Let's say I want to store dogs in a database table with each dog having its own subclass in PHP.
Basically I want to avoid storing/listing the subclass names in different places in the code. What would be a good OOP approach for that?
abstract class Dog {
protected $data;
public function __construct($data) {
$this->data = $data;
}
public function name() {
return $this->data["name"];
}
abstract public function breed();
}
class GermanShepherd extends Dog {
public function breed() {
return _("German Shepherd");
}
}
class BullDog extends Dog {
public function breed() {
return _("Bulldog");
}
}
Now I have this class that handles groups of objects (i.e. dogs):
class Dogs {
public static function getDogs() {
// ...
$ret = array();
while ($row = mysql_fetch_assoc()) {
switch ($row["type"]) { // I could do this using a lookup array
case "shepherd": $dog = "GermanShepherd"; break;
case "bulldog": $dog = "Bulldog"; break;
}
$ret[] = new $dog($row);
}
return $ret;
}
}
And I would like to use this class to get the dog types in my view (especially for an add dog form), instead of listing the class names:
?><form><select name="type"><?php
foreach (array("GermanShepherd", "Bulldog") as $dog) { // here I would like to do avoid listing the class names again
?><option value="<?=$dog ?>"><?php
$d = new $dog; // actually I can't instantiate the class here because I don't have any data at this point
echo $d->name();
?></option><?php
}
?></select></form><?php
I would like to incorporate this into the Dogs class, something along the lines of this:
class Dogs {
private static $dogs = array(
"shepherd" => "GermanShepherd",
"bulldog" => "Bulldog",
);
public static function getDogs() {
// ...
$ret = array();
while ($row = mysql_fetch_assoc()) {
$dog = self::$dogs[$row["type"]];
$ret[] = new $dog($row);
}
return $ret;
}
public static function getDogTypes() {
return array_values(self::$dogs);
}
}
?><form><select name="type"><?php
foreach (Dogs::getDogTypes() as $dog) {
?><option value="<?=$dog ?>"><?php
$d = new $dog; // here I still need to instantiate the class and I don't have any data to provide it with
echo $d->name();
?></option><?php
}
?></select></form><?php
This would somewhat work so far, but what if I need more class specific information, for example when I have more fields specific to a dog type?
foreach (Dogs::getDogTypes() as $dog) {
$d = new $dog; // instantiate again?
foreach ($d->formFields() as $f) { // I wouldn't do it like this, just putting this here for demonstrative purposes
echo $f;
}
}
I think part of the problem lies in the fact that I need to be able to use my classes with and without database data: Everything seems very reasonable when I have the data from the database table, but I also need the data when I generate the form when creating a new dog.
Thanks for your ideas!
First make use of Interfaces. This will show you that having more specific interfaces (different class methods and properties per subclass) will make you need to deal with them differently in concrete. So they will show you where the deficiencies are and will enable you to streamline your objects into something more re-useable.
As long as your objects are only storing some data, use a data transfer object instead - which is of any "type". So you don't need to deal with type. However, you can use StdClass or Array for that as well if you want to keep it basic. The plus-side is: You don't need to actually write that much code.
In case it's not sufficient (as it will be), only add the code when you need to. Should keep things more simple in the long run then. So start with a basic data transfer object class and build upon it.
So use the classes you write to separate concerns, not to interweave the concerns. Encapsulate what varies, so your code can actually benefit from your design.
I think the static array in your Dogs class is quite an acceptable solution. It doesn't cover for the instantiating problem, but you can fix that with a (static) factory method. To make the instantiating even easier and more scalable, you can make sure the stored strings map to object names somehow:
$dog = 'Dog' . ucfirst( $row['type'] );
$ret[] = new $dog;
I don't think a ->getFormFields() method is a bad idea at all; when the fields differ per Dog type, it would be perfectly valid OO to incorporate that in the object!
What about storing your dogs in a 2D array?
while ($row = mysql_fetch_assoc()) {
switch ($row["type"]) { // I could do this using a lookup array
case "shepherd":
$dog = "GermanShepherd";
break;
case "bulldog":
$dog = "Bulldog";
break;
} // switch
$ret[$row["type"]][] = new $dog($row);
} // while
Related
I'm looking for more comfortable/more short version of Switch() statement in case of using multiple functions.
I'll give you one example: imagine 100-200 functions in one class, and you want to call only one of them by setting value to id in that class.
In my particular case, I have the following structure of PHP file:
<?php
class _main
{
function request($id)
{
switch($id)
{
case 0:
$this->writeA();
break;
case 1:
$this->writeB();
break;
///...
// then we have 100-200 functions like this in switch.
}
}
function writeA()
{
echo('a');
}
function writeB()
{
echo('b');
}
}
$id = 1;
$x = new _main();
$x->request($id);
?>
For some of you it may seem weird, but I don't want to have that much lines of code with case and break. For me, they are just making code more difficult to read.
(by the way, writing it 100 times will not making it fun for me too).
CONCLUSION
What could be the best,fast and comfortable method?
Can I store functions to array and then call them?
And will it affect performance? Will be Swicth() even faster?
Thank you :)
EDIT
Perhaps there is a different way of thinking/coding and not only array/switch thing.
I can't say I would ever recommend this but if you really want that many methods within a single class and a singular function to route the calls through...
<?php
class MyClass
{
public $id;
public function callFunction()
{
$funcName = 'execute' . $this->id;
return $this->$funcName();
}
private function execute1()
{
echo 'execute1() Called.';
}
private function execute2()
{
echo 'execute2() Called.';
}
}
$c = new MyClass();
$c->id = 1;
$c->callFunction();
Output:
execute1() Called.
I feel like there is most likely another way to approach this with more information utilising Interfaces and Abstract classes, but with the information to go off the above might suffice your requirement.
Edit: Sadly I don't have the time right now to come up with a detailed solution, and I don't really have enough information to go off but perhaps utilising interfaces is your best solution for your requirement. Below is a very quick example.
<?php
interface WritableInterface
{
public function write($data);
}
class VersionOneWriter implements WritableInterface
{
public function write($data)
{
return $data . '<br/>';
}
}
class VersionTwoWriter implements WritableInterface
{
public function write($data)
{
return $data . $data . '<br/>';
}
}
class MyMainClass
{
public function request(WritableInterface $writer, $data)
{
return $writer->write($data);
}
}
$c = new MyMainClass();
$w1 = new VersionOneWriter();
$w2 = new VersionTwoWriter();
echo $c->request($w1, 'DataString');
echo $c->request($w2, 'DataString');
Essentially when you call your request function you pass along a Writer class which implements the WritableInterface. Anything that implements that interface has to have a write() method.
Now when you pass your data across with your method, since you are also passing a writer along that can handle the data you can safely call ->write($data) within your request() method and the result will be dependent on the class you passed through.
If you ever need another method of writing you can just add create another class that implements your interface
Hopefully that made some sense, it was a bit of a ramble as I have to disappear for a bit. If you have any questions I'll try to check back when I have time.
--
Edit2:
The define() in this instance requires PHP7+ since I'm defining an array, but you could prior to PHP7 you could just use a standard array. $classMap = ['FirstClass', 'SecondClass'];
interface MyInterface {}
class FirstClass implements MyInterface {}
class SecondClass implements MyInterface {}
$requestParam = 1;
define('CLASS_MAP', array(
'FirstClass',
'SecondClass',
));
$classMap = CLASS_MAP[$requestParam]; // SecondClass
$class = new $classMap;
var_dump($class); // Dumps out: object(SecondClass)#1 (0) {}
Let's say that I'm building a class (for a generic purpose) and I have two methods that work on common variables.
class renderElement
{
public function process()
{
$output = array();
$data = $this->supportMethod($output);
// do stuff with $output
}
public function supportMethod(&$processed_output)
{
// do stuff with $processed_output
}
}
I want to use the same variable into both methods; let's say $output.
I'm curious to know the theory behind the choice of eventually rely on a class property (like following) or when instead is ok (or better) to pass the variable as reference.
class renderElement
{
private $output = array();
public function process()
{
$data = $this->supportMethod();
// do stuff with $this->output
}
public function supportMethod()
{
// do stuff with $this->output
}
}
Advantages? Disadvantages? Design suggestions?
Suggested lectures about this kind of design choices?
[ EDIT ]
I would add that the variable/property should obviously have sense as an object property. I'm not talking about variables for just supporting data processing.
An object fundamentally consists of two things, behaviour and state.
Methods of your class define the behaviour of your object.
Attributes of your class define the state of your object.
In your first example, $output isn't a part of the object's state, so it will not persist throughout the life of the object.
In your second example, $output will persist throughout the life of the object since it is a part of the object's state.
Take this example...
class Shape
{
protected $sides;
public function getNumberOfSides()
{
return $this->sides;
}
}
class Triangle extends Shape
{
public function __construct()
{
$this->sides = 3;
}
}
class Square extends Shape
{
public function __construct()
{
$this->sides = 4;
}
}
$shape = new Square;
echo $shape->getNumberOfSides(); // Returns 4
$shape = new Triangle;
echo $shape->getNumberOfSides(); // Returns 3
$sides (number of sides) is an intrinsic part of a shapes nature, therefore it is appropriate for it to be a part of the object's state throughout the life of the object. This doesn't really have anything to do with the convenience of passing parameters between methods in the same class.
I've learned that OOP is all about data encapsulation, but what about passing data between classes that have nothing to do with each other (would the below example be worthy of using extends)?
class Dog {
private $secretVar;
public function getSecretVar() {
$this->secretVar = 'psst... only for rainbow!';
return $this->secretVar;
}
}
class Rainbow {
public function __construct(Dog $Dog) {
print_r($Dog->getSecretVar());
}
}
$Dog = new Dog();
$Rainbow = new Rainbow($Dog);
// ... classes that don't need the $secretVar
How would you encapsulate $secretVar for only classes Dog and Rainbow? As of now, anyone can call getSecretVar(), and I'm having a hard time allowing that to happen as it seems to defeat the whole point of encapsulation.
Here's a solution, although, it's ugly.
class Dog {
private $secretVar = 'psst... only for rainbow!';
public function getSecretVar($caller == NULL) {
// Here's the trick...
if (get_class($caller) == 'Rainbow') {
return $this->secretVar;
} else {
return '';
}
}
}
class Rainbow {
public function __construct(Dog $Dog) {
print_r($Dog->getSecretVar($this));
}
}
$Dog = new Dog();
$Rainbow = new Rainbow($Dog);
// ... classes that don't need the $secretVar
It's ugly because it hard to maintain and not intuitive. If you really need to do this, there's most likely a flaw in your design.
It wouldn't make sense for a Dog to extend Rainbow or vice versa just to share a variable.
What you are asking of may be possible but I don't know. If it was C++ using the friend visibility, it is certainly possible.
In this case, you have to make it public or use a getter and setter.
Encapsulation is not ment to hide the value of the variable from the rest of the program but to have full control of how the rest of your program can access the variable.
By declaring the variable private you can check what values it can be set to and you can make changes to it before anybody reads it.
There is no real point in trying to let only some of the classes read the variable.
What you are trying to do could be achieved by using reflection to check which class and method calls the getSecretVar() method, but it's hardly ever useful.
In your case, you could use protected like this: (every class that extends hasSecret will have access to it.)
<?php
class HasSecret {
protected $secretVar = 'psst... only for rainbow!';
}
class Dog extends HasSecret {
public function getSecretVar() {
return $this->secretVar;
}
}
class Rainbow extends HasSecret {
public function __construct(Dog $Dog) {
print_r($Dog->getSecretVar());
}
}
$Dog = new Dog();
$Rainbow = new Rainbow($Dog);
I am trying to inherit a set of different parent class and even not inherit any class but as per some condition.
For example, Here is what I would like to do
$choice = 2;
switch($choice) {
case 1:
class child extends parent1
break;
case 2:
class child extends parent2
break;
default:
class child
//extend nothing
break;
}
I think you can figure out what I am trying achieve here.
parent classes
class car { }
Child classes
class ferari extends car { }
class ford extends car { }
grandchild classes
class automaticcar { }
class manualcar { }
Now this grandclasses need to interit a parent as per the value sent from the form using post. Something like this
$brand = $_POST['brand'];
if(isset($brand) && !empty($brand)) {
class automaticcar extends $brand
}
else {
class automaticcar extends car //or even nothing
}
//And then I wish to write the remaining portion of the class
The kind of inheritance you are trying to obtain is not attainable using a language which inheritance is based on classes.
The closer solution you can obtain is using a sort of decorator pattern with a bit of magic methods. something like this:
$choice = 2;
switch($choice) {
case 1:
$obj = new child(new parent1());
break;
case 2:
$obj = new child(new parent2());
break;
default:
//extend nothing
$obj = new child();
break;
}
with child being similar to this:
class child {
function __construct($composeObj) {
$this->core = $composeObj;
// wathever you need to iniyialize
}
function __call($name, $params) {
return call_user_func(array($sthis->core, $name), $parameters);
}
// other functions
} // eo child
This solution have some caveats but if you can cope with them (the object does not belongs to the family of the composited object, call_user_func does not pass the parameters by reference) this is a suitable solution.
A better solution is the factory approach suggested by sandeepan but you already refused it.
A Ferrari is not different to a Ford in the properties or methods it supplies. They are both still cars. They just have different values for their attributes. Creating a spezialized subclass shouldn't be necessary for that. Instead try this route:
class Car
{
protected $_manufacturer;
protected $_engine;
protected $_gear;
protected $_price;
protected $_color;
public function __construct($manufacturer, $engine, $gear, $price, $color)
{
// setting properties
}
}
class CarFactory
{
public static function createFerrari()
{
$engine = new Engine(500); // PS
$gear = new Gear(6, 'manual');
return new Car('Ferrari', $engine, $gear, '250000', 'red');
}
public static function createFord()
{
$engine = new Engine(90); // PS
$gear = new Gear(5, 'automatic');
return new Car('Ford', $engine, $gear, '50000', 'black');
}
// other car creation methods ...
}
If you extend a class, you are creating an is-a relationship. The subclass is a specialized parent class. Gear and Engine is nothing a Car is, but something a car has. Whenever you can describe a class to have something, it's a candidate for it's own class or for just being an attribute. Whether it should be it's own class depends on whether the thing encapsulated own unique state and responsibiliy.
First off, I really don't think you understand object oriented principles well enough to ask for this functionality. It's not really needed with the style of OOP that PHP implements.
You are requesting something like conditional mix-ins. It's possible to implement it, but it is a huge kludge and should be avoided. Here's something I put together a while ago when I was just testing some concepts:
<?php
class Mixin
{
private $objects = array();
private $funcs = array();
public function addMixin(Mixable $object)
{
$exported_vars = $object->exportVars();
foreach ($exported_vars as $key => &$ref)
$this->$key = &$ref;
$vars = array();
foreach (array_keys(get_object_vars($this)) as $key)
$vars[$key] = &$this->$key;
$object->importVars($vars);
$this->objects[] = $object;
}
public function __call($method, $args)
{
if (!isset($this->funcs[$method]))
{
$found = false;
foreach ($this->objects as $obj)
{
if (method_exists($obj, $method))
{
$found = true;
$this->funcs[$method] = array($obj, $method);
break;
}
}
if (!$found)
throw new Exception("method doesn't exist");
}
return call_user_func_array($this->funcs[$method], $args);
}
}
class Mixable
{
public function exportVars()
{
$vars = array();
foreach (array_keys(get_object_vars($this)) as $key)
{
$vars[$key] = &$this->$key;
}
return $vars;
}
public function importVars($vars)
{
foreach ($vars as $key => &$ref)
{
$this->$key = &$ref;
}
}
}
?>
You would use it like:
<?php
class Parent1 extends Mixable
{
protected $name = 'Parent 1';
public function p1()
{
print "P1\n";
}
}
class Parent2 extends Mixable
{
protected $name = 'Parent 2';
public function p2()
{
print "P2\n";
}
}
class Child1 extends Mixin
{
public function whoAmI()
{
print $this->name."\n";
}
}
$foo = new Child1();
if (mt_rand(1, 2) == 1)
{
$foo->addMixin(new Parent1());
$foo->p1();
}
else
{
$foo->addMixin(new Parent2());
$foo->p2();
}
$foo->whoAmI();
?>
Please do not try to use the code! Even if it were production ready, it's a terrible concept. I put it here to show you how it would work.
I think what you really should be doing is something more like a Factory pattern: build a CarFactory class that returns a properly subclassed Car. (Or you could create a factory method within a Car class.)
It could be something like Car::get($_POST['brand']).
Is your question "Condition based inheritance good?" Then yes it looks necessary in many cases. But I think it would be better to initiate objects conditionally instead of defining extended classes inside condition.
Updates
As far as I understand you want to have different attributes/functions of the child class depending on condition. I faced a similar need/problem in my project. There it was relating to view logic. You may check How is my approach to reuse view logic in my project?
If I understand your problem correctly, then you should have the child classes ready beforehand like this in separate php files:-
child1 class
class1 child extends parent1
child2 class
class2 child extends parent2
And in the condition part do something like:-
$choice = 2;
switch($choice) {
case 1:
include /path/to/child1;
$obj = new child1();
break;
case 2:
include /path/to/child2;
$obj = new child2();
break;
default:
include /path/to/child;
$obj = new child();
//extend nothing
break;
}
I know I'm almost SIX years late. But just in case someone lands here again, I decided to put it here.
Please note that I do not assume the implicit understanding that the class names Car, Ferrari, Ford etc are vehicles. So as to be able to apply this pattern in a generic fashion.
I'll use either of the following approaches in the decreasing order of preference:
Class alias PHP Manual (PHP 5 >= 5.3.0, PHP 7)
// Assuming $my_brand is the required brand
if (!class_exists($my_brand))
{
// Raise suitable warning here and exit
exit('Brand ' . $my_brand . 'not found.');
}
class_alias($my_brand, 'MyBrand');
class AutomaticCar extends MyBrand
{
}
Conditional stacking of inheritance (Too much work, but useful in a larger size project)
// File: lib/MyBrand/Ferrari.php
class MyBrand extends Ferrari
{
}
// File: lib/MyBrand/Ford.php
class MyBrand extends Ford
{
}
// Then in your main code, assuming $my_brand is the required brand
if (!file_exists('lib/MyBrand/' . $my_brand . '.php'))
{
// Raise suitable warning here and exit
exit('Brand ' . $my_brand . 'not found.');
}
class AutomaticCar extends MyBrand
{
}
Other patterns that I can right now (such as Factory Design and Decorator Pattern) think of would take different routes which doesn't comply with the exact topic. So thats all for now.
First thing i want to say that it's not an easy question to explain, so please be patient if it seems confusing.
I have a set of classes like this
class Product {
public static $static_type = 'product';
public static $static_table = 'product_table';
public function __construct($params) { //do some }
}
and then there are the classes News, Events etc
From another class i need to access to those static variables inside these classes in an iterative way. Something like:
//...
if (Product::$static_type) { //do some }
else if (News::$static_type) { //do other }
//...
I want to trasform it in a cycle, like foreach in a way like this (it's not correct but makes sense to my question)
foreach ($classes as $class) {
echo $class::$static_type; //brrrr, just to render the idea :)
}
So i think about a singleton/static class that has a static method returning an array of my classes (not instantiated). Like this:
class Conf {
public function __construct() {
//nothing
}
public static function get_class_array () {
//how to do this???
}
}
and then
foreach (Conf::get_class_array() as $class) {
echo $class::$static_type; //brrrr, just to render the idea :)
}
How i can reach this? I don't want to instantiate Product, News or others in this case.
Edit: eval is evil, i don't want to use it. No tricks with get_declared_class, if there's no way to solve I will use reflection, that i think it's the more elegant way among the mentioned :(.
Edit: in the meantime i'll do the Conf::get_class_array() in this way
public static function get_class_array () {
return array(new ReflectionClass('Prodotto'), new ReflectionClass('News'));
}
and then call it here:
foreach (Conf::get_class_array() as $class) {
echo $class->getStaticPropertyValue('static_type');
}
I don't think you can do this. You could however do one of these:
$properties = get_class_vars('Product');
echo $properties['static_type'];
or
$class = new ReflectionClass('product');
echo $class->getStaticPropertyValue('static_type');
Note that in PHP 5.3 echo $class::$static_type; will work (http://php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.static.php)
Until 5.3.0, you can try this method. Create a container class as you suggested (we'll call it Conf to stick with what you had), and provide two methods for setting and getting applicable classes that you want to iterate over:
<?php
class Conf {
private static $instance;
private $classes = array();
public static function getInstance() {
if ( is_null(self::$instance) ) {
self::$instance = new self();
}
return self::$instance;
}
public function registerClass($className) {
// Use associative index to maintain uniqueness
$this->classes[$className] = $className;
}
public function getRegisteredClasses() {
return $this->classes;
}
}
Some example classes and how to register them:
class X {
public static $a = "catus";
public static $b = "pants";
}
class Y {
public static $a = "apples";
public static $b = "bananers";
}
$conf = Conf::getInstance();
$conf->registerClass("X");
$conf->registerClass("Y");
Now, to access and/or alter the static members, you can do something like the following (using RefelectionClass as tom Haigh pointed out):
$conf = Conf::getInstance();
echo "<pre>";
foreach ( $conf->getRegisteredClasses() as $class ) {
$reflection = new ReflectionClass($class);
echo "<hr/>Class: $class\n";
// Access example
print_r( $reflection->getStaticProperties() );
// Alter example
$reflection->setStaticPropertyValue("a",
$reflection->getStaticPropertyValue("a") . "-modified"
);
print_r( $reflection->getStaticProperties() );
}
If you have a class naming convention like Com_Example_Static_X and Com_Example_Static_Y, you can simplify Conf->getRegisteredClasses() (and even make it a static method if you so desire) by doing as n3rd suggested:
class Conf {
// ....
static public function getMatchingClasses($pattern="/^Com_Example_Static_.+$/") {
$response = array();
foreach ( get_declared_classes() as $className ) {
if ( preg_match($pattern, $className, $m) ) {
$response[] = $className;
}
}
return $response;
}
}
And, of course, update your foreach to:
foreach ( Conf::getMatchingClasses() as $class ) {
// ...
}
Hope that was helpful.
You can use get_declared_classes() to get a list of classes. This will be all class though, not just the ones you've declared.
You should make all your classes inherit from a base class:
class Product extends MyBase {}
Then you can list the classes like this
function get_class_array()
{
$myClasses = array();
foreach (get_declared_classes as $class)
{
if (is_subclass_of($class, 'MyBase'))
$myClasses[] = $class;
}
return $myClasses;
}
Then you can get the data like this:
foreach (get_class_array() as $class)
echo eval("return $class::\$foo;"); // Yes yes, eval is evil, we know...
To get a list of classes, you can use get_declared_classes. Then you'll have to determine which of those classes you want to process.
You could do this by looking for a common base class with is_subclass_of, or using ReflectionClass to see if it has the static member variables you are interested in.
I don't think there's an easy way to do this. Here are a few ideas off the top of my head how you could go about doing this:
Use get_declared_classes() to retrieve a list of all defined classes and check them against your naming scheme (e.g. MyNamespace_*) or whether they implement an interface (e.g. MyStaticEnumerable).
Kinda like the above, but a little more sophisticated: write your on class loader and have it check whether a loaded class is one of ones you want to enumerate. If so, make it known to some manager class.
Check the directory in which the classes are defined to manually enumerate all classes.