PHP OOP Good practice for accessing methods? - php

Question

I have some code that often looks like this:
private $user;
public function __construct()
{
$this->user = User::getInstance(); //singleton
}
public function methodOne()
{
return $this->user->foo();
}
public function methodTwo()
{
return $this->user->foo2();
}
public function methodThree()
{
return $this->user->foo3();
}
I figure if I set user property to the instance I can reuse a shorter name in my methods (well in this case it's not that much shorter). I also thought doing it this way might save a little resources (beginning to doubt it), but when I look at other people's code I rarely see people do this. They would usually just call:
User::getInstance()->foo();
User::getInstance()->foo2();
User::getInstance()->foo3();
Is there any sort of best practice for this? Maybe if it's not a singleton class you might do it this way? Or maybe you should never do it this way? Hope to get some clarification, thanks.
Edit:
Incase there is any misunderstanding I'm just wondering if I should the first example with creating a property to store the instance vs this:
public function methodOne()
{
return User::getInstance()->foo();
}
public function methodTwo()
{
return User::getInstance()->foo2();
}
public function methodThree()
{
return User::getInstance()->foo3();
}
Actually now that I think about it this may be less code as I don't need the constructor...

Answer 1

There are indeed some problems with your approach.
It is not clear that your class depends on the User class. You can solve this with adding User as a constructor parameter.
Singletons are often bad practice. Your code demonstrates why: it is globally accessible and hence difficult to track dependencies using it (this points to the above problem).
Static methods are too often used as global access points (in response to what you see people usually do User::method()). Global access points give the same problem as singletons. They are also a tad more difficult to test.
I also don't see the point in repeating the User object with your new object, unless you would use eg the adapter pattern. Maybe if you could clarify this I would be able to come up with a better alternative than the generic:
class Foo {
public function __construct(User $user) {
$this->user = $user;
}
public function doXsimplified() {
$this->user->doXbutMoreComplex($arg1,$arg2, $arg20);
}
}

Answer 2

My personal preference in PHP is to use classes with just static methods for singletons, so you have
User::foo();
User::bar();

Answer 3

I would not create a new class just to wrap around a singleton like that. But if your new class adds some extra logic then your example makes sense. Remember, if you're worried that you're too verbose you can always use a temporary variable for successive function calls.
$user = User::getInstance();
$user->foo();
$user->bar();
But personally, I don't use Singletons anymore. Instead, I use Dependency Injection. I like the sfServiceContainer, but there are others. Have a look at this series of articles: http://fabien.potencier.org/article/11/what-is-dependency-injection
UPDATE
Based on the additional comments, this is how I would do it:
class UserWrapper
{
private $user = null;
public function __construct($user)
{
$this->user = $user;
}
public function foo()
{
return $this->user->foo();
}
...
}
Then use it like this:
$user = new UserWrapper(User::getInstance());
Why? So I can pass in a fake User object if I want to test the UserWrapper class. E.g:
class UserMock { ... } // A fake object that looks like a User
$userTest = new UserWrapper(new UserMock());

Answer 4

I usually go like this, if you have already included the class in a bootstrap of some sort or a config file. I would usually declear the $user variable in a bootstrap that will get called on every page load, then just reference it as a global variable on other php files, this is what I would have in the bootstrap file.
$user = new User();
Then this is what I would have in the calling php file
global $user;
$user->foo();