Imagine a "Games" class used to track games between opponents. Is it better OOP to have 1 method to retrieve games based on user input parameters or is it better to have multiple methods specific to the retrieval goals?
class Games {
function get_games($game_id = NULL, $stadium_id = NULL, $start_date = NULL,
$end_date = NULL, $count = 999); {}
}
VS
class Games {
function get_all_games($count = 999); {}
function get_game_by_id($game_id = 1); {}
function get_games_by_stadium($stadium_id = 1); {}
function get_games_by_dates($start_date = NULL; $end_date = NULL) {}
}
Explanation of benefits and any coding / snytax tips would be appreciated. Thanks.
The more I practice OOP the more I find myself following a rule about passing parameters to methods. Kind of like having many levels of nested if statements, I find that if I have more than two I might be doing something wrong.
Keep your code simple. You're writing a method that does something, not a block of procedural code that does everything. If you want to get a game, then get a game. If you want to get a list for a date range, then do that.
However I would point out that you don't really need get_all_games() - You can just allow for get_games_by_dates() to be passed with no parameters. If it doesn't get any then it would get the games for every date since forever (all the games)
I would always err on the side of OOP code. the reason being is that it makes you code much easier to maintain and read. The more functions you have the easier it is to follow code later on down the road
I would go for separate methods since you are using lots of paramaters with default values.
If you want to get all games you would have to do:
$games->get_games(NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, 999);
Assuming that your get_....() functions are returning all game data, I would write a single function to return this data, based on an id passed in, and write a series of find_...() functions to return an array of found ids. This will have the added benefit of making it easier to override the data retrieval code in decendant classes.
class Games {
public function get_game($game_id) {
// Return game details (array/object) for $game_id, or FALSE if not found.
}
public function find_all_games() {
// Return array of ids for all games.
}
public function find_games_by_dates($start_date = NULL, $end_date = NULL) {
// Return array of ids between $start_date and $end_date unless NULL.
}
}
You can then call:
$oGames = new Games() ;
$aGames = $oGames->find_all_games() ;
foreach($aGames as $id) {
$aGame = $oGames->get_game($id) ;
if($aGame !== FALSE) { // This check might be skipped if you trust the array of ids from find_all_games().
// Assuming an array is returned.
echo "Game Found: ".$aGame['name']."\n" ;
}
}
The benefit of "multiple methods specific to the retrieval goals" is that you can add/remove goals. The problem with using one monolithic function with a bunch of parameters is that, should you decide to add/remove a way to get games, you'd have to change the interface. Which would break any code that uses it.
Each method should be as concise as possible, performing only one function.
Related
This is not so much a question about execution as it is a question about improving code. I am a 2nd year student, we started to touch on OOP recently and I am finally getting the hold of it....sort of.
I realize this is a very basic question, but what better place to learn from some of the best.
My Question
I have a class which creates a new match. My problem is that I am sure the code is unnecessary long and can get much improved (just keep in mind it is beginner level).Specifically I would like to know:
Can I change the below into 1 setter and 1 getter method?
I would like to use the rand() function for match ID can I do this inside the setter function of setMatchId or should it be done outside of the class?
Thank you very much for taking the time to read this.
<?php
class match{
private $matchId;
private $team1;
private $team2;
private $venue;
function __construct($pMatchId, $pTeam1, $pTeam2, $pVenue){
$this->matchId = $pMatchId;
$this->team1 = $pTeam1;
$this->team2 = $pTeam2;
$this->venue = $pVenue;
}
function setMatchId($pMatchId){
$this->matchId = $pMatchId;
}
function getMatchId(){
return $this->matchId;
}
function setTeam1($pTeam1){
$this->team1 = $pTeam1;
}
function getTeam1(){
return $this->team1;
}
function setTeam2($pTeam2){
$this->team2 = $pTeam2;
}
function getTeam2(){
return $this->team2;
}
function setVenue($pVenue){
$this->venue = $pVenue;
}
function getVenue(){
return $this->venue;
}
} // c;lass match
$x = new match("1", "Patriots", "Chargers", "Newlands");
echo $x->getMatchId();
echo'<br />';
echo $x->getTeam1();
echo'<br />';
echo $x->getTeam2();
echo'<br />';
echo $x->getVenue();
?>
How often are teams or venues going to change for a match? I think you should get rid of the setters since you're already providing all the necessary data through your constructor.
You can indeed change your code to work with a single getter and setter methods, but I'd strongly discourage that. IDE's won't be able to assist you with code completion if you implement such methods but, most importantly, you should never blindly implement getters and setters in your entities if they have no reason to exist.
Let the design guide you on that. Start by passing everything your objects need through their constructors and only add getters/setters when you need them, not the other way around.
In terms of the randomness of the ID, you could use UUIDs for them. You could use this library to create them. I'd pass them through its constructor as well.
You can use __set and __get magic methods of PHP.
private $data = array(); // define property array
public function __set($name, $value) // set key and value in data property
{
echo "Setting '$name' to '$value'\n";
$this->data[$name] = $value;
}
public function __get($name) // get propery value
{
if(isset($this->data[$name])) {
return $this->data[$name];
}
}
You can write your existing code as below:-
class Match{
private $data = [];
function __construct($property=[]){
if(!empty($property)){
foreach($property as $key=>$value){
$this->__set($key,$value);
}
}
}
public function __set($name, $value) // set key and value in data property
{
// echo "Setting '$name' to '$value'\n";
$this->data[$name] = $value;
}
public function __get($name) // get propery value
{
if(isset($this->data[$name])) {
return $this->data[$name];
}
}
}
Set properties using construct method
$x = new match(["matchId"=>"1", "team1"=>"Patriots","team2"=>"Chargers","venue"=>"Newlands"]);
echo '<pre>'; print_r($x);
Set properties without construct method
$x = new match;
$x->matchId = '1'; // 1
$x->team1 = 'team1'; // Patriots
$x->team2 = 'Chargers'; // Chargers
$x->venue = 'Newlands'; // Newlands
echo '<pre>'; print_r($x);
output:-
Match Object
(
[data:Match:private] => Array
(
[matchId] => 1
[team1] => Patriots
[team2] => Chargers
[venue] => Newlands
)
)
Now you can access and set propery by below way:-
// Get all properties values
echo $x->matchId; // 1
echo $x->team1; // Patriots
echo $x->team2; // Chargers
echo $x->venue; // Newlands
// Overwrite existing values
$x->team1 = 'new team1';
// Get updated value
echo $x->team1; // new team1
Hope it will help you :)
The first question:
Can I change the below into 1 setter and 1 getter method?
[EDIT] Reply to first comment:
You can, but you shouldn't.. To me it's better keep all setters and getters parted. You might want to get only a specific field when using your match object instance in your code. So if you need to get team1 or team2 it's better to have two different getter methods.
The second question:
I would like to use the rand() function for match ID can I do this inside the setter function of setMatchId or should it be done outside of the class?
Well, in my opinion, the best way of handle it is to disallow any access to the $matchId field making it private and removing any setter method.
Then, you should place the rand generation inside the constructor or, if you want to keep it parted in a specific function you could make a public getter like this:
public getMatchId(){
if ($this->matchId != null)
return $this->matchId
// Generate it with rand()
$this->matchId = rand()
return $this->matchId;
}
In the constructor then simply call the getMatchId() method.
By the way, this solution doesn't help you with getting a unique match identifier, to achieve that you should generate it not purely randomly but using something that is dependant of the informations of the Match (for instance you could use a combination of team1, team2 and venue) and/or keep track of used matchid (a static field or a database could be helpful)
[EDIT] Reply to second comment:
I'm using the if statement in the getter because this getter is thought to generate the $matchId when it's called for the first time, while it'll always return the previously generated $matchId for the other calls.
You question made me think of another possible implementation. If you want to avoid the if then you should generate the $matchId in the constructor.
This way should be fine:
public __construct($team1, $team2, $venue){
$this->matchId = rand();
$this->team1 = $team1;
$this->team2 = $team2;
$this->venue = $venue
}
public getMatchId(){
return $this->matchId;
}
There are multiple answers covering how to do setters and getters in various degrees of complexity and magic. In this post I would rather focus on the design quality of your class Match. This is based on the design idea related to what do you want to use your class for?
Some typical statements answering this question:
Keep record of a given match – In other words it needs to hold information related to one match, i.e. venue, homeTeam, awayTeam, result?, and possibly a matchId related to storing the result somewhere
Set the result of a match – You'll create the match, and then a little later you'll set the actual result of the match.
Store a match – If you don't store it anywhere it is kind of futile to keep track of the match, so most likely you would need some interface either to a database, or some mean to get all information related to a match ready for storing into a file or similar
Ability to retrieve the details of a match – If not getting all information at the same time, you could opt for a getter for the specific values you'll want.
For me I don't see the need for changing the team or venue, as that would mean a new match in my world. And I would definitively not implement a generic setter which would allow for setting whatever to whatever. A generic setter is a security risk in my world.
Alternate implementation
Adhering to the statements given I would write something similar to this:
<?php
class Match {
private $matchId;
private $homeTeam;
private $awayTeam;
private $venue;
private $result;
function __construct($venue, $homeTeam, $awayTeam, $matchId = NULL) {
$this->venue = $venue;
$this->homeTeam = $homeTeam;
$this->awayTeam = $awayTeam;
if (is_null($matchId)) {
$this->matchId = uniqid();
} else {
$this->matchId = $matchId;
}
// In PHP7: $this->matchId = $matchId ?: uniqid();
$this->result = "";
}
function setResult($result){
$this->result = $result;
}
function getAll(){
return array($this->venue, $this->homeTeam, $this->awayTeam,
$this->matchId, $this->result);
}
function __get($name) {
if (property_exist($this, $name)) {
return $this->$name;
}
}
function __set($name, $value) {
if (property_exist($this, $name)) {
$this->$name = $value;
}
}
?>
Some comments related to this code:
homeTeam and awayTeam – Having variables name team1 or team2 is a code smell, to me. I would either create an array for those, or find better names. In this case I opted for better names to make a clear distinction between the two variables.
__construct() – When creating a match the default value for matchId indicates that it will be set to a uniqid(). I consider this a better practice rather then using a random value. And it still allows for setting a specific match id if you want to provide this.
Based on the assumption that you don't know the result when the match is created, the result is set to an empty string for starters.
setResult() – As this is the only part of a match I foresee changing I provided a setter for this value.
getAll() – This returns an array of all the values, ready for storing somewhere. If you like this could easily be changed into a comma separated string or whatever format you would like for post-processing. It could even be a dictionary, but I just used a simple array to keep it simple.
__get() and __set() – Contrary to some of the other answers this getter (and setter) is a little safer to use as it verifies that the actual property is defined in this class using property_exist().
I'm not sure if I would actually have the generic setter, but if you'd like one, this is a better option as it doesn't allow for creation of new properties to your class at runtime.
Usage of class
Here is some simple usage of the class (if my untested code actually works, that is):
<!php
$m = new Match("Newlands", "Patriots", "Chargers");
// Time passes
$m->setResult("102-32");
echo 'In the game ' . $m->homeTeam . ' vs ' . $m->awayTeam
echo ' at ' . $m ->venue ' the result was ' . $m->result . ' <br />'
// Append the match to a file
$fp = fopen('allmatches.csv', 'a');
fputcsv($fp, $m->getAll());
fclose($fp);
?>
This uses fputcsv to format the array into a line in the csv format. Having a method or some way to create a match from an array is left as an exercise. You possibly have a static method taking a file name as a parameter, and return an array of matches.
There is no good or bad model when you aren't trying to solve a well-defined problem just like there's no good answer to a bad question.
Before even worrying about things such as getters and setters you need to determine the purpose of the model and what problem it is trying to solve.
I understand that this is probably just a modeling exercise, but if you want it to have any value, start by defining your problem domain and then work out the solution.
For instance, if you are modeling an application service that allows to query a list of matches, then perhaps Match is a simple immutable data structure that acts as a Data Transfer Object.
If you were modeling a ViewModel that is meant to be 2-way bound to a CRUD screen allowing to update the details of a Match then perhaps you'd have a data container with public getters and setters like you had.
If you were crafting a tournament system domain model and had a use case such as: "Tournament administrators will enter the scoring of a match after it's completion. The outcome will be automatically resolved by the system. The possible results are that the home/away team wins or a draw."
Then perhaps Match would carry a behavior such as (pseudo-code):
scoring = new Scoring(homeTeamScore: 2, awayTeamScore: 3);
match.complete(scoring);
match.outcome(); //-> MatchOutcome.AwayTeamWon
As you can see, the model should be a solution to a well-defined problem. It should model the reality of that problem (not the real world), no more, no less.
I would like to use the rand() function for match ID can I do this
inside the setter function of setMatchId or should it be done outside
of the class?
The generation of an entity's identity is usually not the responsibility of the identity itself in respect to the Single Responsibility Principle. The algorithm that generates the identity may change independently of the Match concept itself.
First of all, there's nothing bad in having several get/set methods, unless you're coding on a 64kb RAM machine (Where you probably would use C, Lua, or such instead of PHP). If they're all doing (almost) the same thing and you think they're messing code up, put them on the very end of your class, so they don't block your vision ;-).
For the practical altering of your code:
If you have several members which differ only by data but actually represent the same kind, like team1, team2 puting them into an array and use a get/setByIndex is legit.
(Take care: I didn't use PHP for hundreds of years or so, there might me syntactical mistakes)
Example:
function setTeamByIndex($pIndex, $pTeam){
$this->teams[$pIndex] = $pTeam;
}
function getTeamByIndex($pIndex){
return $this->team[$pIndex];
}
Alternatively, in other language it's common to return multiple values. This is not possible in PHP, but there's a workaround:
setTeamsFromArray
-- receives an Array with teams and applies the given teams by their key.
getAllTeamsArray
-- returns an Array, containing all teams.
function setTeamsFromArray($pTeams){
foreach ($pTeams as $key=>$team) {
$this->teams[$key] = $team
}
}
function getAllTeamsArray(){
return array( $this->team1, $this->team2 )
}
echo(getAllTeamsArray()[0]) -> echos team1
echo(getAllTeamsArray()[1]) -> echos team2
In my opinion, this is all one reasonable could do in your case.
Shrinking stuff down is not always reasonable and 10 4liners are, most of the time, better than 1 40liner.
for geter and seter you can use __call() magic method for example realize the geters and setters
public function __call($name, $arguments)
{
// TODO: Implement __call() method.
$method = substr($name,0,3);
$key = strtolower(substr($name,3,strlen($name)));
if($method == 'set') {
$this->_data[$key] = $argument[0]
return $this;
} elseif($method=='get') {
if(isset($this->_data[$key])) {
return $this->_data[$key];
} else {
return null;
}
}
}
this is simple realization getter and setter automaticaly generate.
This is a bit philosophical but I think many people encountered this problem. The goal is to access various (dynamically declared) properties in PHP and get rid of notices when they are not set.
Why not to __get?
That's good option if you can declare your own class, but not in case of stdClass, SimpleXML or similar. Extending them is not and option since you usually do not instantiate these classes directly, they are returned as a result of JSON/XML parsing.
Example:
$data = '{"name": "Pavel", "job": "programmer"}';
$object = json_decode($data);
We have simple stdClass object. The problems is obvious:
$b = $data->birthday;
The property is not defined and therefore a notice is raised:
PHP Notice: Undefined property: stdClass::$birthday
This can happen very often if you consider that you get that object from parsing some JSON. The naive solution is obvious:
$b = isset($data->birthday) ? $data->birthday : null;
However, one gets tired very soon when wrapping every accessor into this. Especially when chaining the objects, such as $data->people[0]->birthday->year. Check whether people is set. Check if the first element is set. Check if birthday is set. Check if year is set. I feel a bit overchecked...
Question:
Finally, my question is here.
What is the best approach to this issue? Silencing notices does not seem to be the best idea. And checking every property is difficult. I have seen some solutions such as Symfony property access but I think it is still too much boilerplate. Is there any simpler way? Either third party library, PHP setting, C extension, I don't care as far as it works... And what are the possible pitfalls?
If I understand correctly, you want to deal with 3rd party Objects, where you have no control, but your logic requires certain properties that may not be present on the Object. That means, the data you accepting are invalid (or should be declared invalid) for your logic. Then the burden of checking the validity goes into your validator. Which I hope you already have following best practices to deal with 3rd party data. :)
You can use your own validator or one by frameworks. A common way is to write a set of Rules that your data needs to obey in order to be valid.
Now inside your validator, whenever a rule is not obeyed, you throw an Exception describing the error and attaching Exception properties that carry the information you want to use. Later when you call your validator somewhere in your logic, you place it inside try {...} block and you catch() your Exceptions and deal with them, that is, write your special logic reserved for those exceptions. As general practice, if your logic becomes too large in a block, you want to "outsource" it as function.
Quoting the great book by Robert Martin "Clean Code", highly recommended for any developer:
The first rule of function is that they should be small. The second is that they should be smaller than that.
I understand your frustration dealing with eternal issets and see as cause of the problem here that each time you need to write a handler dealing with that technical issue of this or that property not present. That technical issue is of very low level in your abstraction hierarchy, and in order to handle it properly, you have to go all the way up your abstraction chain to reach a higher step that has a meaning for your logic. It is always hard to jump between different levels of abstraction, especially far apart. It is also what makes your code hard to maintain and is recommended to avoid.
Ideally your whole architecture is designed as a tree where Controllers sitting at its nodes only know about the edges going down from them.
For instance, coming back to your example, the question is -
Q - What is the meaning for your app of the situation that $data->birthday is missing?
The meaning will depend on what the current function throwing the Exception wants to achieve. That is a convenient place to handle your Exception.
Hope it helps :)
One solution (I don't know if it's the better solution, but one possible solution) is to create a function like this:
function from_obj(&$type,$default = "") {
return isset($type)? $type : $default;
}
then
$data = '{"name": "Pavel", "job": "programmer"}';
$object = json_decode($data);
$name = from_obj( $object->name , "unknown");
$job = from_obj( $object->job , "unknown");
$skill = from_obj( $object->skills[0] , "unknown");
$skills = from_obj( $object->skills , Array());
echo "Your name is $name. You are a $job and your main skill is $skill";
if(count($skills) > 0 ) {
echo "\n\nYour skills: " . implode(",",$skills);
}
I think it's convienent because you have at the top of your script what you want and what it should be (array, string, etc)
EDIT:
Another solution. You could create a Bridge class that extends ArrayObject:
class ObjectBridge extends ArrayObject{
private $obj;
public function __construct(&$obj) {
$this->obj = $obj;
}
public function __get($a) {
if(isset($this->obj->$a)) {
return $this->obj->$a;
}else {
// return an empty object in order to prevent errors with chain call
$tmp = new stdClass();
return new ObjectBridge($tmp);
}
}
public function __set($key,$value) {
$this->obj->$key = $value;
}
public function __call($method,$args) {
call_user_func_array(Array($this->obj,$method),$args);
}
public function __toString() {
return "";
}
}
$data = '{"name": "Pavel", "job": "programmer"}';
$object = json_decode($data);
$bridge = new ObjectBridge($object);
echo "My name is {$bridge->name}, I have " . count($bridge->skills). " skills and {$bridge->donald->duck->is->paperinik}<br/>";
// output: My name is Pavel, I have 0 skills and
// (no notice, no warning)
// we can set a property
$bridge->skills = Array('php','javascript');
// output: My name is Pavel, my main skill is php
echo "My name is {$bridge->name}, my main skill is {$bridge->skills[0]}<br/>";
// available also on original object
echo $object->skills[0]; // output: php
Personally I would prefer the first solution. It's more clear and more safe.
Data formats which have optional fields are quite difficult to deal with. They're problematic in particular if you have third parties accessing or providing the data, since there rarely is enough documentation to comprehensively cover all causes for the fields to appear or disappear. And of course, the permutations tend to be harder to test, because coders won't instinctively realize that the fields may be there.
That's a long way of saying that if you can avoid having optional fields in your data, the best approach to dealing with missing object properties in PHP is to not have any missing object properties...
If the data you're dealing with is not up to you, then I'd look into forcing default values on all fields, perhaps via a helper function or some sort of crazy variation of the prototype pattern. You could build a data template, which contains default values for all fields of the data, and merge that with the real data.
However, if you do that, are you failing, unless? (Which is another programming philosophy to take into heart.) I suppose one could make the case that providing safe default parameters satisfies data validation for any missing fields. But particularly when dealing with third party data, you should exercise high level of paranoia against any field you're plastering with default values. It's too easy to just set it to null and -- in the process -- fail to understand why it was missing in the first place.
You should also ask what are you trying to achieve? Clarity? Safety? Stability? Minimal code duplication? These are all valid goals. Being tired? Less so. It suggests a lack disciprine, and a good programmer is always disciprined. Of course, I'll accept that people are less likely to do something, if they view it as a chore.
My point is, the answer to your question may differ depending on why it's being asked. Zero effort solution is probably not going to be available, so if you're only exchanging one menial programming task to another one, are you solving anything?
If you are looking for a systematic solution that will guarantee that the data is always in the format you have specified, leading to reduced number of logical tests in the code that processes that data, then perhaps what I suggested above will be of help. But it will not come without a cost and effort.
in PHP version 8
you can use Nullsafe operator as follow:
$res = $data?->people[0]?->birthday?->year;
The best answers have been given, but here is a lazy one:
$data = '{"name": "Pavel", "job": "programmer"}';
$object = json_decode($data);
if(
//...check mandatory properties: !isset($object->...)&&
){
//error
}
error_reporting(E_ALL^E_NOTICE);//Yes you're right, not the best idea...
$b = $object->birthday?:'0000-00-00';//thanks Elvis (php>5.3)
//Notice that if your default value is "null", you can just do $b = $object->birthday;
//assign other vars here
error_reporting(E_ALL);
//Your code
Use a Proxy object - it will add just one tiny class and one line per object instantiation to use it.
class ProxyObj {
protected $obj;
public function __construct( $obj ) {
$this->_obj = $obj;
}
public function __get($key) {
if (isset($this->_obj->$key)) {
return $this->_obj->$key;
}
return null;
}
public function __set($key, $value) {
$this->_obj->$key = $value;
}
}
$proxy = new ProxyObj(json_decode($data));
$b = $proxy->birthday;
You can decode the JSON object to an array:
$data = '{"name": "Pavel", "job": "programmer"}';
$jsonarray = json_decode($data, true);
$b = $jsonarray["birthday"]; // NULL
function check($temp=null) {
if(isset($temp))
return $temp;
else
return null;
}
$b = check($data->birthday);
I've hit this problem, mainly from getting json data from a nosql backed api that by design has inconsistent structures, eg if a user has an address you'll get $user->address otherwise the address key just isn't there. Rather than put tons of issets in my templates I wrote this class...
class GracefulData
{
private $_path;
public function __construct($d=null,$p='')
{
$this->_path=$p;
if($d){
foreach(get_object_vars($d) as $property => $value) {
if(is_object($d->$property)){
$this->$property = new GracefulData($d->$property,$this->_path . '->' . $property);
}else{
$this->$property = $value;
}
}
}
}
public function __get($property) {
return new GracefulData(null,$this->_path . '->' . $property);
}
public function __toString() {
Log::info('GracefulData: Invalid property accessed' . $this->_path);
return '';
}
}
and then instantiate it like so
$user = new GracefulData($response->body);
It will gracefully handle nested calls to existing and non existing properties. What it can't handle though is if you access a child of an existing non-object property eg
$user->firstName->something
Lots of good answers here, I consider #Luca 's answer as one of the best - I extended his a little so that I could pass in either an array or object and have it create an easy to use object. Here's mine:
<?php
namespace App\Libraries;
use ArrayObject;
use stdClass;
class SoftObject extends ArrayObject{
private $obj;
public function __construct($data) {
if(is_object($data)){
$this->obj = $data;
}elseif(is_array($data)){
// turn it into a multidimensional object
$this->obj = json_decode(json_encode($data), false);
}
}
public function __get($a) {
if(isset($this->obj->$a)) {
return $this->obj->$a;
}else {
// return an empty object in order to prevent errors with chain call
$tmp = new stdClass();
return new SoftObject($tmp);
}
}
public function __set($key, $value) {
$this->obj->$key = $value;
}
public function __call($method, $args) {
call_user_func_array(Array($this->obj,$method),$args);
}
public function __toString() {
return "";
}
}
// attributions: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18361594/how-to-solve-the-missing-object-properties-in-php | Luca Rainone
I have written a helper function for multilevel chaining, for example, let's say you want to do something like $obj1->obj2->obj3->obj4, and my helper will return empty string if one of the tiers is not defined or null
class MyUtils
{
// for $obj1->obj2->obj3: MyUtils::nested($obj1, 'obj2', 'obj3')
// returns '' if some of tiers is null
public static function nested($obj1, ...$tiers)
{
if (!isset($obj1)) return '';
$a = $obj1;
for($i = 0; $i < count($tiers); $i++){
if (isset($a->{$tiers[$i]})) {
$a = $a->{$tiers[$i]};
} else {
return '';
}
}
return $a;
}
}
I am learning PHP (constantly) and I created some time ago a class that handles translations. I want to emulate gettext but getting the translated strings from a database. However, now that I see it again, I don't like that, being a class, to call it I need to use $Translate->text('String_keyword');. I wouldn't like either to have to use $T->a('String_keyword'); since that's completely not intuitive.
I've been thinking a lot on how to make it to be called with a simple _('String_keyword'), gettext style but, from what I've learned from SO, I haven't been able to find a 'great' way to accomplish this. I need to pass somehow the default language to the function, I don't want to pass it every time I call it as it would be _('String_keyword', $User->get('Language'))). I also don't want to include the user-detection script in the _() function, as it only needs to be run once and not every time.
The easiest one would be to use GLOBALS, but I've learned here that they are completely-utterly forbidden (could this be the only case where I can use them?), then I thought to DEFINE a variable with the user's language like define ( USER_LANGUAGE , $User->get('Language') ), but it seems just to be the same as a global. These are the 2 main options I can see, I know there are some other ways like Dependency Injection but they seem to add just too much complication for a so simple request and I haven't yet had time to dig into them.
I was thinking about creating a wrapper first to test it out. Something like this:
function _($Id, $Arg = null)
{
$Translate = new Translate (USER_LANGUAGE);
return $Translate -> text($Id, $Arg)
}
Here is the translation code. The language is detected before and passed to the object when created.
// Translate text strings
// TO DO: SHOULD, SHOULD change it to PDO! Also, merge the 2 tables into 1
class Translate
{
private $Lang;
function __construct ($Lang)
{
$this->Lang = $Lang;
}
// Clever. Adds the translation so when codding I don't get annoyed.
private function add ($Id, $Text)
{
$sql="INSERT INTO htranslations (keyword, en, page, last) VALUES ('$Id', '$Text', '".$_SERVER['PHP_SELF']."', now())";
mysql_query($sql);
}
private function retrieve ( $Id )
{
$table = is_int ($Id) ? "translations" : "htranslations"; // A small tweak to support the two tables, but they should be merged.
$results = mysql_query ("SELECT ".mysql_real_escape_string($this->Lang)." FROM ".$table." WHERE keyword='".mysql_real_escape_string($Id)."'");
$row = mysql_fetch_assoc ($results);
return mysql_num_rows ($results) ? stripslashes ($row[$this->Lang]) : null;
}
// If needed to insert a name, for example, pass it in the $Arg
public function text($Id, $Arg = null)
{
$Text = $this->retrieve($Id);
if (empty($Text))
{
$Text = str_replace("_", " ", $Id); // If not found, replace all "_" with " " from the input string.
$this->add($Id, $Text);
}
return str_replace("%s", $Arg, $Text); // Not likely to have more than 2 variables into a single string.
}
}
How would you accomplish this in a proper yet simple (for coding) way? Are any of the proposed methods valid or can you come with a better one?
If the problem is simply that
$Translate->text('String_keyword');
feels to long, then consider making the Translate object into a Functor by implementing __invoke:
class Translate
{
// all your PHP code you already have
public function __invoke($keyword, $Arg = null)
{
return $this->text($keyword, $Arg)
}
}
You can then instantiate the object regularly with all the required dependencies and settings and call it:
$_ = new Translate(/* whatever it needs */);
echo $_('Hallo Welt');
That would not introduce the same amount of coupling and fiddling with the global scope as you currently consider to introduce through a wrapper function or as the Registry/Singleton solution suggested elsewhere. The only drawback is the non-speaking naming of the object variable as $_().
I would use a registry or make Translate a singleton. When i first initalize it i would pass in the language which would be dont in the bootstrap phase of the request. Then i would add methods to change the language later if necessary.
After doing that your function becomes pretty simple:
// singleton version
function _($id, $arg = null) {
return Translate::getInstance()->text($id, $arg);
}
// registry version
function _($id, $arg = null) {
return Registry::get('Translate')->text($id, $arg);
}
And then in your bootstap phase you would do something like:
$lang = get_user_lang(); // replace with however you do this
//registry version
Registry::set('Tranlaste', new Translate($lang));
// or the singleton version
// youd use create instance instead of getInstance
// so you can manage the case where you try to call
// getInstance before a language is set
Translate::createInstance($lang);
I am creating a class for Contact management and I am curious if anyone has any creative ideas to pass in options to make certain columns sortable via ORDER BY in MySQL.
There are 5 columns. ID, Firstname, Lasname, Phone Number, Email.
All of these will need to be sortable Ascending and Descending. The obvious answer would just be to pass in a string for instance "firstname DESC" -- but seems a little to open and would like to make the class a little more restrictive.
Any ideas?
The type-safest method would be to use an object which can only hold certain values:
function getUser(UserSortOption $sortOrder) {
...
$sql .= $sortOrder->getField() . $sortOrder->getDirection();
...
}
getUser(new UserSortOption(UserSortOption::FIRSTNAME, UserSortOption::DESC));
Gets you all the advantages of strict typing and enumerations. Can be a little bit of an overkill though to have to define, test and include a separate class for every function argument.
Otherwise, you'll have to check inside the function:
function getUser(array $sort) {
$sortField = key($sort);
$sortDirection = current($sort);
if (!in_array($sortField, array('Firstname', ...))) {
throw new InvalidArgumentException("Invalid value $sortField for sort parameter");
}
...
}
getUser(array('Firstname' => 'desc'));
Some quick background info: I'm coding up a site which matches books to the classes they're required for.
I have two pieces of data that I need to represent in my code-- which books go with which classes, and the data (titles, authors, pricing, etc.) on these books.
Currently I represent this all with two arrays: $classArray, and $Books_data.
The advantage of this approach over a one-variable approach is that I don't repeat myself-- if a Book is required multiple times for different classes, only the ISBN needs to be stored in the $classArray and I can store the data in the $Books_array. This advantage is especially poignant because I have to query the pricing data from API's on the fly. If I only had a $classBooksArray, I'd have to loop the query responses into a big array, repeating myself (seemingly) unnecessarily.
The disadvantage of this approach is that these variables follow each other almost everywhere like Siamese twins. Nearly every function that needs one, needs the other. And my coding spidey sense tells me it might be unnecessary.
So, what would be the best way to store this data? Two arrays, one array, or some other approach I haven't mentioned (e.g. passing by reference).
Why not an associative which has two keys - one pointing to an array of classes, one to store Books
data?
$allData = array("classes" => &$classArray, "books" => &$Books_data);
That way you're only passing around 1 variable (less clutter) but retain all the benefits of separate data stores for books and classes.
Though, to be honest, if it's just TWO sets of data, so IMHO your spidey sense is wrong - passing both as separate parameters is perfectly fine. Once you get into a set of siamise sextuplet variables, then the above approach starts to actually bring benefits.
A multidimensional array.
$collection = array(
'classes' => array( /* Contents of $classArray */),
'books' => array( /* Contents of $Books_data */)
);
function some_function($collection) {
// looping over books
foreach ($collection['books'] as $book) {
// yadda yadda
}
}
Or better yet a class:
/* Define */
class Collection {
private $books;
private $classes;
public function __construct($classes = array(), $books = array()) {
$this->books = $books;
$this->classes = $classes;
}
public function addBook($book) {
$this->books[] = $book;
}
public function addClass($class) {
$this->classes[] = $class;
}
public function get_classes() {
return $this->classes;
}
public function get_books() {
return $this->books;
}
}
function some_function(Collection $col) {
// looping over books
foreach ($col->get_books as $book) {
// yadda yadda
}
}
/* Usage */
$collection = new Collection(); // you also could pass classes and books in the
// constructor.
$collection->addBook($book);
somefunction($collection);
If your datas were a database, your current proposal being a normal form would be canonical. The two variables would just become tables and ISBN a foreign key to books table (with a third table as a class has several books). I would probably stick with the current implementation as it will be very easy to transform to database when that will be necessary (and it usually happens faster than expected).
EDIT: a comment, say it is already in a database... what I do not understand is why you would want to store a full database in memory instead of just keeping what is necessary for the current task.
Let's be OO and put the arrays into an object. Define a class with those properties, load it up, and call its methods. Or, if you must have other functions operating with the object's data, pass the instance around. Disallow direct access to the data, but provide methods for extracting the salient info.
class book_class_association {
protected $books_to_classes = array();
protected $classes_to_books = array();
function __construct() {
$this->books_to_classes = array(
'mathbook1' => array('math'),
'mathbook2' => array('math'),
);
$this->classes_to_books = array(
'math' => array('mathbook1', 'mathbook2'),
);
}
function classes_for_book( $class_name ) {
return $this->books_to_classes[$class_name];
}
function books_for_class( $class_name ) {
return $this->classes_to_books[$class_name];
}
}
Is there a reason you are not storing this data in a database and then querying the database? It is a many to many relationship, and you would need 3 tables - class , book, and class_book_intersection.
So for example, you ui could have "select class" from a list, where the list is derived from the rows in class.
Then if the class id selected is 123. The query would then be something like:
Select book.title, book.cost
from book
inner join class_book_intersection
on
class_book_intersection.classid = 123 and
class_book_intersection.bookid = book.bookid