I have the following setup:
<?php
class core {
static $var1;
}
class parent extends core {
function getStatic() {
return parent::$var1;
}
}
class child extends parent {
function getStatic() {
// I want to access core static var, how can i do it?
//return parent::$var1;
}
}
?>
I need to be able to use parent::$var1 but from within class child.. is this possible? Am I missing something?
Just reference it as self... PHP will automatically go up the chain of inheritance until it finds a match
class core {
protected static $var1 = 'foo';
}
class foo extends core {
public static function getStatic() {
return self::$var1;
}
}
class bar extends foo {
public static function getStatic() {
return self::$var1;
}
}
Now, there will be an issue if you don't declare getStatic in bar. Let's take an example:
class foo1 extends core {
protected static $var1 = 'bar';
public static function getStatic() {
return self::$var1;
}
}
class bar1 extends foo1 {
protected static $var1 = 'baz';
}
Now, you'd expect foo1::getStatic() to return bar (and it will). But what will Bar1::getStatic() return? It'll return bar as well. This is called late static binding. If you want it to return baz, you need to use static::$var1 instead of self::$var1 (PHP 5.3+ only)...
core::$var1 seems best for your needs...
The biggest problem here is that you're using the keyword parent as a class name. This makes it completely ambiguous whether your calls to parent::$var1 are intended to point to that class, or to the parent of the calling class.
I believe, if you clean this up, you can achieve what you want. This code prints 'something', for example.
class core {
static $var1 = 'something';
}
class foo extends core {
function getStatic() {
return parent::$var1;
}
}
class bar extends foo {
function getStatic() {
// I want to access core static var, how can i do it?
return parent::$var1;
}
}
$b = new bar ();
echo $b->getStatic ();
It also works if you use core:: instead of parent::. Those two will behave differently, though, if you declare a static $var1 inside of the foo class as well. As is it's a single, inherited variable.
Related
I have a base class with a static function. But I would like to have a way to know the actual class (could be the base class or a derived class) within whose context I am calling the static function.
For example:
<?php
class Foo
{
static function Test()
{
$c = self::class;
echo "Hello, I am creating a new instance of type $c";
return new $c;
}
}
class Bar extends Foo
{
public $someProperty;
}
$b = Bar::Test(); // This should do something different than Foo::Test();
?>
Note that the self::class in the Test() function always results in 'Foo' even if I'm calling it using the Bar:: context.
I understand I could override the Test() function in Bar but that's not what I want, I want to keep the implemented functionality in the base Test() function. But just with the actual static class context that I'm calling it with.
Is there a way for the above Test() function to say "I am creating a new instance of type Bar" and return a Bar instance, rather than a Foo ?
Let me introduced you to late static binding.
Consider the following code, it's not exactly like yours but it highlight's the issue I believe you are facing.
<?php
class A
{
public static $string = 'I am from class A';
public static function getString()
{
return self::$string;
}
}
class B extends A
{
public static $string = 'I am from class B';
}
B::getString(); // returns 'I am from class A' ???!
?>
To get around this you can use late static binding to use the variable at run time context (rather than at compile time context)
<?php
class A
{
public static $string = 'I am from class A';
public static function getString()
{
return static::$string; // note the change here
}
}
class B extends A
{
public static $string = 'I am from class B';
}
B::getString(); // returns 'I am from class B' and all is well
?>
Far more information than I can give you is available here: https://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.late-static-bindings.php
Is there any way to define abstract class properties in PHP?
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public $tablename;
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' $property
public $tablename = 'users';
}
There is no such thing as defining a property.
You can only declare properties because they are containers of data reserved in memory on initialization.
A function on the other hand can be declared (types, name, parameters) without being defined (function body missing) and thus, can be made abstract.
"Abstract" only indicates that something was declared but not defined and therefore before using it, you need to define it or it becomes useless.
No, there is no way to enforce that with the compiler, you'd have to use run-time checks (say, in the constructor) for the $tablename variable, e.g.:
class Foo_Abstract {
public final function __construct(/*whatever*/) {
if(!isset($this->tablename))
throw new LogicException(get_class($this) . ' must have a $tablename');
}
}
To enforce this for all derived classes of Foo_Abstract you would have to make Foo_Abstract's constructor final, preventing overriding.
You could declare an abstract getter instead:
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public function get_tablename();
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
protected $tablename = 'tablename';
public function get_tablename() {
return $this->tablename;
}
}
Depending on the context of the property, if I want to force declaration of an abstract class property in an extended class, I like to use a constant with the static keyword for the property in the abstract object constructor or setter/getter methods. You can optionally use final to prevent the method from being overridden in extended classes.
Example: https://3v4l.org/WH5Xl
abstract class AbstractFoo
{
public $bar;
final public function __construct()
{
$this->bar = static::BAR;
}
}
class Foo extends AbstractFoo
{
//const BAR = 'foobar'; //uncomment to prevent exception
}
$foo = new Foo();
//Fatal Error: Undefined class constant 'BAR'
However, the extended class overrides the parent class properties and methods if redefined.
For example; if a property is declared as protected in the parent and redefined as public in the extended class, the resulting property is public. Otherwise, if the property is declared private in the parent it will remain private and not available to the extended class.
http://www.php.net//manual/en/language.oop5.static.php
As stated above, there is no such exact definition.
I, however, use this simple workaround to force the child class to define the "abstract" property:
abstract class Father
{
public $name;
abstract protected function setName(); // now every child class must declare this
// function and thus declare the property
public function __construct()
{
$this->setName();
}
}
class Son extends Father
{
protected function setName()
{
$this->name = "son";
}
function __construct(){
parent::__construct();
}
}
The need for abstract properties can indicate design problems. While many of answers implement kind of Template method pattern and it works, it always looks kind of strange.
Let's take a look at the original example:
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public $tablename;
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' $property
public $tablename = 'users';
}
To mark something abstract is to indicate it a must-have thing. Well, a must-have value (in this case) is a required dependency, so it should be passed to the constructor during instantiation:
class Table
{
private $name;
public function __construct(string $name)
{
$this->name = $name;
}
public function name(): string
{
return $this->name;
}
}
Then if you actually want a more concrete named class you can inherit like so:
final class UsersTable extends Table
{
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct('users');
}
}
This can be useful if you use DI container and have to pass different tables for different objects.
I've asked myself the same question today, and I'd like to add my two cents.
The reason we would like abstract properties is to make sure that subclasses define them and throw exceptions when they don't. In my specific case, I needed something that could work with statically.
Ideally I would like something like this:
abstract class A {
abstract protected static $prop;
}
class B extends A {
protected static $prop = 'B prop'; // $prop defined, B loads successfully
}
class C extends A {
// throws an exception when loading C for the first time because $prop
// is not defined.
}
I ended up with this implementation
abstract class A
{
// no $prop definition in A!
public static final function getProp()
{
return static::$prop;
}
}
class B extends A
{
protected static $prop = 'B prop';
}
class C extends A
{
}
As you can see, in A I don't define $prop, but I use it in a static getter. Therefore, the following code works
B::getProp();
// => 'B prop'
$b = new B();
$b->getProp();
// => 'B prop'
In C, on the other hand, I don't define $prop, so I get exceptions:
C::getProp();
// => Exception!
$c = new C();
$c->getProp();
// => Exception!
I must call the getProp() method to get the exception and I can't get it on class loading, but it is quite close to the desired behavior, at least in my case.
I define getProp() as final to avoid that some smart guy (aka myself in 6 months) is tempted to do
class D extends A {
public static function getProp() {
// really smart
}
}
D::getProp();
// => no exception...
As you could have found out by just testing your code:
Fatal error: Properties cannot be declared abstract in ... on line 3
No, there is not. Properties cannot be declared abstract in PHP.
However you can implement a getter/setter function abstract, this might be what you're looking for.
Properties aren't implemented (especially public properties), they just exist (or not):
$foo = new Foo;
$foo->publicProperty = 'Bar';
PHP 7 makes it quite a bit easier for making abstract "properties". Just as above, you will make them by creating abstract functions, but with PHP 7 you can define the return type for that function, which makes things a lot easier when you're building a base class that anyone can extend.
<?php
abstract class FooBase {
abstract public function FooProp(): string;
abstract public function BarProp(): BarClass;
public function foo() {
return $this->FooProp();
}
public function bar() {
return $this->BarProp()->name();
}
}
class BarClass {
public function name() {
return 'Bar!';
}
}
class FooClass extends FooBase {
public function FooProp(): string {
return 'Foo!';
}
public function BarProp(): BarClass {
// This would not work:
// return 'not working';
// But this will!
return new BarClass();
}
}
$test = new FooClass();
echo $test->foo() . PHP_EOL;
echo $test->bar() . PHP_EOL;
if tablename value will never change during the object's lifetime, following will be a simple yet safe implementation.
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract protected function getTablename();
public function showTableName()
{
echo 'my table name is '.$this->getTablename();
}
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' getTablename()
protected function getTablename()
{
return 'users';
}
}
the key here is that the string value 'users' is specified and returned directly in getTablename() in child class implementation. The function mimics a "readonly" property.
This is fairly similar to a solution posted earlier on which uses an additional variable. I also like Marco's solution though it can be a bit more complicated.
Just define the property in the base class without assigning it a (default) value.
Getting the property value without redefining it with a default value or assigning it a value will throw an Error.
<?php
class Base {
protected string $name;
public function i_am() : string {
return $this->name;
}
}
class Wrong extends Base {
...
}
class Good extends Base {
protected string $name = 'Somebody';
}
$test = new Good();
echo $test->i_am(), '<br>'; // Will show "Nobody"
$test = new Wrong();
echo $test->i_am(), '<br>'; // Will throw an Error:
// Error: Typed property Base::$name must not be accessed before initialization in ....
?>
You can define a static property in an abstract class.
<?php
abstract class Foo {
private static $bar = "1234";
public static function func() {
echo self::$bar;
}
}
Foo::func(); // It will be printed 1234
Too late to answer the question, but you may use the difference between self and static as follows
<?php
class A { // Base Class
protected static $name = 'ClassA';
public static function getSelfName() {
return self::$name;
}
public static function getStaticName() {
return static::$name;
}
}
class B extends A {
protected static $name = 'ClassB';
}
echo A::getSelfName(); // ClassA
echo A::getStaticName(); // ClassA
echo B::getSelfName(); // ClassA
echo B::getStaticName(); // ClassB
My Class is independant from another Class.
Inside my Class, a function is doing the same but refined job as a function in another Class. Can I use parent:: function_in_another_class() and get my function join that parent funciton's job flow?
No.
In PHP you can only extend from none or one class. As you write both classes are independent to each other, there is no information where to find the one or the other class.
But what you're looking for is probably this:
class A
{
function myFunction() {}
}
class B
{
private $a;
public function __construct(A $a)
{
$this->a = $a;
}
public function myFunction()
{
$this->a->myFunction();
}
}
If any class method already doing the same thing why would you bother call join it?
You can not do it. If you want the same job flow best way to do is to instantiate the other class and invoke that very same method. Thats why we use OOP.
See the example,
interface Fable()
{
public function f();
}
class OtherClass implements Fable
{
public function f()
{
// job flow
}
}
class MyClass
{
private $fable;
public function __construct(Fable $f)
{
$this->fable = $f;
}
public function method1($args){
return $this->fable->f($args);
}
}
If the current class is a child of another class, yes, you can. parent references to the parent class.
From php.net:
<?php
class A {
function example() {
echo "I am A::example() and provide basic functionality.<br />\n";
}
}
class B extends A {
function example() {
echo "I am B::example() and provide additional functionality.<br />\n";
parent::example();
}
}
$b = new B;
// This will call B::example(), which will in turn call A::example().
$b->example();
?>
The best you can do here is to extend Class B from Class A
Class B extends Class A
But, you can also:
class ClassA {
function do_something($args) {
// Do something
}
}
class ClassB {
function do_something_inclassA($args) {
classA::do_something($args);
}
}
Important: calling classa::do_something(); is a static call, in other words with error reporting E_STRICT you will get a static notice warning because function do_something() is not static function do_something()
Also, calling this function statically (i.e. classa::do_something()) means that class a's function cannot refer to $this within it
Is there any way to define abstract class properties in PHP?
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public $tablename;
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' $property
public $tablename = 'users';
}
There is no such thing as defining a property.
You can only declare properties because they are containers of data reserved in memory on initialization.
A function on the other hand can be declared (types, name, parameters) without being defined (function body missing) and thus, can be made abstract.
"Abstract" only indicates that something was declared but not defined and therefore before using it, you need to define it or it becomes useless.
No, there is no way to enforce that with the compiler, you'd have to use run-time checks (say, in the constructor) for the $tablename variable, e.g.:
class Foo_Abstract {
public final function __construct(/*whatever*/) {
if(!isset($this->tablename))
throw new LogicException(get_class($this) . ' must have a $tablename');
}
}
To enforce this for all derived classes of Foo_Abstract you would have to make Foo_Abstract's constructor final, preventing overriding.
You could declare an abstract getter instead:
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public function get_tablename();
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
protected $tablename = 'tablename';
public function get_tablename() {
return $this->tablename;
}
}
Depending on the context of the property, if I want to force declaration of an abstract class property in an extended class, I like to use a constant with the static keyword for the property in the abstract object constructor or setter/getter methods. You can optionally use final to prevent the method from being overridden in extended classes.
Example: https://3v4l.org/WH5Xl
abstract class AbstractFoo
{
public $bar;
final public function __construct()
{
$this->bar = static::BAR;
}
}
class Foo extends AbstractFoo
{
//const BAR = 'foobar'; //uncomment to prevent exception
}
$foo = new Foo();
//Fatal Error: Undefined class constant 'BAR'
However, the extended class overrides the parent class properties and methods if redefined.
For example; if a property is declared as protected in the parent and redefined as public in the extended class, the resulting property is public. Otherwise, if the property is declared private in the parent it will remain private and not available to the extended class.
http://www.php.net//manual/en/language.oop5.static.php
As stated above, there is no such exact definition.
I, however, use this simple workaround to force the child class to define the "abstract" property:
abstract class Father
{
public $name;
abstract protected function setName(); // now every child class must declare this
// function and thus declare the property
public function __construct()
{
$this->setName();
}
}
class Son extends Father
{
protected function setName()
{
$this->name = "son";
}
function __construct(){
parent::__construct();
}
}
The need for abstract properties can indicate design problems. While many of answers implement kind of Template method pattern and it works, it always looks kind of strange.
Let's take a look at the original example:
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract public $tablename;
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' $property
public $tablename = 'users';
}
To mark something abstract is to indicate it a must-have thing. Well, a must-have value (in this case) is a required dependency, so it should be passed to the constructor during instantiation:
class Table
{
private $name;
public function __construct(string $name)
{
$this->name = $name;
}
public function name(): string
{
return $this->name;
}
}
Then if you actually want a more concrete named class you can inherit like so:
final class UsersTable extends Table
{
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct('users');
}
}
This can be useful if you use DI container and have to pass different tables for different objects.
I've asked myself the same question today, and I'd like to add my two cents.
The reason we would like abstract properties is to make sure that subclasses define them and throw exceptions when they don't. In my specific case, I needed something that could work with statically.
Ideally I would like something like this:
abstract class A {
abstract protected static $prop;
}
class B extends A {
protected static $prop = 'B prop'; // $prop defined, B loads successfully
}
class C extends A {
// throws an exception when loading C for the first time because $prop
// is not defined.
}
I ended up with this implementation
abstract class A
{
// no $prop definition in A!
public static final function getProp()
{
return static::$prop;
}
}
class B extends A
{
protected static $prop = 'B prop';
}
class C extends A
{
}
As you can see, in A I don't define $prop, but I use it in a static getter. Therefore, the following code works
B::getProp();
// => 'B prop'
$b = new B();
$b->getProp();
// => 'B prop'
In C, on the other hand, I don't define $prop, so I get exceptions:
C::getProp();
// => Exception!
$c = new C();
$c->getProp();
// => Exception!
I must call the getProp() method to get the exception and I can't get it on class loading, but it is quite close to the desired behavior, at least in my case.
I define getProp() as final to avoid that some smart guy (aka myself in 6 months) is tempted to do
class D extends A {
public static function getProp() {
// really smart
}
}
D::getProp();
// => no exception...
As you could have found out by just testing your code:
Fatal error: Properties cannot be declared abstract in ... on line 3
No, there is not. Properties cannot be declared abstract in PHP.
However you can implement a getter/setter function abstract, this might be what you're looking for.
Properties aren't implemented (especially public properties), they just exist (or not):
$foo = new Foo;
$foo->publicProperty = 'Bar';
PHP 7 makes it quite a bit easier for making abstract "properties". Just as above, you will make them by creating abstract functions, but with PHP 7 you can define the return type for that function, which makes things a lot easier when you're building a base class that anyone can extend.
<?php
abstract class FooBase {
abstract public function FooProp(): string;
abstract public function BarProp(): BarClass;
public function foo() {
return $this->FooProp();
}
public function bar() {
return $this->BarProp()->name();
}
}
class BarClass {
public function name() {
return 'Bar!';
}
}
class FooClass extends FooBase {
public function FooProp(): string {
return 'Foo!';
}
public function BarProp(): BarClass {
// This would not work:
// return 'not working';
// But this will!
return new BarClass();
}
}
$test = new FooClass();
echo $test->foo() . PHP_EOL;
echo $test->bar() . PHP_EOL;
if tablename value will never change during the object's lifetime, following will be a simple yet safe implementation.
abstract class Foo_Abstract {
abstract protected function getTablename();
public function showTableName()
{
echo 'my table name is '.$this->getTablename();
}
}
class Foo extends Foo_Abstract {
//Foo must 'implement' getTablename()
protected function getTablename()
{
return 'users';
}
}
the key here is that the string value 'users' is specified and returned directly in getTablename() in child class implementation. The function mimics a "readonly" property.
This is fairly similar to a solution posted earlier on which uses an additional variable. I also like Marco's solution though it can be a bit more complicated.
Just define the property in the base class without assigning it a (default) value.
Getting the property value without redefining it with a default value or assigning it a value will throw an Error.
<?php
class Base {
protected string $name;
public function i_am() : string {
return $this->name;
}
}
class Wrong extends Base {
...
}
class Good extends Base {
protected string $name = 'Somebody';
}
$test = new Good();
echo $test->i_am(), '<br>'; // Will show "Nobody"
$test = new Wrong();
echo $test->i_am(), '<br>'; // Will throw an Error:
// Error: Typed property Base::$name must not be accessed before initialization in ....
?>
You can define a static property in an abstract class.
<?php
abstract class Foo {
private static $bar = "1234";
public static function func() {
echo self::$bar;
}
}
Foo::func(); // It will be printed 1234
Too late to answer the question, but you may use the difference between self and static as follows
<?php
class A { // Base Class
protected static $name = 'ClassA';
public static function getSelfName() {
return self::$name;
}
public static function getStaticName() {
return static::$name;
}
}
class B extends A {
protected static $name = 'ClassB';
}
echo A::getSelfName(); // ClassA
echo A::getStaticName(); // ClassA
echo B::getSelfName(); // ClassA
echo B::getStaticName(); // ClassB
Here's some working code:
class A {
public $Foo;
public function GetFoo() {
$this->Foo = 'Bar';
}
}
class B extends A {
function __construct() {
$this->GetFoo();
echo $this->Foo;
}
}
$b = new B(); // Outputs "Bar"
Is there any way I can make this "prettier" (i.e. without the A::GetFoo() method)? I would've thought that wrapping the population of the $this->Foo inside a A::__construct() would work, but it doesn't.
Just to wrap it up, here's what I want: class A instantiates my DB object and that object is usable for every child class of A.
Perhaps you're overriding the parent's constructor without calling in from B?
class A {
protected $Foo = null;
public function __construct() {
$this->Foo = 'Bar';
}
}
class B extends A {
public function __construct() {
parent::__construct();
echo $this->Foo;
}
}
From the PHP manual:
"Class properties must be defined as
public, private, or protected. If
declared using var without an explicit
visibility keyword, the property will
be defined as public."
So, your class B can see $this->Foo. You don't have to call GetFoo() first. You must, however, call the parent constructor first if you need to reference $this->Foo inside of your constructor for class B.