Find out which class called a method in another class - php

Is there a way in PHP to find out what object called what method in another object.
Exmaple:
class Foo
{
public function __construct()
{
$bar = new Bar();
$bar->test();
}
}
class Bar
{
public function test()
{
}
}
$foo = new Foo();
Would there be a way for me to find out that the test method was called from the foo object?

you could use debug_backtrace, a bit like this :
BTW, take a look at the comments on the manual page : there are some useful functions and advices given ;-)
class Foo
{
public function __construct()
{
$bar = new Bar();
$bar->test();
}
}
class Bar
{
public function test()
{
$trace = debug_backtrace();
if (isset($trace[1])) {
// $trace[0] is ourself
// $trace[1] is our caller
// and so on...
var_dump($trace[1]);
echo "called by {$trace[1]['class']} :: {$trace[1]['function']}";
}
}
}
$foo = new Foo();
The var_dump would output :
array
'file' => string '/home/squale/developpement/tests/temp/temp.php' (length=46)
'line' => int 29
'function' => string '__construct' (length=11)
'class' => string 'Foo' (length=3)
'object' =>
object(Foo)[1]
'type' => string '->' (length=2)
'args' =>
array
empty
and the echo :
called by Foo :: __construct
But, as nice as it might look like, I am not sure it should be used as a "normal thing" in your application... Seems odd, actually : with a good design, a method should not need to know what called it, in my opinion.

Here is one liner solution
list(, $caller) = debug_backtrace(false, 2);
As of PHP7 this won't work based on the docs: http://php.net/manual/en/function.list.php as we cannot have empty properties, here is a small update:
list($childClass, $caller) = debug_backtrace(false, 2);

You could also have the calling object pass itself as an argument
e.g.
class Foo
{
public function __construct()
{
$bar = new Bar();
$bar->test($this);
}
}
class Bar
{
public function test()
{
}
}
$foo = new Foo();
I got this idea from the book "Design Patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software" by Erich Gamma, et al, on page 278 in the discussion on the "Mediator" structural pattern.
The point of the pattern is to reduce the number of many-to-many connections between a bunch of objects/classes. You create a mediator class that all those classes treat as a hub. That way the classes don't need to know about each other. The mediator handles the interactions. For the mediator to be informed of changes in the classes it tracks, they can pass themselves as arguments, or the mediator can be implemented using the "Observer" pattern.
2018 EDIT:
I sometimes use interfaces with the above code, like this:
interface someInterface // many classes may implement this interface
{
public function giveMeBar();
}
class Foo implements someInterface
{
public function __construct()
{
$bar = new Bar();
$bar->test($this);
}
public function giveMeBar() {
return 'Bar';
}
}
class Bar
{
public function test(someInterface $a)
{
echo $a->giveMeBar();
}
}
$foo = new Foo(); // prints "Bar"

You can probably achieve this with a debug backtrace, though this seems kind of hackish.
Your alternative option is to pass a parameter to that class and tell it where it is being called from, when you instantiate the class from within another.

At the very least, you could use debug_backtrace and analyze that to find the calling method.
I think you should also be able to do it using the reflection API, but it's been too long since I've used PHP and I don't remember exactly how. The links should at least get you started, however.

#Pascal MARTIN:
Yes, in normal applicacions it's probably not needed. But sometimes it could be useful.
Consider an example from my own app:
There's a Controller subclass which can use a Template object to prepare its output. Every template has a name to refer it to. When a Controller needs a Template, it asks the TemplateManager for it by giving that name as a parameter.
But there could be many template files with that name for different Controllers. Controlers are used as plugins, and may be written by different users, so the names used by them can't be controlled to no collide with each other. Namespaces for templates are needed.
So TemplateManager, which is a factory for Template objects, needs the template name and the namespace name to locate the proper template source file. This namespace is related to the particular Controller's class name.
But, in most cases, each Controller will be using templates from its own namespace and only in rare cases from other namespaces. So specifying the namespace in each call to TemplateManager::getTemplate() each time would be a mess. It's better if namespace is optional and defaults to... the Controller which calls the TemplateManager::getTemplate()! And here's a good place for knowing the caller.
Of course the caller Controller could pass itself or its name as a parameter, but it doesn't really differ much from passing the namespace name. It couldn't be optional in either way.
But if you can know the caller, you can use that information to default the namespace automatically inside the getTemplate(), without even bothering the caller. It doesn't have to know how getTemplate() is handling it in its inside and how does it know the proper default namespace. He only needs to know that it does, and that it can pass any other namespace optionally if it really needs to.

This function does the job without debug_backtrace :
/*
usage :
some code...
getRealCallClass(__FUNCTION__);
some code...
*/
function getRealCallClass($functionName) //Parameter value must always be __FUNCTION__
{
try
{
throw new exception();
}
catch(exception $e)
{
$trace = $e->getTrace();
$bInfunction = false;
foreach($trace as $trace_piece)
{
if ($trace_piece['function'] == $functionName)
{
if (!$bInfunction)
$bInfunction = true;
}
elseif($bInfunction) //found !!!
{
return $trace_piece['class'];
}
}
}
}

var_dump(getClass($this));
Used in a method in namespace B this will give you the class that called a method in namespace B from namespace A.

Related

Pondering implementation: Instantiate class based on constant without reflection

Second update
I think I've been approaching this problem from the wrong side of the coin. Would I be correct in assuming that I should be making 'First' an abstract class and just finding a way to reference 'Second' and 'Third' at a later time?
Update
Based on some of the feedback, I have added some content to try and clear up what I would like to do. Something similar to this effect.
I know from just looking at the code below that, it is a waste of performance "if" it did work and because it doesn't, know I am approaching the problem from the wrong angle.The end objective isn't all to uncommon at a guess from some of the frameworks I've used.
I'm more trying to base this particular bit of code on the CodeIgniter approach where you can define (what below) is STR_CLASS_NAME in a config file and then at any point through the operation of the program, use it as i have dictated.
STR_CLASS_NAME = 'Second';
class First {
protected $intTestOne = 100;
public function __construct() {
$strClassName = STR_CLASS_NAME;
return new $strClassName();
}
public function TestOne() {
echo $this->intTestOne;
}
protected function TestThreePart() {
return '*Drum ';
}
}
class Second extends First{
/* Override value to know it's working */
protected $intTestOne = 200;
/* Overriding construct to avoid infinite loop */
public function __construct() {}
public function TestTwo() {
echo 'Using method from extended class';
}
public function TestThree() {
echo $this->TestThreePart().'roll*';
}
}
$Test = new First();
$Test->TestOne(); <-- Should echo 200.
$Test->TestTwo(); <-- Should echo 'Using method from extended class'
$Test->TestThree(); <-- Should echo '*Drum roll*'
You may be asking, why do this and not just instantiate Second, well, there are cases when it is slightly different:
STR_CLASS_NAME = 'Third';
class Third extends First{
/* Override value to know it's working */
protected $intTestOne = 300;
/* Overriding construct to avoid infinite loop */
public function __construct() {}
public function TestTwo() {
echo 'Using method from extended class';
}
public function TestThree() {
echo $this->TestThreePart().'snare*';
}
}
$Test = new First();
$Test->TestOne(); <-- Should echo 300.
$Test->TestTwo(); <-- Should echo 'Using method from extended class'
$Test->TestThree(); <-- Should echo '*Drum snare*'
Situation
I have a an abstract class which extends a base class with the actually implementation; in this case a basic DB wrapper.
class DBConnector ()
class DBConnectorMySQLi extends DBConnector()
As you can see, MySQLi is the implementation. Now, dependant upon a value in the configuration process, a constant becomes the class name I wish to use which in this case (as shown below builds DBConnectorMySQLi.
define('STR_DB_INTERFACE', 'MySQLi');
define('DB_CLASS', 'DBConnector'.STR_DB_INTERFACE);
Objective
To have a base class that can be extended to include the implementation
For the code itself not to need know what the name of the implementation actually is
To (in this case) be able to type or use a project accepted common variable to create DBConnectorMySQLi. I.E. $db or something similar. W
Issue
When it comes to actually calling this class, I would like the code to be shown as below. I was wondering whether this is at all possible without the need to add any extra syntax. On a side note, this constant is 100% guaranteed to be defined.
$DBI = new DB_CLASS();
Solution 1
I know it is possible to use a reflection class ( as discussed in THIS QUESTION) and this works via:
$DBI = new ReflectionClass(DB_CLASS);
However, this creates code that is "dirtier" than intended
Solution 2
Start the specific implementation of DBConnectorMySQLi within the constructor function of DBConnector.
define('STR_DB_INTERFACE', 'MySQLi');
define('DB_CLASS', 'DBConnector'.STR_DB_INTERFACE);
class DBConnector() { public function __construct() { $this->objInterface = new DBConnectorMySQLi(); }
class DBConnectorMySQLi()
This however would result in the need to keep on "pushing" variables from one to the other
Any advice is much appreciate
You can use variables when you instantiate a class.
$classname = DB_CLASS;
$DBI = new $classname();
Source: instantiate a class from a variable in PHP?

PHP - Mixing object Injection & inheritance

This is a follow up question on the following answer : Parent Object in php
class A {
protected function doSomeStuff(){
echo 'a method that all children will need to call';
}
}
class B {
protected $_parent;
public function __construct($parent) {
$this->_parent = $parent;
}
public function doSomeLocalStuff() {
$this->_parent->doSomeStuff(); // Fatal Error
}
}
$a = new A(); // will be used for other children as well.
$b = new B($a);
$b->doSomeLocalStuff();
In the above code, parent object Injection was used, allowing class B to be initialized using a specific instance of class A, but class B wont be able to access class A protected properties or methods (e.g., doSomeStuff()).
But by mixing the above with inheritance, we get the best of both worlds :)
class B extends A {
protected $_parent;
public function __construct($parent) {
$this->_parent = $parent;
}
public function doSomeLocalStuff() {
$this->_parent->doSomeStuff(); // Works :)
}
}
So, is this acceptable ? .. any drawbacks ?
P.S: I'm trying to implement a non-static factory pattern.
Clarification
Consider this, I'm trying to design a class which will be used for calling an external API. We've over 400 different calls, divided into 10 categories (billing, customers, products ... ).
All the 400 calls shares the same parent-url, username/password and some other common properties.
So, instead of putting the 400 method in one big class, I decided to divide them into 10 classes, with a parent class handling common functions (e.g., authentication, url construction, web call ... ), then created a factory pattern, where I can load only needed classes/categories on run-time.
Something like :
$apiCall = new parentPlusFactory();
//contains common methods and a mechanism to load sub-classes
$apiCall->setAPIuserName("user");
$apiCall->setAPIpassword("pass");
$apiCall->useClass('customers')->doSomeCustomerStuff();
$apiCall->useClass('products')->doSomeProductStuff();
That's why I need to share the same parent class instance.
There is no friend keyword in PHP, like in C++. You could check this discussion for a way to implement friend classes.
But do you really need that function to be declared protected?
In general you should favor composition over inheritance. To me your use case sounds like B should not be extending A at all, but instead you should have two separate classes.
Now, PHP 5.4 will have "horizontal reuse", also known as "traits", where it will be possible to "include" a trait into your class.
trait A
{
public function doSomeStuff()
{
echo 'doing some stuff';
}
}
class B
{
use A;
public function doSomeLocalStuff()
{
$this->doSomeStuff();
}
}
class C
{
use A;
public function doSomeLocalStuff()
{
echo 'Doing something completely different here';
}
}
See also PHP manual: traits and PHP 5.4 beta1 released.

Is automatic initialization of class variables in PHP possible?

Hey, everyone. I couldn't find anything Googling this problem, and I've found really good answers to some questions on SO before, so I'm taking this excuse to join the community.
I'm creating a hierarchy of classes for a PHP project I'm working on, and I'd like to have some variables in the classes initialized within the constructor function without explicitly writing the initialization code. Specifically I want to have the interpreter assume that some of the variables are actually pointers to a certain class. If I could do something like C structs, that would be pretty close to what I want.
So far, the only thing I came up with is to explicitly state the variable type within its own name and have the class call an initializing function on each, like;
class A{
...
}
class B{
var $x_A;
function initVar($var){
list($varname, $vartype) = split('_',$var);
$this->$var = new $vartype();
}
}
And B's constructor calls initVar on all of its get_class_vars(get_class($this)), so anything that inherits from it will do initialization in the same way; obviously including a check on the variable name, a check that the class exists, and a better separation scheme than a single underscore. I just cannot help but think that there is a better way to do this that isn't hardcoding the initialization into the construction function.
If anyone knows of a better way to do this, your help would be much appreciated.
Your method there would probably work, however it could get very tiresome to actually use it. For example, imagine having to reference those variables all the time:
$myObject->account_ServiceAccountType
If you really wanted to go with something like this, perhaps a mapping variable might be useful:
class B {
public $x, $account;
private $map = array(
'x' => 'A',
'account' => 'ServiceAccountType'
);
public function __construct() {
foreach ($this->map as $var => $class) {
$this->$var = new $class;
}
}
}
You could also try this method out. It uses PHP's magic __get function.
class B {
private $map = array(
'x' => 'A',
'account' => 'ServiceAccountType'
);
private $vars;
public function __construct() {
$this->vars = array();
foreach ($this->map as $var => $class) {
$this->vars[$var] = new $class;
}
}
public function __get($v) {
return $this->vars[$v];
}
}
Notice that you don't need to define the class members twice using this method.

OOP/PHP5: Calling Class A from Class B - or, Making the horse jump

Say you have two classes, A and B. Is it possible to instantiate both classes once and then let class B call methods in class A, and vice versa?
It can be done using double colon (::) ... ... but then the method becomes static - is that a disadvantage? (see example below)
Can it be done in other ways? With interfaces?
This code shows what I try to do:
class A {
function horse() {
echo "horse";
}
}
class B {
function jump() {
// $A = new A; ... don't want to add this in each method.
$A->horse(); // Fails - $A is out of scope ($A = new A;).
// A::horse(); // Old code style - works.
// $this->horse(); // Works if you extend A - not self-documenting.
// $this->A->horse(); // Fails - out of scope.
}
}
$A = new A;
$B = new B; // Better to use "$B = new B($A);" ?
$B->jump(); // fails - the horse is sleeping.
Edit
Well, I am building a MVC-framework and I want to re-use code from other classes.
Some real-world examples:
a database object that is being passed across classes.
a "url" class that creates/manipulates URLs - used by other classes.
... and a code example:
class url {
function anchor($url,$name) {
return "{$name}";
}
}
class someclass {
function text($str,$url) {
return "{$str}. " . $url->anchor($url,"Read more...");
}
}
I think what you are asking for is multiple inheritance where you could extend both A and B like this
<?php
class C extends A,B {
//...
}
This however is not possible in PHP for good reasons(it actually is creating more problems than it's trying to solve).
Now you might ask yourself if there is any alternative to multiple inheritance and the answer is: Yes, there is! Have a look at the strategy pattern(as Benjamin Ortuzar also has pointed out).
UPDATE:
I just read your question a second time and figured that you might be looking for the singleton pattern, which lets you instantiate an instance of an class only once like this:
class A
{
protected static $_instance;
protected function __construct() //prohibit creating instances from outside
{ }
public static function getInstance()
{
if( self::$_instance === NULL ) {
self::$_instance = new self();
}
return self::$_instance;
}
}
$instance = A::getInstance();
Now A::getInstance() always returns the same instance of A which you can use in B and you can have both the advantages of dynamic functions and the accessibility of static functions.
UPDATE2:
Your database belongs into a registry if you can have more than one db-connection. If you're absolutely certain that you will always need only one db-connection you could as well make it a singleton.
For the URL helper I'd suggest writing a static class if you can and if you really need it to be dynamic make it a singleton, as mentioned before.
I think that this should work:
$B = new B();
$B->jump();
But you should read/refer to http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.php
Of course you should import the class if you're accessing it from a different php file. And if you're in the object you're calling the method of you should use
$this->jump();
I would suggest reading about the factory and strategy pattern. You can read more about this from chapter one of this fantastic book. link text
I would recomend you reading the whole book.
Maybe (just guessing) you're looking for something like aggregation in COM:
Aggregation is the object reuse mechanism in which the outer object exposes interfaces from the inner object as if they were implemented on the outer object itself.
You can build something like that with the "magic method" __call. Each time a method is called that isn't callable in the object's context this method is invoked and your code can decide what to do with this call. E.g. it can test if another object that is stored as a property of the "outer" object exposes a method with that name and than call that inner object's method.
class Foo {
protected $inner = null;
public function __construct($inner=null) {
if ( is_null($inner) && !is_object($inner) ) {
throw new Exception('...');
}
$this->inner = $inner;
}
public function __call($name, $arguments) {
// also check http://uk.php.net/is_callable
if ( !is_null($this->inner) && method_exists($this->inner, $name) ) {
return call_user_func_array( array($this->inner, $name), $arguments);
}
else {
// add some error handler here
throw new Exception('...');
}
}
function jump() {
$this->horse();
echo " jumps";
}
}
class Bar {
function horse() {
echo "horse";
}
}
$foo = new Foo(new Bar);
$foo->jump();
This works. But I'd recommend something like that only for quite specific circumstances. The most obvious reason beeing that it's hard to tell from the outside what this object $foo really can and cannot do.

Is what seems like polymorphism in PHP really polymorphism?

Trying to figure out whether PHP supports features like method overloading, inheritance, and polymorphism, I found out:
it does not support method overloading
it does support inheritance
but I am unsure about polymorphism. I found this Googling the Internet:
I should note that in PHP the
polymorphism isn't quite the way it
should be. I mean that it does work,
but since we have a weak datatype, its
not correct.
So is it really polymorphism?
Edit
Just can't quite place a definite YES or NO next to PHP supports polymorphism. I would be loath to state: "PHP does not support polymorphism", when in reality it does. Or vice-versa.
class Animal {
var $name;
function __construct($name) {
$this->name = $name;
}
}
class Dog extends Animal {
function speak() {
return "Woof, woof!";
}
}
class Cat extends Animal {
function speak() {
return "Meow...";
}
}
$animals = array(new Dog('Skip'), new Cat('Snowball'));
foreach($animals as $animal) {
print $animal->name . " says: " . $animal->speak() . '<br>';
}
You can label it all you want, but that looks like polymorphism to me.
although PHP does not support method overloading the way you have experienced in other languages, say Java. but you CAN have method overloading in PHP, but the definition method is different.
if you want to have different functionality for a given method, with different set of parameters in PHP, you can do something like this:
class myClass {
public function overloadedMethod() {
// func_num_args() is a build-in function that returns an Integer.
// the number of parameters passed to the method.
if ( func_num_args() > 1 ) {
$param1 = func_get_arg(0);
$param2 = func_get_arg(1);
$this->_overloadedMethodImplementation2($param1,$param2)
} else {
$param1 = func_get_arg(0);
$this->_overloadedMethodImplementation1($param1)
}
}
protected function _overloadedMethodImplementation1($param1) {
// code 1
}
protected function _overloadedMethodImplementation2($param1,$param2) {
// code 2
}
}
there could be cleaner implementation, but this is just a sample.
PHP supports inheritance and interfaces. so you can have polymorphism using them. you can have an interface like this:
// file: MyBackupInterface.php
interface MyBackupInterface {
// saves the data on a reliable storage
public function saveData();
public function setData();
}
// file: myBackupAbstract.php
require_once 'MyBackupInterface.php';
class MyBackupAbstract implements MyBackupInterface {
protected $_data;
public function setData($data) {
$this->_data= $data;
}
// there is no abstract modifier in PHP. so le'ts avoid this class to be used in other ways
public function __construct() {
throw new Exception('this class is abstract. you can not instantiate it');
}
}
// file: BackupToDisk.php
require_once 'MyBackupAbstract.php';
class BackupToDisk extends MyBackupAbstract {
protected $_savePath;
// implement other methods ...
public function saveData() {
// file_put_contents() is a built-in function to save a string into a file.
file_put_contents($this->_savePath, $this->_data);
}
}
// file: BackupToWebService.php
require_once 'MyBackupAbstract.php';
class BackupToWebService extends MyBackupAbstract {
protected $_webService;
// implement other methods ...
public function saveData() {
// suppose sendData() is implemented in the class
$this->sendData($this->_data);
}
}
now in your application, you might use it like this:
// file: saveMyData.php
// some code to populate $myData
$backupSolutions = array( new BackupToDisk('/tmp/backup') , new BackupToWebService('webserviceURL') );
foreach ( $backupSolutions as $bs ) {
$bs->setData($myData);
$bs->saveData();
}
you are right, PHP is not strong typed language, we never mentioned that any of your $backupSolutions would be a 'MyBackupAbstract' or 'MyBackupInterface', but that would not stop us from having the nature of polymorphism which is different functionality over using the same methods.
PHP has class-based polymorphism, but lacks a formal mechanism for implementing argument-based polymorphism.
Class-based polymorphism means that you can think in terms of a base class, and have the methods being called depend on the final class. For instance, if you have an array of objects of various classes such as Triangle and Circle, and each of these classes extends the same class Shape, you can regard your array as merely a collection of shapes. You can loop through the shapes and call each shape's getArea() method. Polymorphism is the phenomenon whereby the getArea() method being called depends on the class of the object. If your shape is a Triangle, Triangle::getArea() gets called, if a Circle, then Circle::getArea() gets called--even though your code doesn't distinguish between a Circle and a Triangle but regards each object as merely a Shape. The same line of code results in a different block of code being executed, depending on the object's class.
Argument-based polymorphism is a feature of some strongly-typed languages, wherein multiple methods of the same name can be defined in a single class, provided that they have different parameters; then which method is called depends on the arguments provided. You can emulate argument-based polymorphism in weakly-typed languages like PHP by manually considering your argument types within your method. This is what jQuery does in order to implement a polymorphic API despite JavaScript's lack of native argument-based polymorphism.
So if by "supports polymorphism" you mean specifically that it provides a formal mechanism for implementing argument-based polymorphism, the answer is no. For any broader interpretation, the answer is yes. It stands to reason that the phenomenon of class-based polymorphism occurs in every Object-Oriented language; and it makes no sense for a language that performs implicit type conversion to implement argument-based polymorphism.
__call() and __callStatic() should support method overloading. More on this is available in the manual. Or what exactly are you after?
UPDATE: I just noticed the other replies.
For another way to overload a method, consider the following:
<?php
public function foo()
{
$args = func_get_arg();
}
Certainly not pretty, but it allows you to do virtually whatever you want.
You can still override methods, just not overload them. Overloading (in C++) is where you use the same method name for multiple methods, differing only in number and types of parameters. This would be hard in PHP since it's weak-typed.
Overriding is where the sub-class replaces a method in the base class. Which is really the basis for polymorphism, and you can do that in PHP.
Some call this duck typing.
PHP allows for polymorphic code that would generate an compile error in other languages. A simple illustrates this. First C++ code that generates an expected compile error:
class Base {};
class CommonDerivedBase {
public:
// The "= 0" makes the method and class abstract
// virtual means polymorphic method
virtual whoami() = 0;
};
class DerivedBase : public CommonDerivedBase {
public:
void whoami() { cout << "I am DerivedBase \n"; }
};
class Derived1 : public CommonDerivedBase {
public:
void whoami() { cout << "I am Derived1\n"; }
};
class Derived2 : public CommonDerivedBase {
public:
void whoami() { cout << "I am Derived2\n"; }
};
/* This will not compile */
void test_error(Base& db)
{
db.whoami();
}
The C++ compiler will issue this error message for the line db.whoami()
error: no member named 'whoami' in 'Base'
because Base does not have a method called whoami(). However, the analogous PHP code does not find such errors until run time.
class Base {}
abstract class DerivedCommonBase {
abstract function whoami();
}
class Derived1 extends DerivedCommonBase {
public function whoami() { echo "I am Derived1\n"; }
}
class Derived2 extends DerivedCommonBase {
public function whoami() { echo "I am Derived2\n"; }
}
/* In PHP, test(Base $b) does not give a runtime error, as long as the object
* passed at run time derives from Base and implements whoami().
*/
function test(Base $b)
{
$b->whoami();
}
$b = new Base();
$d1 = new Derived1();
$d2 = new Derived2();
$a = array();
$a[] = $d1;
$a[] = $d2;
foreach($a as $x) {
echo test($x);
}
test($d1);
test($d2);
test($b); //<-- A run time error will result.
The foreach loop works with the output
I am Derived1
I am Derived2
Not until you call test($b) and pass an instance of Base will your get a run time error. So after the foreach, the output will be
I am Derived1
I am Derived2
PHP Fatal error: Call to undefined method Base::whoami() in
home/kurt/public_html/spl/observer/test.php on line 22
About the only thing you can do to make the PHP safer would be to add a run time check
to test if $b is an instance of the class you intended.
function test(Base $b)
{
if ($b instanceof DerivedCommonBase) {
$b->whoami();
}
}
But the whole point of polymorphism is to eliminate such run time checks.
Polymorphism can be implemented in the following methods:
method overriding - normal pretty was as above
method overloading
You can create an illusion of method overloading by the magic method __call():
class Poly {
function __call($method, $arguments) {
if ($method == 'edit') {
if (count($arguments) == 1) {
return call_user_func_array(array($this,'edit1'), $arguments);
} else if (count($arguments) == 2) {
return call_user_func_array(array($this,'edit2'), $arguments);
}
}
}
function edit1($x) {
echo "edit with (1) parameter";
}
function edit2($x, $y) {
echo "edit with (2) parameter";
}
}
$profile = new Poly();
$profile->edit(1);
$profile->edit(1,2);
Expln:
1) Here we are utilizing the power of __call() of listening calls of
non-available methods and
2) after knowing it who had called with their inputs diverting them to desired
method
In php, we are actually working under the hood to give the desired behaviour and giving the feeling of method overloading
For what I’ve seen here php do not support polymorphism, nor overloading methods. You can hack your way to actually get close to both of these oop functionalities, but they are far from the original purpose of it. Many of the examples here either are extending a class or creating a hack to emuluate polymorphism.

Categories