I am looking for a good way to implement the Adaptor pattern with static classes in PHP 5.x.
One of the examples where I would like to use this, is as a counterpart to Python's os.path.join().
I would have two adaptees, a Windows and a Linux adaptee class.
I think it is reasonable, to implement these classes as static classes, because they have no "context". They do not need to store any state and creating an instance everytime I need one seems superfluous - therefore I am looking for a clean way to implement this.
Let's consider the following bogus implementation:
static public function join(){
$parts = func_get_args();
$joined = array(MY_MAGICALLY_PASSED_DEFAULT_PATH_PREFIX);
foreach($parts as $part){
$part = self::$adaptee->cleanPath($path);
if(self::$adaptee->isAbsolute($part)){
$joined = array($part);
}
else{
$joined[] = $part;
}
}
return implode(PATH_SEPARATOR, $joined);
}
The first thing you will notice is, that it assumes an initialized static member called adaptee which would hold the necessary, OS-dependent implementation details.
This requires me to have an arbitrarily named static constructor-like function, that I would call immediately after the declaration of the class. (Another thing that bothers me with this approach).
Of course, I could initialize a local $adaptee variable on each method call, but that seems like inappropriate and I would have to replicate that in each other static function that needs the adaptee.
Now... for PHP's class implemention detail: They are not first-class objects, so I couldn't just pass the class as an argument. In the example, it requires me to create the Adaptees as non-static (what is the term for this?) classes, then instantiate it and eventually assign it to the static $adaptee member variable of the Adapter class.
Maybe this is just this weird and completely subjective thought that I have... but I really feel that it is not appropriate to do it like this. Do you have any ideas about a better implementation?
One other idea that I've had is, to store the adaptee's class name instead, and use call_user_func instead, but I don't feel too comfortable using this approach.
Update
I may not have described this properly, so I will try to explain this in an update:
I am not looking on how to get the underlying Operating System, but I would like to have a neat way, for a static class to act differently depending on whether the OS is Linux, Windows, FreeBSD or something else.
I thought of the adaptor pattern, but since I don't have a static constructor, I cannot really initialize the class. One way would be to initialize it at the beginning of every public static method call (or just check whether it is initialized).
The other possibility would be, to create a static constructor-like method and simply call it right after the declaration. That might do the trick, but I am just wondering what other, possibly more elgeant methods there are, to achieving this.
As for my initial example:
It is supposed to be a utility function, it does not need to preserve state in any kind really, so I am not looking for a Path-Object of any sorts. What I would like, is a Path factory function, that returns a string, without having to differentiate between the different OSes every time when called. The "library"-thing led me to create a static class as pseudo-namespace for my related utility functions, and the different implementation details that need to be supported to the adaptor pattern. Now I am looking for an elegant way, to combine the two.
You'll shoot yourself in the foot when you make them static. You cannot inject static classes so you will always have coupling to the global scope and because you will hardcode static calls everywhere, maintaining them will become a nightmare. And you cannot mock them either (ok, PHPUnit can, but it only does to enable testing of code that otherwise would be untestable).
Just create an instance and use regular functions and save yourself some worries. There is no advantage in using statics. And the performance impact is utterly and totally negligible.
I'd probably create an interface for the adaptee and the adapters to implement
interface IPathAdapter
{
public function cleanPath($path);
public function isAbsolutePath($part);
// more …
}
and then do probably something like
class Path implements IPathAdapter
{
protected $_adapter;
public function __construct(IPathAdapter $adapter)
{
$this->_adapter = $adapter;
}
public function cleanPath($path)
{
$this->_adapter->cleanPath($part);
}
public function isAbsolutePath($part)
{
$this->_adapter->isAbsolutePath($part);
}
// more …
public function join(){
$parts = func_get_args();
$joined = array($this->getScriptPath());
foreach($parts as $part){
$part = $this->cleanPath($path);
if ($this->isAbsolutePath($part)){
$joined = array($part);
} else{
$joined[] = $part;
}
}
return implode($this->getPathSeparator(), $joined);
}
}
So when I want to use Path, I'd have to do
$path = new Path(new PathAdapter_Windows);
If you cannot inject the adapters, I'd probably go the route you already suggested and pass the Adapter class name as an argument to instantiate it from within Path then. Or I'd leave the detection of the appropriate adapter completely to the Path class, e.g. have it detect the OS and then instantiate what is needed.
If you want to autodetect, have a look at Does PHP have a function to detect the OS it's running on?. I'd probably write a separate class to handle the identification and then make it a dependency to the Path class, e.g.
public function __construct(IDetector $detector = NULL)
{
if($detector === NULL){
$detector = new OSDetector;
}
$this->_detector = $detector;
}
The reason I am injecting is because it will allow me to change the implementation, e.g. to mock the Detector in UnitTests but can also ignore to inject at runtime. It will use the default OSDetector then. With the detector, detect the OS and create an appropriate adapter somewhere in Path or in a dedicated Factory.
I think you can do this, you just have to put the namespace path into a global var, for example in composer autoload.php:
$GLOBALS['ADAPTED_CLASS_NAMESPACE'] = 'MyComponent\AdapterFoo\VendorBar';
I think it's a good approach in a context where you can't use dependency injection i.e in a entity for validation (we keep in mind that separated Validation classes are better).
<?php
namespace MyComponent;
use MyComponent\AdaptedInterface;
use ReflectionClass;
class Adapter
{
/**
* #var AdaptedInterface
*/
protected $adaptedClass;
public function __construct(AdaptedInterface $validator = null)
{
if (null == $validator && $this->validateClassPath($GLOBALS['ADAPTED_CLASS_NAMESPACE'])) {
$this->adaptedClass = new $GLOBALS['ADAPTED_CLASS_NAMESPACE'];
} else {
$this->adaptedClass = $validator;
}
}
protected function validateClassPath($classPath)
{
$reflection = new ReflectionClass($classPath);
if (!$reflection->implementsInterface(
'MyComponent\AdaptedInterface'
)) {
throw new \Exception('Your adapted class have not a valid class path :' . $classPath . 'given');
}
return true;
}
}
So anywhere:
(new Adapter())->foo($bar);
Related
I'm a bit lost here because I want to do something that is very easy in Java but seems a bit complicated in PHP.
We are building an SDK for our product and in Java, we have this one class that must not (!) be instantiated by the user (i.e. the coder), since there are several constraints regarding it's integrity. So we've built that as a nested class "X" inside of the "XFactory" and you will get an instance of X by calling XFactory.buildMeMyX(); - Easy...
Now PHP does not support nested classes at all, and I wonder how to apply the same here. In Java, X's constructor is hidden (private), so only XFactory can call it.
In PHP, it looks like I will have to make __construct() public and move the nested class X out of XFactory. Hence, the user will be able to create an instance without the Factory.
Now - I COULD move the factory functionality to X itself and move all the stuff there, but this would kind of break the design of the SDK. Is there a useful way to do such things in PHP after all?
For PHP 5.x you already described your options, there are no private/protected classes or inner classes at all, so there is no further way to restrict instantiation.
However, with PHP 7 this is going to change.
There are still no nested classes (although we might get them in the future, see: https://stackoverflow.com/a/31454435/664108), but you could instantiate an anonymous class and only provide the consumer with its interface like this:
class XFactory
{
public function buildMeMyX()
{
return new class() implements XInterface {
public function doWhatEverAnXCanDo()
{
// X X X
}
// ...
};
}
}
interface XInterface
{
function doWhatEverAnXCanDo();
}
As the others have said, there currently is no clean way to implement this behavior in PHP. In my opinion, the only valid use case for private constructors are factories inside the class that implement that factories.
Whenever you try to get around that use case it gets messy. No one should ever try to invent clever ways to bypass PHP's language limiations.
I just violated that rule by myself just to prove it is indeed possible. But please refrain from using that in production, or better: using it anywhere. I will try to find some bulletproof arguments for that suggestion and edit the answer afterwards.
<?php
class Dependency {}
class SomeClass {
protected $dep;
private function __construct(Dependency $dep)
{
$this->dep = $dep;
}
public function doSomething()
{
var_dump($this->dep);
echo "Doing Stuff and even having dependencies";
}
}
class SomeClassFactory {
public function buildSomeClass()
{
return $this->instantiateSomeClassWith(new Dependency);
}
protected function instantiateSomeClassWith()
{
$reflectionClass = new ReflectionClass('SomeClass');
$someClass = $reflectionClass->newInstanceWithoutConstructor();
$constructor = $reflectionClass->getConstructor();
$constructorClosure = $constructor->getClosure($someClass);
call_user_func_array($constructorClosure, func_get_args());
return $someClass;
}
}
$factory = new SomeClassFactory();
$someClass = $factory->buildSomeClass();
$someClass->doSomething();
?>
Output: object(Dependency)#2 (0) { } Doing Stuff and even having dependencies
The theory is simple. The constructor of the class that will be built via the Factory is made private. We make use of reflection within the factory to create an instance of the class without invoking the constructor.
Once we have an instance, we grab the closure of the constructor and invoke it via call_user_func_array(). That way you can make use of Dependency Injection just as you would if the constructor was public.
As I said before. That way is a single smell. By creating an object without invoking it's constructor, there is no real way to validate an objects state upon creation
This is a proof of concept, but the concept sucks.
There is no native way to do so, yet. However, if you really want to "enforce" that your class is only created from your factory class, there is a little "hackish" way to do so limiting the instantiation by inistantiating class.
class X
{
function __construct()
{
new Y();
}
}
class Y
{
function __construct()
{
$trace = debug_backtrace(DEBUG_BACKTRACE_PROVIDE_OBJECT, 2);
if (!isset($trace[1]['object']) || !($trace[1]['object'] instanceof X)) {
throw new \RuntimeException('This is a private class');
}
}
}
new X(); // All is fine
new Y(); // Exception
Please note that there is no "real" way to protect the class from being instantiated from elsewhere even using this approach - it still can be done via reflection by bypassing the constructor, or simply modifying your source.
I am confused whether to use static method or just simple method.
Lets me give an example, I am using Zend framework 1 project.
I have class like
class Example1
{
public static function getVariable() {
return is_numeric(Zend_Registry::get('config')->Variable) ? Zend_Registry::get('config')->Variable : 0;
}
public function calculateSome($param1, $param2) {
$response = array();
if($param2 == 0) {
$response = number_format(($param1 * self::getvariable()) /100);
} else {
$response = $param1;
}
return $response;
}
}
Usage :
Currently i'm getting variable value like Example1::getVariable() in whole project.
And Calculating like first instantiating a class $class1 = new Example1(); and then calling the function like $class1->calculateSome(1, 0);
I am confused whether it is good to change calculateSome() to public static and call like this Example1::calculateSome(1, 0) or left as it is.
I Have found link when to use static =>
When to use static vs instantiated classes
But I can't understand what it says.
You can find the long answer here: How Not To Kill Your Testability Using Statics
The TL;DR version of it is:
A static method is nothing more than a namespaced function, Foo::bar() does not significantly differ from foo_bar().
Whenever you call a static method, or a function for that matter, you're hardcoding a dependency. The code that reads $bar = Foo::bar(); has a hardcoded dependency to a specific Foo class. It is not possible to change what Foo refers to without changing that part of the source code.
An object is a "soft" dependency. $bar = $foo->bar(); is flexible, it allows room to change what $foo refers to. You use this with dependency injection to decouple code from other code:
function baz(Foo $foo) {
$bar = $foo->bar();
...
}
You can call Foo::bar() anytime from anywhere. If Foo::bar has some dependency it depends on, it becomes hard to guarantee that this dependency is available at the time you're calling the method. Requiring object instantiation requires the object's constructor to run, which can enforce requirements to be set up which the rest of the methods of the object can depend on.
Constructors together with dependency injecting objects into other functions are very powerful to
create seams in your codebase to make it possible to "take it apart" and put it together in flexible ways
put checks into strategic places to ensure requirements are met for certain parts of the code (at object instantiation time the constructor enforces a sane state of its little part of the world, its object), which makes it a lot easier to localise and contain failures.
Think of it like compartmentalising your app and putting firewalls between each compartment with a supervisor in charge of each one; instead of everyone just running around in the same room.
Any time you write new Class, you may as well write Class::staticMethod(), the hardcoded dependency is the same.
So the decision comes down to:
What are the requirements of this class? Does it need to ensure certain preconditions are met before any of its code can run (e.g. a database connection needs to be available), or are all methods just self-contained little helper methods?
How likely are you to maybe want to substitute this class for another class? Does this class produce side effects (e.g. writing to a file, modifying some global state) which may not always be desirable and hence a different version of it may be useful under some circumstances?
May you need more than one instance of this class at the same time, or is the nature of the class such that there are no individual instances needed?
Start using unit tests, which require you to take your app apart and test each little part individually to ensure it works, and you'll see where the advantage of object instantiation and dependency injection lie.
When the method involve instance-based properties/changes u should keep it non-static.
If its a method that is needed for the whole type then use static.
For example u can keep tracks of created instances by this snippet:
class Product {
static $count;
private $name;
public function __construct($name) {
$this->name = $name;
self::$count++;
}
public function getName() {
return $this->name;
}
public static function getCount() {
return self:$count;
}
}
$productA = new Product('A');
$productB = new Product('B');
echo $productA->getName(). ' and ' . $productB->getName(). '<br />'. PHP_EOL;
echo 'Total made products :' . Product::getCount();
I was wondering if there's a good way to implement the registry pattern in PHP, let me be more clear:
I do know that a Registry is used when you need to keep track of the object you instantiate in order to reuse them and not re-instantiate them again from script to script, e.g. I have a Database class that I want to instantiate only once and then use for all my scripts and I do not want to re-instantiate it again and again. Another example could be a User class that represents an instance of the currently logged in user. I could not use a Singleton in this case, cause e.g. I need another User instance for example when I want to retrieve a friend of the currently logged in user etc.
So I came up with the idea that the Registry better suits this kind of needs in such cases.
I also know that there are two ways of implementing it, or better two ways in order to access the stored instances:
Explicitly or externally, meaning that the Registry should be called every time you need to recover an instance inside your scripts or you need to put an instance inside of it;
Implicitly or internally, meaning that you make kind of an abstract class with a getInstance() method that returns an instance with the get_called_class() late static binding feature, adds it to the registry and then return that instance from the registry itself taking care that if a $label parameter is passed to the getInstance() method, then that particular instance from the registry will be returned. This approach is kinda transparent to the consumer and in my opinion is cleaner and neater (I'll show both implementations, though).
Let's take a basic Registry (really simple implementation, just an example took from a book):
class Registry {
static private $_store = array();
static public function set($object, $name = null)
{
// Use the class name if no name given, simulates singleton
$name = (!is_null($name)) ? $name: get_class($object);
$name = strtolower($name);
$return = null;
if (isset(self::$_store[$name])) {
// Store the old object for returning
$return = self::$_store[$name];
}
self::$_store[$name]= $object;
return $return;
}
static public function get($name)
{
if (!self::contains($name)) {
throw new Exception("Object does not exist in registry");
}
return self::$_store[$name];
}
static public function contains($name)
{
if (!isset(self::$_store[$name])) {
return false;
}
return true;
}
static public function remove($name)
{
if (self::contains($name)) {
unset(self::$_store[$name]);
}
}
}
I know, Registry could be a Singleton, so you never have two Registry at the same time (who needs them someone could think, but who knows).
Anyway the externally way of storing/accessing instances is like this:
$read = new DBReadConnection;
Registry::set($read);
$write = new DBWriteConnection;
Registry::set($write);
// To get the instances, anywhere in the code:
$read = Registry::get('DbReadConnection');
$write = Registry::get('DbWriteConnection');
And internally, inside the class (taken from the book) when getInstance is called:
abstract class DBConnection extends PDO {
static public function getInstance($name = null)
{
// Get the late-static-binding version of __CLASS__
$class = get_called_class();
// Allow passing in a name to get multiple instances
// If you do not pass a name, it functions as a singleton
$name = (!is_null($name)) ?: $class;
if (!Registry::contains($name)) {
$instance = new $class();
Registry::set($instance, $name);
}
return Registry::get($name);
}
}
class DBWriteConnection extends DBConnection {
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct(APP_DB_WRITE_DSN, APP_DB_WRITE_USER, APP_DB_WRITE_PASSWORD);
} }
class DBReadConnection extends DBConnection {
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct(APP_DB_READ_DSN, APP_DB_READ_USER,APP_DB_READ_PASSWORD);
}
}
Apparently referring to the registry indirectly (second case) seems more scalable for me, but what if some day I would need to change the registry and use another implementation, I would need to change that calls to Registry::get() and Registry::set() inside the getInstance() method in order to suit the changes or is there a smarter way?
Did someone of you came across this problem and found an easy way to interchange different registries depending on the type of application on the complexity etc.?
Should be a configuration class the solution? Or is there a smarter way to achieve a scalable registry pattern if it is possible?
Thanks for the attention! Hope for some help!
First of all. It's great that you spotted the problem of your approach by yourself. By using a registry you are tight coupling your classes to the registry where you pull your dependencies from. Not only that, but if your classes have to care about how they are stored in the registry and get grabbed from it (in your case every class would also implement a singleton), you also violate the Single-Responsibility-Principle.
As a rule of thumb keep in mind: Accessing objects globally from within a class from whatever storage will lead to tight coupling between the class and the storage.
Let's see what Martin Fowler has to say about this topic:
The key difference is that with a Service Locator every user of a service has a dependency to the locator. The locator can hide dependencies to other implementations, but you do need to see the locator. So the decision between locator and injector depends on whether that dependency is a problem.
and
With the service locator you have to search the source code for calls to the locator. Modern IDEs with a find references feature make this easier, but it's still not as easy as looking at the constructor or setting methods.
So you see it depends on what you are building. If you have a small app with a low amount of dependencies, to hell with it, go on with using a registry (But you absolutely should drop a classes behavior to store itself into or getting grabbed from the registry). If that's not the case and you are building complex services and want a clean and straightforward API define your dependencies explicitly by using Type Hints and Constructor Injection.
<?php
class DbConsumer {
protected $dbReadConnection;
protected $dbWriteConnection;
public function __construct(DBReadConnection $dbReadConnection, DBWriteConnection $dbWriteConnection)
{
$this->dbReadConnection = $dbReadConnection;
$this->dbWriteConnection = $dbWriteConnection;
}
}
// You can still use service location for example to grab instances
// but you will not pollute your classes itself by making use of it
// directly. Instead we'll grab instances from it and pass them into
// the consuming class
// [...]
$read = $registry->get('dbReadConnection');
$write = $registry->get('dbWriteConnection');
$dbConsumer = new DbConsumer($read, $write);
Should be a configuration class the solution? Or is there a smarter way to achieve a scalable registry pattern if it is possible?
That approach is encountered very often and you maybe have heard something about a DI-Container. Fabien Potencier writes the following:
A Dependency Injection Container is an object that knows how to instantiate and configure objects. And to be able to do its job, it needs to knows about the constructor arguments and the relationships between the objects.
The boundaries between a service locator and a DI-Container seem to be pretty blurry but I like the concept to think about it like that: A Service Locator hides the dependencies of a class while a DI-Container does not (which comes along with the benefit of easy unit testing).
So you see, there is no final answer and it depends on what you are building. I can suggest to dig more into the topic since how dependencies are managed is a core concern of every application.
Further Reading
Why Registry Pattern is antipattern. And what is alternative for it.
Service Locator is an Anti-Pattern
Do you need a Dependency Injection Container?
Lately I have been trying to create my own PHP framework, just to learn from it (As we may look into some bigger and more robust framework for production). One design concept I currently have, is that most core classes mainly work on static functions within classes.
Now a few days ago, I've seen a few articles about "Static methods are death to testability". This concerned me as.. yeah.. my classes contain mostly static methods.. The main reason I was using static methods is that a lot of classes would never need more than one instance, and static methods are easy to approach in the global scope. Now I'm aware that static methods aren't actually the best way to do things, I'm looking for a better alternative.
Imagine the following code to get a config item:
$testcfg = Config::get("test"); // Gets config from "test"
echo $testcfg->foo; // Would output what "foo" contains ofcourse.
/*
* We cache the newly created instance of the "test" config,
* so if we need to use it again anywhere in the application,
* the Config::get() method simply returns that instance.
*/
This is an example of what I currently have. But according to some articles, this is bad.
Now, I could do this the way how, for example, CodeIgniter does this, using:
$testcfg = $this->config->get("test");
echo $testcfg->foo;
Personally, I find this harder to read. That's why I would prefer another way.
So in short, I guess I need a better approach to my classes. I would not want more than one instance to the config class, maintain readability and have easy access to the class. Any ideas?
Note that I'm looking for some best practice or something including a code sample, not some random ideas. Also, if I'm bound to a $this->class->method style pattern, then would I implement this efficiently?
In response to Sébastien Renauld's comments: here's an article on Dependency Injection (DI) and Inversion of Control (IoC) with some examples, and a few extra words on the Hollywood principle (quite important when working on a framework).
Saying your classes won't ever need more than a single instance doesn't mean that statics are a must. Far from it, actually. If you browse this site, and read through PHP questions that deal with the singleton "pattern", you'll soon find out why singletons are a bit of a no-no.
I won't go into the details, but testing and singletons don't mix. Dependency injection is definitely worth a closer look. I'll leave it at that for now.
To answer your question:
Your exaple (Config::get('test')) implies you have a static property in the Config class somewhere. Now if you've done this, as you say, to facilitate access to given data, imagine what a nightmare it would be to debug your code, if that value were to change somewhere... It's a static, so change it once, and it's changed everywhere. Finding out where it was changed might be harder than you anticipated. Even so, that's nothing compared to the issues someone who uses your code will have in the same situation.
And yet, the real problems will only start when that person using your code wants to test whatever it is he/she made: If you want to have access to an instance in a given object, that has been instantiated in some class, there are plenty of ways to do so (especially in a framework):
class Application
{//base class of your framework
private $defaulDB = null;
public $env = null;
public function __construct($env = 'test')
{
$this->env = $env;
}
private function connectDB(PDO $connection = null)
{
if ($connection === null)
{
$connection = new PDO();//you know the deal...
}
$this->defaultDB = $connection;
}
public function getDB(PDO $conn = null)
{//get connection
if ($this->defaultDB === null)
{
$this->connectDB($conn);
}
return $this->defaultDB;
}
public function registerController(MyConstroller $controller)
{//<== magic!
$controller->registerApplication($this);
return $this;
}
}
As you can see, the Application class has a method that passes the Application instance to your controller, or whatever part of your framework you want to grant access to scope of the Application class.
Note that I've declared the defaultDB property as a private property, so I'm using a getter. I can, if I wanted to, pass a connection to that getter. There's a lot more you can do with that connection, of course, but I can't be bothered writing a full framework to show you everything you can do here :).
Basically, all your controllers will extend the MyController class, which could be an abstract class that looks like this:
abstract class MyController
{
private $app = null;
protected $db = null;
public function __construct(Application $app = null)
{
if ($app !== null)
{
return $this->registerApplication($app);
}
}
public function registerApplication(Application $app)
{
$this->app = $app;
return $this;
}
public function getApplication()
{
return $this->app;
}
}
So in your code, you can easily do something along the lines of:
$controller = new MyController($this);//assuming the instance is created in the Application class
$controller = new MyController();
$controller->registerApplication($appInstance);
In both cases, you can get that single DB instance like so:
$controller->getApplication()->getDB();
You can test your framework with easily by passing a different DB connection to the getDB method, if the defaultDB property hasn't been set in this case. With some extra work you can register multiple DB connections at the same time and access those at will, too:
$controller->getApplication->getDB(new PDO());//pass test connection here...
This is, by no means, the full explanation, but I wanted to get this answer in quite quickly before you end up with a huge static (and thus useless) codebase.
In response to comments from OP:
On how I'd tackle the Config class. Honestly, I'd pretty much do the same thing as I'd do with the defaultDB property as shown above. But I'd probably allow for more targeted control on what class gets access to what part of the config:
class Application
{
private $config = null;
public function __construct($env = 'test', $config = null)
{//get default config path or use path passed as argument
$this->config = new Config(parse_ini_file($config));
}
public function registerController(MyController $controller)
{
$controller->setApplication($this);
}
public function registerDB(MyDB $wrapper, $connect = true)
{//assume MyDB is a wrapper class, that gets the connection data from the config
$wrapper->setConfig(new Config($this->config->getSection('DB')));
$this->defaultDB = $wrapper;
return $this;
}
}
class MyController
{
private $app = null;
public function getApplication()
{
return $this->app;
}
public function setApplication(Application $app)
{
$this->app = $app;
return $this;
}
//Optional:
public function getConfig()
{
return $this->app->getConfig();
}
public function getDB()
{
return $this->app->getDB();
}
}
Those last two methods aren't really required, you could just as well write something like:
$controller->getApplication()->getConfig();
Again, this snippet is all a bit messy and incomplete, but it does go to show you that you can "expose" certain properties of one class, by passing a reference to that class to another. Even if the properties are private, you can use getters to access them all the same. You can also use various register-methods to control what it is the registered object is allowed to see, as I've done with the DB-wrapper in my snippet. A DB class shouldn't deal with viewscripts and namespaces, or autoloaders. That's why I'm only registering the DB section of the config.
Basically, a lot of your main components will end up sharing a number of methods. In other words, they'll end up implementing a given interface. For each main component (assuming the classic MVC pattern), you'll have one abstract base-class, and an inheritance chain of 1 or 2 levels of child classes: Abstract Controller > DefaultController > ProjectSpecificController.
At the same time, all of these classes will probably expect another instance to be passed to them when constructed. Just look at the index.php of any ZendFW project:
$application = new Zend_Application(APPLICATION_ENV);
$application->bootstrap()->run();
That's all you can see, but inside the application, all other classes are being instantiated. That's why you can access neigh on everything from anywhere: all classes have been instantiated inside another class along these lines:
public function initController(Request $request)
{
$this->currentController = $request->getController();
$this->currentController = new $this->currentController($this);
return $this->currentController->init($request)
->{$request->getAction().'Action'}();
}
By passing $this to the constructor of a controller class, that class can use various getters and setters to get to whatever it needs... Look at the examples above, it could use getDB, or getConfig and use that data if that's what it needs.
That's how most frameworks I've tinkered or worked with function: The application is kicks into action and determines what needs to be done. That's the Hollywood-principle, or Inversion of Control: the Application is started, and the application determines what classes it needs when. In the link I provided I believe this is compared to a store creating its own customers: the store is built, and decides what it wants to sell. In order to sell it, it will create the clients it wants, and provide them with the means they need to purchase the goods...
And, before I forget: Yes, all this can be done without a single static variable, let alone function, coming into play. I've built my own framework, and I've never felt there was no other way than to "go static". I did use the Factory pattern at first, but ditched it pretty quickly.
IMHO, a good framework is modular: you should be able to use bits of it (like Symfony's components), without issues. Using the Factory pattern makes you assume too much. You assume class X will be available, which isn't a given.
Registering those classes that are available makes for far more portable components. Consider this:
class AssumeFactory
{
private $db = null;
public function getDB(PDO $db = null)
{
if ($db === null)
{
$config = Factory::getConfig();//assumes Config class
$db = new PDO($config->getDBString());
}
$this->db = $db;
return $this->db;
}
}
As opposed to:
class RegisteredApplication
{//assume this is registered to current Application
public function getDB(PDO $fallback = null, $setToApplication = false)
{
if ($this->getApplication()->getDB() === null)
{//defensive
if ($setToApplication === true && $fallback !== null)
{
$this->getApplication()->setDB($fallback);
return $fallback;//this is current connection
}
if ($fallback === null && $this->getApplication()->getConfig() !== null)
{//if DB is not set #app, check config:
$fallback = $this->getApplication()->getConfig()->getSection('DB');
$fallback = new PDO($fallback->connString, $fallback->user, $fallback->pass);
return $fallback;
}
throw new RuntimeException('No DB connection set #app, no fallback');
}
if ($setToApplication === true && $fallback !== null)
{
$this->getApplication()->setDB($fallback);
}
return $this->getApplication()->getDB();
}
}
Though the latter version is slightly more work to write, it's quite clear which of the two is the better bet. The first version just assumes too much, and doesn't allow for safety-nets. It's also quite dictatorial: suppose I've written a test, and I need the results to go to another DB. I therefore need to change the DB connection, for the entire application (user input, errors, stats... they're all likely to be stored in a DB).
For those two reasons alone, the second snippet is the better candidate: I can pass another DB connection, that overwrites the application default, or, if I don't want to do that, I can either use the default connection, or attempt to create the default connection. Store the connection I just made, or not... the choice is entirely mine. If nothing works, I just get a RuntimeException thrown at me, but that's not the point.
Magic methods would help you: see the examples about __get() and __set()
You should also take a look at namespaces: it may help you to get rid of some classes with static methods only.
An ethical question here.
I'm planning on using several manager classes in my new project that will be performing various tasks across the whole project. These classes are singletons, but require construction based on parameters.
As to when/where this construction has to happen, I have mixed feelings. I have these options so far:
Option A
It's easy to just pass these parameters to the getInstance method while having a default null value. On the very first call the parameters will be used, and any additional calls completely ignore them.
While this works, doing so feels rather unlogical, for the following reasons:
It makes documentation unclear. getInstance' first parameter must be of type Collection, but can be null... what's going on here?
You can argue that writing a line about this in the description will clear it up, but I'd prefer clarification to be unneccesary.
It feels faulty to pass getInstance any construction parameters. This is due to the fact that the method name does not explicity hint towards construction, making it unclear it will happen.
Option B
I'm thinking about a setup method. This method takes all parameters, calls the class constructor, and changes the internal class state to initialized.
When calling the getInstance method prior to setup, it will throw a NotInitializedException. After setup has been called, any additional calls to setup will result in a PreviouslyInitializedException.
After setup has been called, getInstance becomes available.
Personally, this option appeals more to me. But it feels excessive.
What option do you prefer? And why?
I would probably try and ditch the singleton approach and pass manager classes around to whatever needs them.
$manager = new Manager( $collection, $var, $var2 );
$other_class = New OtherClass( $manager );
//or
$other_class = New OtherClass;
$other_class->manager = $manager;
//or
$other_class = New OtherClass;
$other_class->setManager( $manager );
Use dependency injection to pass the Manager object around. Don't use Singleton pattern. It's a common consensus that using it creates a global state and makes your API deceptive.
PHP Global in functions (jump to answer)
Singletons are pathological liars
Inject the Manager instance to any class that needs it via the constructor. Each class should not try to instantiate Manager by themselves, the only way the classes get an instance of the Manager is by getting it from constructor.
class NeedsManager
{
protected $manager;
public function __construct(Manager $manager)
{
$this->manager = $manager;
}
}
You don't need to enforce one instance of Manager. Just don't instantiate it more than once. If all of your classes that need an instance of Manager get what they need from the constructor and never tries to instantiate it on their own, it will assure that there's just going to be one instance in your application.
How about option 3. If they are true singletons, set up properties files for their parameters for use with a no-arg getInstance.
If that doesn't fit, you might be misusing the singleton pattern.
You are looking at using a Factory design pattern. Factories are objects that act as fancy constructors for other objects. In your case, you will move setup and getInstance to the factory. The wiki article's pretty good- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_method_pattern
class SingletonFoo {
//properties, etc
static $singleton = NULL;
private function __constructor(){}
static function getInstance(){
if(NULL === self::$singleton) {
self::$singleton = new SingletonFoo();
}
return self::$singleton;
}
}
class FooFactory {
static $SingletonFoo = null;
static function setup($args){
if( !(NULL === self::$SingletonFoo)){
throw new AlreadyInstantiatedException();
}
self::$SingletonFoo = SingletonFoo::getInstance();
//Do stuff with $args to build SingletonFoo
return self::$SingletonFoo;
}
static function getInstance(){
if(NULL === self::$SingletonFoo) {
throw new NotInstantiatedException();
}
return self::$SingletonFoo;
}
}
Don't use Singleton, use Resources Manager (or Service Container, or DI Container):
class ResourceManager
{
protected static $resource;
public static function setResource($resource)
{
if (!empty(self::$resource)) //resource should not be overwritten
{
if ($resource!=self::$resource) return false;
else return true;
}
self::$resource = $resource;
return true;
}
public static function getResource()
{
return self::$resource;
}
}
Resource Manager allows you to set any custom classes for unit-testing (like dependency injection), you can just get needed resources without requesting them in constructor (I like DI, but sometimes it's just more handy to use empty constructors).
Ready-to-use variant: http://symfony.com/doc/current/book/service_container.html (I don't like to move logic from code to configs, but in stand-alone module it looks acceptable).