it works?
Because from inside ParentClass you have granted access to the abstract method from BaseClass. It is this very same abstract method which is called from ChildClass, despite its implementation is defined on itself.
All relies in the difference between a concrete and an abstract method.
You can think like this: an abstract method is a single method with several implementations. On the other hand, each concrete method is a unique method. When it has the same name than its parent, it overrides the parent's one (it does not implement it).
So, when declared abstract, it is always the base class method which is called.
Think about a method declared abstract: Why the signatures of different implementations can't differ? Why can't the child classes declare the method with less visibility?
Anyway, you have just found a very interesting feature. Or, if my understanding above is not correct, and your expected behaviour is the truly expected behaviour, then you have found a bug.
Note: the following was tested with PHP 5.3.8. Other versions may exhibit different behavior.
Since there isn't a formal specification for PHP, there isn't a way of answering this from the point of view of what should happen. The closest we can get is this statement about protected from the PHP manual:
Members declared protected can be accessed only within the class itself and by inherited and parent classes.
Though the member may be overridden in ChildClass (keeping the "protected" specifier), it was originally declared in BaseClass, so it remains visible in descendants of BaseClass.
In direct opposition to this interpretation, compare the behavior for a protected property:
<?php
abstract class BaseClass {
protected $_foo = 'foo';
abstract protected function __construct();
}
class MommasBoy extends BaseClass {
protected $_foo = 'foobar';
protected function __construct(){
echo __METHOD__, "\n";
}
}
class LatchkeyKid extends BaseClass {
public function __construct() {
echo 'In ', __CLASS__, ":\n";
$kid = new MommasBoy();
echo $kid->_foo, "\n";
}
}
$obj = new LatchkeyKid();
Output:
In LatchkeyKid:
MommasBoy::__construct
Fatal error: Cannot access protected property MommasBoy::$_foo in - on line 18
Changing the abstract __construct to a concrete function with an empty implementation gives the desired behavior.
abstract class BaseClass {
protected function __construct() {}
}
However, non-magic methods are visible in relatives, whether or not they're abstract (most magic methods must be public).
<?php
abstract class BaseClass {
abstract protected function abstract_protected();
protected function concrete() {}
}
class MommasBoy extends BaseClass {
/* accessible in relatives */
protected function abstract_protected() {
return __METHOD__;
}
protected function concrete() {
return __METHOD__;
}
}
class LatchkeyKid extends BaseClass {
function abstract_protected() {}
public function __construct() {
echo 'In ', __CLASS__, ":\n";
$kid = new MommasBoy();
echo $kid->abstract_protected(), "\n", $kid->concrete(), "\n";
}
}
$obj = new LatchkeyKid();
Output:
In LatchkeyKid:
MommasBoy::abstract_protected
MommasBoy::concrete
If you ignore the warnings and declare magic methods (other than __construct, __destruct and __clone) as protected, they appear to be accessible in relatives, as with non-magic methods.
Protected __clone and __destruct are not accessible in relatives, whether or not they're abstract. This leads me to believe the behavior of abstract __construct is a bug.
<?php
abstract class BaseClass {
abstract protected function __clone();
}
class MommasBoy extends BaseClass {
protected function __clone() {
echo __METHOD__, "\n";
}
}
class LatchkeyKid extends BaseClass {
public function __construct() {
echo 'In ', __CLASS__, ": \n";
$kid = new MommasBoy();
$kid = clone $kid;
}
public function __clone() {}
}
$obj = new LatchkeyKid();
Output:
In LatchkeyKid:
Fatal error: Call to protected MommasBoy::__clone() from context 'LatchkeyKid' in - on line 16
Access to __clone is enforced in zend_vm_def.h (specifically, ZEND_CLONE opcode handler). This is in addition to access checks for methods, which may be why it has different behavior. However, I don't see special treatment for accessing __destruct, so there's obviously more to it.
Stas Malyshev (hi, Stas!), one of the PHP developers, took a look into __construct, __clone and __destruct and had this to say:
In general, function defined in base class should be accessible to all
[descendents] of that class. The rationale behind it is that if you define
function (even abstract) in your base class, you saying it will be
available to any instance (including extended ones) of this class. So
any descendant of this class can use it.
[...] I checked why ctor behaves differently, and it's because parent ctor
is considered to be prototype for child ctor (with signature
enforcement, etc.) only if it's declared abstract or brought from the
interface. So, by declaring ctor as abstract or making it part of the
interface, you make it part of the contract and thus accessible to all
hierarchy. If you do not do that, ctors are completely unrelated to each
other (this is different for all other non-static methods) and thus
having parent ctor doesn't say anything about child ctor, so parent
ctor's visibility does not carry over. So for ctor is not a bug. [Note: this is similar to J. Bruni's answer.]
I still think it's most probably a bug for __clone and __destruct.
[...]
I've submitted bug #61782 to track the issue with __clone and __destruct.
EDIT: constructors act differenlty... It's expected to work even without abstract classes but I found this test that tests the same case and it looks like it's a technical limitation - the stuff explained below doesn't work with constructors right now.
There's no bug. You need to understand that access attributes work with objects' context. When you extend a class, your class will be able to see methods in BaseClass' context. ChildClass and ParentClass both in BaseClass context, so they can see all BaseClass methods. Why do you need it? For polymorphism:
class BaseClass {
protected function a(){}
}
class ChildClass extends BaseClass {
protected function a(){
echo 'It works';
}
}
class ParentClass extends BaseClass {
public function b(BaseClass $a) {
$a->a();
}
public function a() {
}
}
No matter what child you pass into ParentClass::b() method, you'll be able to access BaseClass methods (including protected, because ParentClass is BaseClass child and children can see protected methods of their parents). The same behaviour applies to constructors and abstract classes.
I wonder if there isn't something buggy w/ the abstract implementation under the hood, or if there is a subtle issue going on that we're missing. Changing BaseClass from abstract to concrete produces the fatal error you're after though (classes renamed for my sanity)
EDIT: I agree w/ what #deceze is saying in his comments, that it is an edge case of abstract implementation and potentially a bug. This is at least a work-around that provides the expected behavior albiet some ugly technique (feigned abstract base class).
class BaseClass
{
protected function __construct()
{
die('Psuedo Abstract function; override in sub-class!');
}
}
class ChildClassComposed extends BaseClass
{
protected function __construct()
{
echo 'It works';
}
}
// Child of BaseClass, Composes ChildClassComposed
class ChildClassComposer extends BaseClass
{
public function __construct()
{
new ChildClassComposed();
}
}
PHP Fatal error: Call to protected ChildClassComposed::__construct()
from context 'ChildClassComposer' in
/Users/quickshiftin/junk-php/change-private-of-another-class.php on
line 46
If you have a class named "User" and another class named "Admin" that extends "User", and you want Admin to inherit all attributes,methods from User, except for the __construct method, for example.
class User {
private $name;
function __construct($name) {
$this->name = $name;
}
}
and
class Admin extends User {
private $authorization;
function __construct($name,$authorization) {
$this->name = $name;
$this->authorization = $authorization;
}
}
Is this correct? Does Admin override User's construct method? If the extending class has the same method name I suppose it's invalid.
Am I totally missing the point of class extension?
It is not invalid. One aspect of class inheritance is, that you can override methods and provide another implementation.
But in your case, I would do
class Admin extends User {
private $authorization;
function __construct($name,$authorization) {
parent::__construct($name);
$this->authorization = $authorization;
}
}
as you already implement the "name assignment" in the parent class. It is a cleaner approach.
No, this is perfectly legal as you are overriding User's constructor. Generally spoken, methods with similar names in extending class "override" their parent's.
Keep in mind though that modifiers do play a role here: "private" declared methods in a superclass won't get overridden as they aren't inherited by extending classes. "final" declared methods can't be overriden by extending classes - under no circumstances.
Yes it's what extends is for.
You can override all methods.
You can even use same named parent class inside method in child class.
See: parent keyword