I'm attempting to define a __invokeable global instance of a class that contains my application's functions.
Basically I'm trying to create a namespace for my library, and therefore I'm attempting to use a class to hold all my functions/methods.
I don't want to have to include global $class_instance at the top of all my files, because that is ugly.
Also I don't to have to reference the variable like $GLOBALS['myvar'] everywhere.
Personally I find this a real oversight in php.
It appears I can't define super globals like $myFunctionsGlobal
And I can't define variables (well actually constants) in php like myvar=$classInstance.
Namespaces
If namespaces are supposed to solve this issue, why aren't they more widely used?
For example Kohana doesn't use namespaces, along with many other php libraries.
One I'm after:
class _namespace{
public $_function;
function __invoke($arg){
// Function body
echo $arg;
}
function method(){
;
}
}
$N = new _namespace;
$N('someValue');
$N->method();
function myFunc(){
// I don't want global $N;
// I don't want $N = $_GLOBALS['N'];
// I don't want $N = get_instance();
$N('some other value');
}
Solution:
In most other languages like c and js you can only have one object/function per variable name. PHP seems to special allowing you to have namespaces,functions and classes with the same name. I was trying to group all of my functions under one central variable for simplicity and still have the functionality of it being __invokable. In fact a class and a function named the same thing would have provided this functionality.
<?
class R{
static function static_method(){
;
}
function method(){
;
}
}
function R(){;}
R();
R::static_method();
$instance = new R();
$instance->method();
In php5.3 you can emulate a invokable constant with methods by defining a function with the same name as your namespace.
namespace.php
<? namespace Z;
function init($arg=''){
echo $arg;
}
function method(){
echo 'method';
}
function method(){
echo 'method2';
}
othefile.php
include('namespace.php');
function Z($a=null,$b=null){
return Z\init($a,$b);
}
Z('test');
Z\method();
Z\method2();
Here's my new answer for you it works
class _bidon {
static function __invoke($arg){
// Function body
echo $arg;
}
}
$b = new _bidon;
$b('eee');
function myFunc(){
// I don't want global $N;
// I don't want $N = $_GLOBALS['N'];
// I don't want $N = get_instance();
_bidon::__invoke('some other value');
}
myFunc();
but the function will be specific to the class not the object
------ Previous post :
Hi i did not clearly understand but if you have a class created just do :
public static $myFunctionsGlobal;
and whene you want to use it outer than your class you do :
myclassname::$myFunctionsGlobal
and it will be accessible as soon as you include your class
you don't need to create an object because it's a static var you just need to have the class included
You can use a service container.
An example you can find here: Which pattern should I use for my unique instance of the User class? and to deepen If Singletons are bad then why is a Service Container good?
Also namespaces can't help you if you need to have one single instance for your helper objects like you are asking.
Addendum
With the service container I suggest you can still use __invoke.
$obj = app('CallableClass');
$obj(5);
Related
This is an odd situation and I think the answer is 'you can't do that, what are you thinking?' but hope someone can prove me wrong.
My goal is to store a globally scoped function in a variable then inject it for execution within a class object.
I would like to avoid using call_user_func() as this searches for the function in the global namespace and is the same effect as if I were to just execute the global function from within the class object. I would like my class to execute the object as if it were an internal class method, not an external function. This comes close but not quite.
I cannot modify the function or wrap it in a class.
(Why am I jumping through these hoops?) Needs to be used within this class to follow a spec.
I know I can just duplicate the function in the class and be done with it, but you know the issues with that (plus it creeps up on SRP.) Reflection would work perfectly but this function is not in a class, it is just out there in an include. I've tried wrapping it an anonymous function and the closure object doesn't execute the function.
Is there any hope to do this? The function is simple, accepts a scalar param, does some stuff to it, returns a value (and is tightly coupled with other code, cannot be moved or changed.)
function someFunction($param)
{
// do some stuff
return $someScalarValue;
}
What I would hope is something like
$func = someFunction([some value]); // doesn't work of course, this would store result in $func
$cls = new SomeClass($func);
Then a method in the class could run the function object, much like call_user_func but not have to search the global namespace.
protected function someThing()
{
$this->injected_function([some class value]); // also doesn't work of course
}
When you use $this you are in the objects instance scope. You could pass a (reference) method into the constructor.
$myFunc = function($arg) { var_dump($arg); return 314; };
class myClass {
private $func;
public function __construct($func) {
$this->func = $func;
}
public function do($value) {
$this->func->call($this, $value);
}
}
$var = 'Hello world!';
$myObj = new myClass($myFunc);
$value = $myObj->do($var); // $value is now 314
If you do not want the function to be stored in global namespace you can just pass even an anonymous function like this on the fly:
$myObj = new myClass(function($arg) { var_dump($arg); return 314; });
$value = $myObj->do($var); // $value is now 314
Thank you #Markkus Zeller for your comments, as I suspected there is no way to do what I originally was tasked, to "inject" a global function as an dependency. There is, but it only really works with anonymous functions.
After a lot of stressful pushback, I convinced our managers that wrapping this in a simple class was the way to go. This,
// require_once('some-function.php');
function someFunction($param)
{
// do some stuff
return $someScalarValue;
}
. . . now becomes this. (Typed out on the fly and may contain deficiencies, concept only)
// require_once('some-function.php');
require_once('path/to/SomeFunctionClass.php');
function someFunction($param)
{
$cls = new SomeFunctionClass($param);
return $cls->execute();
}
. . . where execute() contains identical code that was in someFunction(). I can now use "SomeFunctionClass" for a DI. There is more to the story, but that is the gist, and this one change can be implemented without modifying any of the 450 or so instances that use this global function (and each of those they can be gradually ported to use the new wrapper.) It also allows me to isolate and mock the functionality for unit testing.
I want to make a PHP class, lets say Myclass.php. Now inside that class I want to define just the class itself and some instance variables. But all the methods must come from a Myclass_methods.php file. Can I just include that file into the class body?
I have good reasons why I want to seperate this. In short, I'll have a backend in which I can change the business logic of a class, while all other things must remain untouched. The system maintains all the ORM and other stuff for me.
But if this is a bad idea, it might be better to re-generate the whole class file after editing the business logic (so, the user-defined methods in this case).
Performance question: If during one request Myclass.php is included just once, actually that Myclass_methods.php should also be included just once. Might be wrong. Experts?
No. You cannot include files in the class body.
In a file defining a class, you may only include files in a method body or outside the class body.
From your description I take you want this:
<?php // MyClass.php
class MyClass
{
protected $_prop;
include 'myclass-methods.php';
}
<?php // myclass-methods.php
public function myMethod()
{
$this->$_prop = 1;
}
Running this code will result in
Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_INCLUDE, expecting T_FUNCTION
What is possible though is this
<?php // MyClass.php
class MyClass
{
protected $_prop;
public function __construct() // or any other method
{
include 'some-functions.php';
foo($b); // echoes 'a';
}
}
<?php // some-functions.php
$b = 'a';
function foo($str)
{
echo $str;
}
Doing it this way, will import the contents of the include file into the method scope, not the class scope. You may include functions and variables in the include file, but not methods. You could but should not put entire scripts into it as well and change what the method does, e.g.
<?php // MyClass.php
// ...
public function __construct($someCondition)
{
// No No Code here
include ($someCondition === 'whatever') ? 'whatever.php' : 'default.php';
}
// ...
<?php // whatever.php
echo 'whatever';
<?php // default.php
echo 'foo';
However, patching the class this way to exhibit different behavior is not how you should do it in OOP. It's just plain wrong and should make your eyes bleed.
Since you want to dynamically change behavior, extending the class is also not a good option (see below why). What you really will want to do is write an interface and make your class use objects implementing this interface, thus making sure the appropriate methods are available. This is called a Strategy Pattern and works like this:
<?php // Meowing.php
interface Meowing
{
public function meow();
}
Now you got the contract that all Meowing Behaviors must obey, namely having a meow method. Next define a Meowing Behavior:
<?php // RegularMeow.php
class RegularMeow implements Meowing
{
public function meow()
{
return 'meow';
}
}
Now to use it, use:
<?php // Cat.php
class Cat
{
protected $_meowing;
public function setMeowing(Meowing $meowing)
{
$this->_meowing = $meowing;
}
public function meow()
{
$this->_meowing->meow()
}
}
By adding the Meowing TypeHint to setMeowing, you make sure that the passed param implements the Meowing interface. Let's define another Meowing Behavior:
<?php // LolkatMeow.php
class LolkatMeow implements Meowing
{
public function meow()
{
return 'lolz xD';
}
}
Now, you can easily interchange behaviors like this:
<?php
require_once 'Meowing.php';
require_once 'RegularMeow.php';
require_once 'LolkatMeow.php';
require_once 'Cat.php';
$cat = new Cat;
$cat->setMeowing(new RegularMeow);
echo $cat->meow; // outputs 'meow';
// now to change the behavior
$cat->setMeowing(new LolkatMeow);
echo $cat->meow; // outputs 'lolz xD';
While you also could have solved the above with inheritance by defining an abstract BaseCat and meow method and then deriving concrete RegularCat and Lolkat classes from that, you have to consider what you want to achieve. If your cats will never change the way they meow, go ahead and use inheritance, but if your RegularCat and Lolkat is supposed to be able to do arbitrary meows, then use the Strategy pattern.
For more design patterns in PHP, check these resources:
http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.patterns.php
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-php-designptrns/
http://www.fluffycat.com/PHP-Design-Patterns/
http://sourcemaking.com/design_patterns
Might it not be an idea to create the core class with the relevant base functionality and then extend this with the required methods - it seems like a more logical approach.
I'll start by saying I'm not too clear why this problem is not best solved using a base class containing the methods, subclasses containing the data, and dynamic class loading. I'll assume you have a good reason.
Once your provider supports PHP 5.4 you can do what you want using traits.
Code File:
if ($pet === 'dog') include 'dog.php';
elseif ($pet === 'cat') include 'cat.php';
else die('Unknown pet');
class Pet {
use PetSounds;
}
$myPet = new Pet();
$myPet->speak();
File cat.php
trait PetSounds {
function speak() { echo 'meow'; }
}
File dog.php
trait PetSounds {
function speak() { echo 'woof'; }
}
You could make this even cleaner by naming both include files the same, putting them in different subdirectories, and using set_include_path() or defining an __autoload() function to select between them. Like I said though, this same problem could be solved better using inheritance. If you have a multiple-inheritance type problem though, if for instance you have four kinds of pets with five kinds of colors with three hair types and you need a different combination of methods for each of the 60 different classes, this is the right solution.
5.4 is currently just a Release Candidate (as of 2/24/2012) and even once released most hosts will not support it for many months - mine took 18 months after 5.3 was released before they would support it. Until then you must write entirely separate and complete class files. You can however format your classes with an eventual change to traits in mind.
Right now you can partially get what you want using magic methods and have an easy upgrade to traits when they are available.
Code File:
if ($pet === 'dog') include 'dog.php';
elseif ($pet === 'cat') include 'cat.php';
else die('Unknown pet');
class Pet {
public function __call($name, array $arguments)
{
array_unshift($arguments, $this);
return call_user_func_array("TraitFunc_$name", $arguments);
}
}
$myPet = new Pet();
$myPet->speak();
File cat.php
function TraitFunc_speak(Pet $that) { echo 'meow'; }
File dog.php
function TraitFunc_speak(Pet $that) { echo 'woof'; }
You are limited however in that your functions can not access private and protected class properties and methods and you can not use this method to provide magic methods such as __get(). Traits will solve both of those limitations.
What about using traits for this? Would that be an acceptable option? This is something I am currently experimenting with and it seems to work quite while.
A simplified version of what I am doing is basically like this. I have an application with shared core files and multiple projects. Within those projects i have modules. I want to have functions that are available for the entire project on a core level but only for that specific project.
My project controller
if(is_file(PROJECT_PATH.'/project_extensions.trait.php')){
// additional functions for this specific project
require_once(PROJECT_PATH.'/project_extensions.trait.php');
}else{
// no additional functions
trait Extensions{};
}
Class Project{
USE Extensions;
// default functions shared between all projects
function shared_stuff(){
}
}
Extensions file
trait Extensions{
// project-specific extensions
function this_project_only(){
echo 'Project Only';
}
}
Module file in the project
class MyModule extends Modules{ // modules extends projects in a different class not relevant here
function do_something(){
echo $this->project_only();
}
}
Since PHP5.4 release you can create dynamic objects like this: https://github.com/ptrofimov/jslikeobject
But this is scarcely the best practice.
Reviving an old question but this is a fairly simple solution. Do you need the common function calls to be exclusive to your class? If not, simply include your common function file(s) within the same scope as your class. You will need to create methods in your class but they will only need to call the common function. Here's a simple SOAP server example:
<?php
include 'post_function.php';
$server = new SoapServer( null, array('uri' => "http://localhost/") );
$server->setClass( 'postsoapclass' );
$server->handle();
class postsoapclass
{
public function animalNoise( $animal )
{
return get_animal_noise($animal);
}
}
?>
post_function.php
<?php
function get_animal_noise($animal)
{
if(strtolower(trim($animal)) == 'pig')
{
return 'Oink';
}
else
{
return 'This animal is mute';
}
}
?>
I have had to do what you are describing in cases where I maintain a free version and a premium version of the same software. Because, as #Gordon noted, you cannot do exactly this:
class SomeClass {
premium_file = "premium.php";
if (file_exists($premium_file)) {
require($premium_file);
}
Instead I do this:
premium_file = "premium.php";
if (file_exists($premium_file)) {
require($premium_file);
}
class SomeClass {
...
For functions you want to reference, create class methods in the main class, and call the included file's method, passing the $this pointer as a parameter. So that I can tell at a glance where functions are, I will prefix the name of the included functions as shown below:
class SomeClass {
...
// Premium functions
public function showlist() {
premium_showlist($this);
}
You can include or require before declaring your class like below:
require 'path-to-file';
class myClass{
function show($uid){
}
}
The answer is yes, for example:
Into class construct, pass to the function (that's into the included file) values as params:
$this->wpd = $this->wpdopt = 'something';
include_once('/common/functions_common.php');
$this->wpdb = wpquery($sql='', $mode='', $this->wpd);
Into the included functions_common.php file:
function wpquery($sql, $mode, $wdp)
{
if(!empty($wdp))
{ return true; } else { return false; }
}
Into class methods:
$sql = "UPDATE ..... SET ... WHERE LOWER(user_email) = . ...";
$this->wpdb = wpquery($sql,'update',$this->wpd);
OR
$retval_var = $this->wpdb = wpquery($sql,'update',$this->wpd);
OR even
$this->var = $this->wpdb = wpquery($sql,'update',$this->wpd);
Cheers to all the lovely and cool people
I came across this recently, and came up with a solution, that helped in my case. I wanted many functions in a class, but the class became bloated, so wanted to separate out the class functions into groups for readability. It took a little time to accomplish, but since the functions of the class didn't rely (much) on $this, I removed "$this" from the class functions and created several helper files to include those functions. When $this was necessary, I could nevertheless move the function into a helper file, by passing $this to the function, adding public set/get functions where necessary. It's a hack, but it's sure to help someone
class myClass
{
var x;
function myClass()
{
$this->x = 0;
}
function myFunc1Group1()
{
$x = $this->x;
$x++;
$this->x = $x;
}
function myFunc2Group1(){}
function myFunc1Group2(){}
function myFunc2Group2(){}
}
can be worked around to
class myClass
{
var x;
function myClass()
{
$this->x = 0;
}
function doSomething()
{
// not called on $this but takes $this as a parameter
myFunc1Group1($this);
}
}
and helper function set 1
function myFunc1Group1($THIS_OBJECT)
{
$x = $THIS_OBJECT->getX();
$x++;
$THIS_OBJECT->setX($x);
}
function myFunc2Group1($THIS_OBJECT){}
and helper function set 2, etc.
Probably not the best route in all cases, but helped me out a lot. Basically the class functions were only to construct and delegate, and the calculations were put into helpers.
Is it possible to dynamically extend a class object in PHP? And what would be the most elegant way of doing this?
Some example code for further explanation:
class BasicClass {
private $variable;
public function BasicFunction() {
// do something
$this->variable = 10;
}
}
class ExtendedClass extends BasicClass {
public function ExtendedFunction() {
// do something else with basic class variable
return $this->variable/2;
}
}
$A = new BasicClass();
If(condition for extension){
// A should be of class ExtendedClass
// and the current class variables should be kept
// ... insert the magic code here ...
// afterwards we would be able to use the ExtendedFunction with the original variables of the object
$A->ExtendedFunction();
}
One way of tackling this would be creating a new object of ExtendedClass and copying all the variables from the old object. But can this be done more elegantly?
Yes. It is possible. One way to do it would be using anonymous classes or simply overwriting the class itself(in your case $A) but that implies a little more logic and it's not as clean, so I won't get into it.
NOTE: Support for anonymous classes was added in PHP 7.
Using your example above we can compose the following code(I changed the visibility of the property in order to be able to use it in the extended class. I'd suggest you add a getter rather than changing the visibility).
class BasicClass {
public $variable;
public function BasicFunction() {
// do something
$this->variable = 10;
}
}
class ExtendedClass extends BasicClass {
public function ExtendedFunction() {
// do something else with basic class variable
return $this->variable / 2;
}
}
$A = new BasicClass();
if (TRUE) {
// A should be of class ExtendedClass
$A = new class extends ExtendedClass {
};
$A->ExtendedFunction();
}
Do note that this will overwrite $A. You'll still have all the available methods in it since inheritance is not lost by doing this.
Obviously whichever approach you take won't be the cleanest way you can do this.
My answer stands, but if you were to edit your question and provide more details on what it is you want to actually achieve by doing this perhaps a different approach is more suitable.
You can also achieve some magic using eval and possibly Reflection, but they're so magically magic I refuse to write the answer since it promotes such bad practices.
What is the best way to make a variable accessable to all classes.
For example, I want to have a configuration file (Call it config.php) that is going to have a variable like so:
$server_url = "www.myaddress.com";
And I have a main library type file that contains a bunch of classes that need to access the $server_url. So here begins that main library file:
require 'config.php';
class one {
function a() {
$html = "<a href='$server_url/main.php'>LINK</a>"
return $html;
}
function b() {
$html = "<a href='$server_url/about.php'>LINK</a>"
return $html;
}
}
class two {
function new() {
$html = "<a href='$server_url/blah.php'>LINK</a>
}
}
What would be the best way to make $server_url from the config.php available to every function? Or at least available to all the functions in a class?
Personally I would use a static entity to hold all configuration values.
Usually, most php applications have a single entry point (index.php) that can load up the config.php file and make the static entity available from that point.
If your application has multiple entry points, then you will need to include config.php in each of these points.
Something like this:
<?php
class Configurator{
private static $_configuration = array();
public static function write($key, $value) {
self::$_configuration[$key] = $value;
}
public static function read($key) {
return self::$_configuration[$key];
}
}
Configurator::write('server', 'http://localhost');
Configurator::read('server');
?>
CakePHP has a similar class: http://api.cakephp.org/view_source/configure/
Make the config into a class in itself and use a static methods either along the line of serverUrl() or get('server_url'). Then call them like any other static methods to classes (I'll choose the latter in this example):
$html = "<a href='" . Config::get ('server_url') . "/main.php'>LINK</a>";
The config class could be pretty slim, use a constructor like:
public function __construct (array $config)
{
foreach ($config as $key => $value)
{
$this->$key = $value;
}
}
And add the get() method along these lines:
public function get ($key)
{
return $this->$key;
}
This way you can read the config from an array that you can have as a separate, actual config file, and reuse the same code for multiple projects.
You'll also be able to access the variables from anywhere in the project and you'll get a sort of pseudo-namespacing (in case the project needs to run on an older version of PHP).
Please, don't copy the code verbatim, it's written as an example.
think of globals are evil. Try to use design patterns to get access to some configs globally.
I'm a big fan of singletons to get global access to objects, arrays or other data-types.
<?php
class st {
static $_this;
function __construct(){
self::$_this = $this;
}
static function &getInstance(){
return self::$_this
}
static function set($key, $value){
self::$_this[$key] = $value;
}
static function &get($key){
return self::$_this[$key];
}
}
// Usage
new st();
st::set('foo', 'bar');
// In some class
st::get('foo'); //return 'bar'
// Or when there are some classes/objects
st::getInstance()->foo->bar();
$st =& st::getInstance();
$st->foo->bar();
?>
Roughly wrote down a small singleton, but don't know whether there is a syntax error.
While handling with getInstance it's certain that you define the variable by reference =&
Define a constant in config.php like:
define('SERVER_URL', '...');
In your class:
echo SERVER_URL;
What works for me the best is to use a config file like config.ini
And then to use $my_config = parse_ini_file(file path/config.ini');
Now everywhere in my code including inside functions and classes, I will use
The PHP superglobal like this:
$GLOBALS["my_config"]['my_global_var']
I want to make a PHP class, lets say Myclass.php. Now inside that class I want to define just the class itself and some instance variables. But all the methods must come from a Myclass_methods.php file. Can I just include that file into the class body?
I have good reasons why I want to seperate this. In short, I'll have a backend in which I can change the business logic of a class, while all other things must remain untouched. The system maintains all the ORM and other stuff for me.
But if this is a bad idea, it might be better to re-generate the whole class file after editing the business logic (so, the user-defined methods in this case).
Performance question: If during one request Myclass.php is included just once, actually that Myclass_methods.php should also be included just once. Might be wrong. Experts?
No. You cannot include files in the class body.
In a file defining a class, you may only include files in a method body or outside the class body.
From your description I take you want this:
<?php // MyClass.php
class MyClass
{
protected $_prop;
include 'myclass-methods.php';
}
<?php // myclass-methods.php
public function myMethod()
{
$this->$_prop = 1;
}
Running this code will result in
Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_INCLUDE, expecting T_FUNCTION
What is possible though is this
<?php // MyClass.php
class MyClass
{
protected $_prop;
public function __construct() // or any other method
{
include 'some-functions.php';
foo($b); // echoes 'a';
}
}
<?php // some-functions.php
$b = 'a';
function foo($str)
{
echo $str;
}
Doing it this way, will import the contents of the include file into the method scope, not the class scope. You may include functions and variables in the include file, but not methods. You could but should not put entire scripts into it as well and change what the method does, e.g.
<?php // MyClass.php
// ...
public function __construct($someCondition)
{
// No No Code here
include ($someCondition === 'whatever') ? 'whatever.php' : 'default.php';
}
// ...
<?php // whatever.php
echo 'whatever';
<?php // default.php
echo 'foo';
However, patching the class this way to exhibit different behavior is not how you should do it in OOP. It's just plain wrong and should make your eyes bleed.
Since you want to dynamically change behavior, extending the class is also not a good option (see below why). What you really will want to do is write an interface and make your class use objects implementing this interface, thus making sure the appropriate methods are available. This is called a Strategy Pattern and works like this:
<?php // Meowing.php
interface Meowing
{
public function meow();
}
Now you got the contract that all Meowing Behaviors must obey, namely having a meow method. Next define a Meowing Behavior:
<?php // RegularMeow.php
class RegularMeow implements Meowing
{
public function meow()
{
return 'meow';
}
}
Now to use it, use:
<?php // Cat.php
class Cat
{
protected $_meowing;
public function setMeowing(Meowing $meowing)
{
$this->_meowing = $meowing;
}
public function meow()
{
$this->_meowing->meow()
}
}
By adding the Meowing TypeHint to setMeowing, you make sure that the passed param implements the Meowing interface. Let's define another Meowing Behavior:
<?php // LolkatMeow.php
class LolkatMeow implements Meowing
{
public function meow()
{
return 'lolz xD';
}
}
Now, you can easily interchange behaviors like this:
<?php
require_once 'Meowing.php';
require_once 'RegularMeow.php';
require_once 'LolkatMeow.php';
require_once 'Cat.php';
$cat = new Cat;
$cat->setMeowing(new RegularMeow);
echo $cat->meow; // outputs 'meow';
// now to change the behavior
$cat->setMeowing(new LolkatMeow);
echo $cat->meow; // outputs 'lolz xD';
While you also could have solved the above with inheritance by defining an abstract BaseCat and meow method and then deriving concrete RegularCat and Lolkat classes from that, you have to consider what you want to achieve. If your cats will never change the way they meow, go ahead and use inheritance, but if your RegularCat and Lolkat is supposed to be able to do arbitrary meows, then use the Strategy pattern.
For more design patterns in PHP, check these resources:
http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.patterns.php
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-php-designptrns/
http://www.fluffycat.com/PHP-Design-Patterns/
http://sourcemaking.com/design_patterns
Might it not be an idea to create the core class with the relevant base functionality and then extend this with the required methods - it seems like a more logical approach.
I'll start by saying I'm not too clear why this problem is not best solved using a base class containing the methods, subclasses containing the data, and dynamic class loading. I'll assume you have a good reason.
Once your provider supports PHP 5.4 you can do what you want using traits.
Code File:
if ($pet === 'dog') include 'dog.php';
elseif ($pet === 'cat') include 'cat.php';
else die('Unknown pet');
class Pet {
use PetSounds;
}
$myPet = new Pet();
$myPet->speak();
File cat.php
trait PetSounds {
function speak() { echo 'meow'; }
}
File dog.php
trait PetSounds {
function speak() { echo 'woof'; }
}
You could make this even cleaner by naming both include files the same, putting them in different subdirectories, and using set_include_path() or defining an __autoload() function to select between them. Like I said though, this same problem could be solved better using inheritance. If you have a multiple-inheritance type problem though, if for instance you have four kinds of pets with five kinds of colors with three hair types and you need a different combination of methods for each of the 60 different classes, this is the right solution.
5.4 is currently just a Release Candidate (as of 2/24/2012) and even once released most hosts will not support it for many months - mine took 18 months after 5.3 was released before they would support it. Until then you must write entirely separate and complete class files. You can however format your classes with an eventual change to traits in mind.
Right now you can partially get what you want using magic methods and have an easy upgrade to traits when they are available.
Code File:
if ($pet === 'dog') include 'dog.php';
elseif ($pet === 'cat') include 'cat.php';
else die('Unknown pet');
class Pet {
public function __call($name, array $arguments)
{
array_unshift($arguments, $this);
return call_user_func_array("TraitFunc_$name", $arguments);
}
}
$myPet = new Pet();
$myPet->speak();
File cat.php
function TraitFunc_speak(Pet $that) { echo 'meow'; }
File dog.php
function TraitFunc_speak(Pet $that) { echo 'woof'; }
You are limited however in that your functions can not access private and protected class properties and methods and you can not use this method to provide magic methods such as __get(). Traits will solve both of those limitations.
What about using traits for this? Would that be an acceptable option? This is something I am currently experimenting with and it seems to work quite while.
A simplified version of what I am doing is basically like this. I have an application with shared core files and multiple projects. Within those projects i have modules. I want to have functions that are available for the entire project on a core level but only for that specific project.
My project controller
if(is_file(PROJECT_PATH.'/project_extensions.trait.php')){
// additional functions for this specific project
require_once(PROJECT_PATH.'/project_extensions.trait.php');
}else{
// no additional functions
trait Extensions{};
}
Class Project{
USE Extensions;
// default functions shared between all projects
function shared_stuff(){
}
}
Extensions file
trait Extensions{
// project-specific extensions
function this_project_only(){
echo 'Project Only';
}
}
Module file in the project
class MyModule extends Modules{ // modules extends projects in a different class not relevant here
function do_something(){
echo $this->project_only();
}
}
Since PHP5.4 release you can create dynamic objects like this: https://github.com/ptrofimov/jslikeobject
But this is scarcely the best practice.
Reviving an old question but this is a fairly simple solution. Do you need the common function calls to be exclusive to your class? If not, simply include your common function file(s) within the same scope as your class. You will need to create methods in your class but they will only need to call the common function. Here's a simple SOAP server example:
<?php
include 'post_function.php';
$server = new SoapServer( null, array('uri' => "http://localhost/") );
$server->setClass( 'postsoapclass' );
$server->handle();
class postsoapclass
{
public function animalNoise( $animal )
{
return get_animal_noise($animal);
}
}
?>
post_function.php
<?php
function get_animal_noise($animal)
{
if(strtolower(trim($animal)) == 'pig')
{
return 'Oink';
}
else
{
return 'This animal is mute';
}
}
?>
I have had to do what you are describing in cases where I maintain a free version and a premium version of the same software. Because, as #Gordon noted, you cannot do exactly this:
class SomeClass {
premium_file = "premium.php";
if (file_exists($premium_file)) {
require($premium_file);
}
Instead I do this:
premium_file = "premium.php";
if (file_exists($premium_file)) {
require($premium_file);
}
class SomeClass {
...
For functions you want to reference, create class methods in the main class, and call the included file's method, passing the $this pointer as a parameter. So that I can tell at a glance where functions are, I will prefix the name of the included functions as shown below:
class SomeClass {
...
// Premium functions
public function showlist() {
premium_showlist($this);
}
You can include or require before declaring your class like below:
require 'path-to-file';
class myClass{
function show($uid){
}
}
The answer is yes, for example:
Into class construct, pass to the function (that's into the included file) values as params:
$this->wpd = $this->wpdopt = 'something';
include_once('/common/functions_common.php');
$this->wpdb = wpquery($sql='', $mode='', $this->wpd);
Into the included functions_common.php file:
function wpquery($sql, $mode, $wdp)
{
if(!empty($wdp))
{ return true; } else { return false; }
}
Into class methods:
$sql = "UPDATE ..... SET ... WHERE LOWER(user_email) = . ...";
$this->wpdb = wpquery($sql,'update',$this->wpd);
OR
$retval_var = $this->wpdb = wpquery($sql,'update',$this->wpd);
OR even
$this->var = $this->wpdb = wpquery($sql,'update',$this->wpd);
Cheers to all the lovely and cool people
I came across this recently, and came up with a solution, that helped in my case. I wanted many functions in a class, but the class became bloated, so wanted to separate out the class functions into groups for readability. It took a little time to accomplish, but since the functions of the class didn't rely (much) on $this, I removed "$this" from the class functions and created several helper files to include those functions. When $this was necessary, I could nevertheless move the function into a helper file, by passing $this to the function, adding public set/get functions where necessary. It's a hack, but it's sure to help someone
class myClass
{
var x;
function myClass()
{
$this->x = 0;
}
function myFunc1Group1()
{
$x = $this->x;
$x++;
$this->x = $x;
}
function myFunc2Group1(){}
function myFunc1Group2(){}
function myFunc2Group2(){}
}
can be worked around to
class myClass
{
var x;
function myClass()
{
$this->x = 0;
}
function doSomething()
{
// not called on $this but takes $this as a parameter
myFunc1Group1($this);
}
}
and helper function set 1
function myFunc1Group1($THIS_OBJECT)
{
$x = $THIS_OBJECT->getX();
$x++;
$THIS_OBJECT->setX($x);
}
function myFunc2Group1($THIS_OBJECT){}
and helper function set 2, etc.
Probably not the best route in all cases, but helped me out a lot. Basically the class functions were only to construct and delegate, and the calculations were put into helpers.