PHP and Python static methods in objects, two different worlds...? - php

i'm php coder, trying to get into python world, and it's very hard for me.
Biggest enjoy of static methods in php is automatic builder of instance. No need to declare object, if you needed it once, in every file (or with different constructor params , in one line)
<?php
class Foo {
function __constructor__(){
$this->var = 'blah';
}
public static function aStaticMethod() {
return $this->var;
}
}
echo Foo::aStaticMethod();
?>
we can call constructor from static method don't we? and we can access everything in class as it would be simple method ... we can even have STATIC CONSTRUCTOR in php class and call it like so: Object::construct()->myMethod(); (to pass different params every time)
but not in python???? #staticmethod makes method in class a simple function that doesn't see totally anything ??
class socket(object):
def __init__(self):
self.oclass = otherclass()
print 'test' # does this constructor called at all when calling static method??
#staticmethod
def ping():
return self.oclass.send('PING') # i can't access anything!!!
print Anidb.ping()
I can't access anything from that god damned static method, it's like a standalone function or something like this..??
Maybe I'm using the wrong decorator? Maybe there's something like php offers with static methods in python?
1) Please tell why static methods is isolated
2) Please tell me how to make the same behavior like php static methods have.
3) Please tell me alternative practical use of this, if php static methods behavior is a bad thing
P.s. the goal of all this to write totally less code as much as possible.
P.p.s Heavy commenting of sample code is appreciated
Thank you.

static methods in PHP are not as you believe, they can't access to instance members. No $this! with them.
<?php
class Foo {
public static $var = 'foo ';
function __construct(){
echo 'constructing ';
$this->var = 'blah ';
}
public function aMethod() {
return $this->var;
}
public static function aStaticMethod() {
#return $this->$var; -> you can't do that,
# $this can be accessed only in instance methods, not static
return self::$var;
}
}
$foo = new Foo();
echo $foo->aMethod();
echo Foo::aStaticMethod();
?>
Python has three kind of methods in objects static methods are like functions defined ouside classes, the only use to put them in object is to keep them with the class as helper functions. class methods can access only to variables defined in the class (decorator #classmethod). This is more or less what PHP calls static members or methods. The first parameter of such methods sould be cls, and content of class can be accessed through cls. Normal methods must get self as first parameter and are the only ones to be able to access to instance members.
If you want several objects of the same type you definitely need instances, and the other types are not what you are looking for. If you only have one instance of an object, you could use class methods instead (or PHP static methods).
But in most case you should not bother doing that if you don't know why and just stick with instances of objects and normal methods, doing otherwise is premature optimization and your code is likely to bite you later because of the many restrictions you introduce.

You want classmethod instead. That provides the class as the first argument.
EDIT:
class C(object):
foo = 42
#classmethod
def printfoo(cls):
print cls.foo
C.printfoo()

I see you've already accepted another answer, but I'm not sure that it will work with your code. Specifically, the oclass variable is only created for instances of the class, not for the class itself. You could do it like this:
class socket(object):
oclass = otherclass()
#classmethod
def ping(cls):
return cls.oclass.send('PING')
socket.ping()
However, using your existing code and removing all decorators, you could simply instantiate it and use a method on the same line:
socket().ping()

Related

Difference in Class Calling PHP

With learning fuelPHP, I am introduced on calling classes using scope resolution, or :: in sense. Typically, when we call a method in a class we do this ...
$myclass = new myclass();
$myclass->mymethod();
On fuel, methods are usually called in this manner ...
myclass::mymethod();
I was wondering if there are any difference between the two? Is the scope resolution is something of an update on 5.3 as well ... if not, which one is ideal, or when should I use these.
Thanks.
The scope resolution operator is used to access either class constants like ::const, static variables like ::$var or call static methods like ::method().
See http://php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.static.php
Static methods can be called without having an instance of the class they are defined in. They're defined in that class with the static keyword.
For example, one of CakePHP's static methods is defined like this:
class ClassRegistry {
// ...
public static function &getInstance() {
// ...
}
}
... which you can call like ClassRegistry::getInstance().
Without the static keyword, you'd need an instance of the ClassRegistry class to call that function.
You can read more here, especially about why using static methods in your own code can sometimes be a bad idea: http://kore-nordmann.de/blog/0103_static_considered_harmful.html
I am not sure how would myclass::mymethod(); work, since I use such syntax only when I am calling a STATIC class.
MyClass::DoSomething();
would call a static method named DoSomething()
while
$instance = new MyClass();
$instance->DoSomething();
would call the instance method.
I have not tested it but I believe you will run into an error if you do $instance::DoSomething()
I think the best way to understand why there is a static call and what it does behind the scene is to check this FuelPHP blog's entry: http://fuelphp.com/blog/2011/05/why-did-you-do-that
The obvious difference is that the first solution $myObject->myMethod() it's a dynamic call : you need an instance to execute myMethod().
In the second solution, MyClass::myMethod() is a static call. The class acts as a sort of namespace where a function belong. You don't need an instance for that.

Static methods in PHP

Why in PHP you can access static method via instance of some class but not only via type name?
UPDATE: I'm .net developer but i work with php developers too. Recently i've found this moment about static methods called from instance and can't understand why it can be usefull.
EXAMPLE:
class Foo
{
public static Bar()
{
}
}
We can accept method like this:
var $foo = new Foo();
$foo.Bar(); // ??????
In PHP
the class is instantiated using the new keyword for example;
$MyClass = new MyClass();
and the static method or properties can be accessed by using either scope resolution operator or object reference operator. For example, if the class MyClass contains the static method Foo() then you can access it by either way.
$MyClass->Foo();
Or
MyClass::Foo()
The only rule is that static methods or properties are out of object context. For example, you cannot use $this inside of a static method.
Class Do {
static public function test() {
return 0;
}
}
use like this :
echo Do::test();
Why in PHP you can access static method via instance of some class but not only via type name?
Unlike what you are probably used to with .NET, PHP has dynamic types. Consider:
class Foo
{
static public function staticMethod() { }
}
class Bar
{
static public function staticMethod() { }
}
function doSomething($obj)
{
// What type is $obj? We don't care.
$obj->staticMethod();
}
doSomething(new Foo());
doSomething(new Bar());
So by allowing access to static methods via the object instance, you can more easily call a static function of the same name across different types.
Now I don't know if there is a good reason why accessing the static method via -> is allowed. PHP (5.3?) also supports:
$obj::staticMethod();
which is perhaps less confusing. When using ::, it must be a static function to avoid warnings (unlike ->, which permits either).
In PHP, while you're allowed to access the static method by referencing an instance of the class, you don't necessarily need to do so.
For example, here is a class with a static function:
class MyClass{
public static function MyFunction($param){
$mynumber=param*2;
return $mynumber;
}
You can access the static method just by the type name like this, but in this case you have to use the double colon (::), instead of "->".
$result= MyClass::MyFunction(2);
(Please note you can also access the static method via an instance of the class as well using "-->"). For more information: http://php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.static.php
In PHP 7 it seems to be absolutely necessary for you to be able to do $this->staticFunction(). Because, if this code is written within an abstract class and staticFunction() is also abstract in your abstract class, $this-> and self:: deliver different results!
When executing $this->staticFunction() from a (non-abstract) child of the abstract class, you end up in child::staticFunction(). All is well.
However, executing self::staticFunction() from a (non-abstract) child of the abstract class, you end up in parent::staticFunction(), which is abstract, and thusly throws an exception.
I guess this is just another example of badly designed PHP.
Or myself needing more coffee...

PHP Call Function in a Class - Is there a simpler way?

I am very new to OOP and very rusty on PHP. I was wondering if this is a valid method to call a function from a class?
class newclass {
public function testfunc {
return '1';
}
}
Could I call it like this:
echo testfunc->newclass();
or like this:
echo newclass()::testfunc;
I always see it defined in examples like below and it seemed like extra code?:
$this = new newclass();
$this->testfunc();
echo $this;
Any help would be greatly appreciated as I'm just starting to wrap my head around this OOP thing. If I'm out to lunch maybe someone could suggest a link to a really good guide for a true beginner in classes/OOP. Thanks!
Both ways work and have their use cases.
Your first case is a regular function call using an instance of a class, your second case is a call to a static function.
Static should be used with care and the use of it is very often a sign that refactoring/redesign is necessary.
The point of object oriented programming is to model the world by writing classes (blueprints) and then create as many independent instances of that class with the word new as needed. Each instance is a little organism with the DNA of the class and you can call the same class method on every single instance without influencing the other instances.
A static call however is not related to an instance of a class and therefore there is no object being used. It's a global call of some tool functionality and in fact breaks the idea of encapsulation.
So, I'm not saying there are no use cases for static classes and methods but they should be used with care.
new is the keyword to instantiate the class. If you want to use a method without an instance of the class, it should be a static method. to have a static method, declare the method as static.
class foo
{
public static function bar()
{
return 'hello!';
}
}
How to use it?
echo foo::bar(); //Will print hello
You could make testfunc static and call it like so:
class newclass{
public static function testfunc{
return '1';
}
}
echo newclass::testfunc();
There is nothing like this echo testfunc->newclass(); and doing it like
$class = new newclass();
echo $class->testfunc();
is the proper way to do it when the method is an instance method and not a static one. Note, there is no ability to reference $this within the static method.
You can create a static wrapper for the constructor which would allow for chaining method calls on the same line.
<?php
class ClassA {
static function create() { return new self(); }
function method1() { ... }
}
ClassA::create()->method1();
you can include the php file that contains your functions
<?php
//print.php
function printHello(){
echo "Hello world";
}
?>
then include it and call the function...
<?php
include "print.php";
printHello();
?>

Static or not static?

What is better to use in this context, static methods, or simple public method and call them always like this: $request = new Request();
if($request->isPostRequest()){ do smth }
ofcourse its easier to use static, but what is more properly to use?
Class Request {
public static function isSecureConnection() {}
public static function isPostRequest() {}
public static function isAjaxRequest() {}
...etc
}
If each Request is a genuine entity, then it would be better to use non-static members. But if it's not and methods are used in general, like Sinus function in math, then they'd be better to be static.
Overall it'd be better to declare static functions in a class that is just consisted of functions and no data members.
You should always create a class like if it was to be used on a non-static environment.
Then you can use that as a Singleton with lazy-instantiation. Or even as a Static class instantiation. Or even as a Standalone instance object. You decide later what to do with it.
If you start by declaring all members as static you are basically just covering a bunch of Global variables inside a glorified namespace known as a Class. You also will statically allocate the memory used by that class even if you don't call it or use it in your code.
So, just write as a Class, then you decide what to do with it. Static/Non-Static. Singleton/Instance. Factory Pattern or not. Memory Allocator X/DLL bound or whatnot.
The only exception is static members used for book-keeping in behalf of the Object Instances; things like reference counting, caches and things like that. That is the good thing about static/non-static, you can mix and match for some clever behaviors.
What if later you wanted another Request? Or what would happen if you can create more than one because you are in a multithreaded environment? Things will get really strange once you go that route with statics.
It looks like you are handling one particular request.
Now this insinuates you should make it a singleton, and/or use static functions.
Reason:
There is only one request, all the state is defined by the environment delivered to the process. The class methods are just helper functions, and you want to be able to use them without class instance.
On the other hand, you would rarely use static functions with classes that represent one of many, for example one user of many, one question of many.
Declaring class properties or methods as static makes them accessible without needing an instantiation of the class. A property declared as static can not be accessed with an instantiated class object (though a static method can).
Example:
<?php
class Foo {
public static function aStaticMethod() {
// ...
}
}
Foo::aStaticMethod();
$classname = 'Foo';
$classname::aStaticMethod(); // As of PHP 5.3.0
?>
See the reference of Static Keyword from php.net.
If you can, use static methods as a default. static methods run quicker than their non-static counterparts.

Can I use private instance methods as callbacks?

My particular scenario involves doing some text transformation using regular expressions within a private method. The private method calls preg_replace_callback, but is seems that callbacks need to be public on objects, so I'm stuck breaking out of the private world and exposing implementation details when I'd rather not.
So, in a nutshell: Can I use an instance method as a callback without losing encapsulation?
Thanks.
Yes, it seems you can:
<?php
//this works
class a {
private function replaceCallback($m) { return 'replaced'; }
public function test() {
$str = " test test ";
$result = preg_replace_callback('/test/', array($this, 'replaceCallback'), $str);
echo $result;
}
}
$a = new a();
$a->test();
//this doesn't work
$result = preg_replace_callback('/test/', array(new a(), 'replaceCallback'), ' test test ');
echo $result;
So it seems that preg_replace_callback(), or PHP's callback mechanism, is aware of the scope in which it was called.
Tested on 5.2.8
Can you create a separate helper class for text processing, and create the callback method within that class (it can be public there)? You can pass in a reference to the original class(object) if you need access to specific instance data.
The public interface to your main class remains consistent and clean, and you pull specific string processing out of a class it probably doesn't belong in anyway...
Can you not use protected? I'd need to know what the relationship of these two classes were in relation to each other to be more clear, but you should be able to extend the class and use the new protected methods you have inherited without making them public.
Hope this helps!
Cheers

Categories