I have a CORE class that pertains only to my specific site, ie, it performs site specific functions. I have a database class (for mysql), and other classes like access, validator, upload, template etc etc... I know that php classes can only extend one class each, so almost all of my classes extend the database class. I was looking over a public twitter class used on the twitter API. In it, there are functions to do almost everything you could do by going directly to the website, insert, delete, whatever... Should I put all site relatie functions inside my Core class and keep it out of the general scope of my scripts. Right now I have something like this....
Heres an example, as of right now I have functions like
$core = new Core();
$core->get_user_info($user_id);
$core->get_user_articles($user_id);
Inside that function, i perform database queries to select the needed information so i dont have to do it directly since it can get messy.
I also have functions to delete things, like
$core->Delete_Article($article_id);
However, I dont have functions to insert. Instead I use the Database class directly to add information, like so.
$article = array(user_id => $_SESSION['user_id'], body => $_POST['body']);
$db = new Database();
$db->Insert($article, 'articles');
or
$user = array(name => $_POST['name'], email => $_POST['email']);
$db->Insert($user, 'users');
Now, in the topic of separation of one aspect from another, should I put ALL of my database select/insert/update/delete queries inside my general CORE class and do ALL the database actions in the background
Like instead of $db->Insert(), i could use $core->insert_user() or just continue as I'm doing.
This is a pretty common mistake for people new to object-oriented programming. You don't want to extend a class just because it has some functions that you need. In fact, you may want to avoid extending classes at all while you're getting started. Although most intros to OOP make a big deal out of inheritance, I would steer clear for the moment.
Instead, think of how you can group together functions in terms of the way they're used. For example, say you're managing users. You need to keep track of user information, add users, delete them, etc. You could create classes like this:
class User {
function getName()...
function getID()...
}
class UserAdmin {
function addUser(User $user)...
function getUser($id)...
function deleteUser($id)...
}
These classes are organized according to concepts, not according to what functions you need to call.
When you do need reusable functions for things like database access, you'll generally want another separate object doing the work. So instead of having your UserAdmin class extend a Database class to format its SQL:
// wrong
class UserAdmin extends Database {
function getUser($id) {
$this->openConnection();
$this->runQuery("select * from users where id = {1}", $id);
}
}
... you can just use the Database class from within your UserAdmin class:
// right
class UserAdmin {
function getUser($id) {
$db = new Database();
$db->openConnection();
$db->runQuery("select * from users where id = {1}", $id);
}
}
class Database {
function openConnection() ...
function runQuery() ...
}
Initially it will seem like more work, but it keeps your various classes independent. That makes them easier to write, maintain, and test.
Because PHP is reloading everything on each page view, I do not see much advantage to instanciating classes for everything. If you break the functionality up into files that are roughly coorspond to your database schema, you can scale up and up without adding more and more functions that are loaded on each page hit.
It matters when you have dozens or hundreds of tables / classes.
Specifically for PHP, we prefer this style:
class Member
{
public static function Insert($aData)
{
//Insert member and return ID
}
public static function Select($Member_ID)
{
//select member and return Array
}
public static function List($aFilter)
{
//Return list of members filtered by specific criteria
}
}
To take it one step further, we have a static class App which holds relevant "singletonish" variables.
class App
{
public static $DB = NULL;
}
App::$DB = new Connection();
Now, anywhere in your app, you can say:
App::$DB->Query(...);
Generally, what I do is add a simple query() method to my database class which just takes SQL is an argument. Then I abstract all my general CRUD methods to the specific class. so if you have an Article class, the the deleteArticle() method would go in that class, and would extend the Article class with the database class. use $db->query($sql) within that class. and so on with your other classes...
Related
I want to build a simple blog application with PHP using OOP concept. So basically I have a Blog class and a Database Class. In Blog class I have a method called "createANewBlog()" which takes a blog text, and a database connection. for example:
class Blog{
public $id;
public $text;
public function createANewBlog($inText, $db)
{
$this->text = $inText;
$this->id = $db->create($inText);
return true;
}
}
so basically this function call a create() function in database class to get the last inserted Id.
class DB{
function create($intext){
$sql = "INSERT INTO....... ";
then i will send the last inserted id;
}
}
In the index controller I will simply create a blog object and call that method to create a new object.
Now my question is "Is it the right way to code in OOP" or I sould call the Query inside the blog class createANewBlog() function like:
createANewBlog($inText, $db){
$this->text = $inText;
$this->id = $db->execute("INSERT INTO .....");
return true;
}
please help me as I have no idea where is the right place to put the query(Inside the blog class or inside the databse class).
Your structure is some what right but the best practice is to isolate each thing according to their work.
So there would be following things.
Model (Blog class)
Database Connection class
Blog DAO Class
Controller
View
DAO (data access object) is an object that provides an abstract
interface to database.
So always use DAO to make communication between your model and database. It may contain insert, read, delete, find, filter methods/functions.
Uses of the above things are as follow,
Model should contain fields/properties of entity with Getter and setter methods.
Database connection class should contain only methods/logic to connect to database.
DAO class should contain all the logic of database operations.
Controller should have pipeline between views/models/DAOs.
View should contain only code to render the data without writing business logic in it.
This way you will keep it simple,robust and maintainable.
The idea of OOP is to create great application structure. In great application you need to use modular technique. i'll not giving you some big chunk of information which you need to follow . I'll rather giving you a tactics that i followed while i was learning OOP for the first time .
Let me give you an example with code!:
You're working with a database connection , so create a class that will store all the database connection and other connection stuff.
In here i created class called connection_admin
Class connection_admin {
protected $_link;
//If You Delete This Everybody of the Team Will send you a serial killer to kill you ......... :v :v
function __construct($host,$user,$pass,$db){
$this->_link = mysqli_connect($host,$user,$pass);
mysqli_select_db($db,$this->_link);
}
public function query($sql){
$result = mysqli_query($sql);
$this->confirm_query($sql);
return $result;
}
public function confirm_query($sql){
if (!$sql) {
# code...
die('Query Failed'. mysql_error());
}
}
public function count_matched_id($queried_output){
return mysqli_result($queried_output, 0);
}
}
Then i created a global object like "init.php" , which i'll include everywhere in my project.
<?php
include 'function/admin_connection.php';
$Connection = new connection_admin('localhost','root','','my_cart');
And now it's time to require them all in all .php files..
Then in the view files you just need to call $Connection->query() to query database
THADAAAAA!!
Note: it's not a very good use of php's OOP feature , but it'll teach
you how to use OOP . after that try to follow MVC structure.
Recently I started looking more seriously into classes and OOP in general in PHP. I'm trying to create a simple site while taking advantage of classes as much as possible but there have been some questions that have been stuck in my mind.
More specifically I'd like to know how would a 'proper' site structure look like with classes and methods that deal with users, pages, menus, etc. Currently I'm using this wrapper to get around MySQLi more effectively and I can't seem to decide how should I implement this wrapper with other objects - do I create a new class for users, menus, etc. separately and just pass the database variable through the class every time I create an instance?
$db = new Mysqlidb (DB_SERVER, DB_USERNAME, DB_PASSWORD, DB_NAME);
$user = new User ($db);
Or do I just extend the SQL class as "models" like the wrapper's author has pointed out here.
Also in general, what should remain a class, what should I handle with only functions? How should I handle things with my MySQL class?
Is it a good practice to handle every single menu item/user/page as an object?
These are just some of the things confusing my mind right now. There are quite a few examples on the web about OOP but I still haven't found a decent one to explain the questions I asked above.
if you already familar with mysqlidb, its 2.1 and 2.2 releases are coming with a new dbObject class to implement models with some extra features.
Check out their https://github.com/avbdr/PHP-MySQLi-Database-Class/blob/master/dbObject.md
If you still want to stick with a pure MysqliDb classes you can try to do:
class Model {
protected $db;
public function __constuct () {
$this->db = MysqliDb::getInstance();
}
public function __call ($method, $arg) {
call_user_func_array (array ($this->db, $method), $arg);
return $this;
}
}
class user extends Model {
$this->tbl = 'users';
public function create ($data) {
$this->db->insert (...);
}
public function admins () {
return $db->where ("role", "admin")->get($this->tbl);
}
}
This will give you models like:
$user = new user ();
$q = $user->where('login','root')->admins();
Take a look at dbObject as its pretty simple and I bet it will do a job you need it to do.
As for OOP I would avoid storage of the mostly static content in the database.
Just split menus/sidebars/header/etc into separate subviews and you should be fine.
Sorry if I am not using the best jargon, but I have run into an issue I want to solve early before I write too much code. Which of these options below is "better"? And is there a better way of doing this? Someone mentioned to me abstracting my code but another class seems to be the last thing I need. Also I feel like there's something I can do by potentially making my "get" function seen below into a public static function so that I can use it differently. (its not static right now)
Here is my situation:
I have 2 (relevant to this question) classes, DB (database) and Page (for getting my content to display on my website)
the DB class has a query method that prepares and execute my queries
the DB class also has methods for inserting, getting, deleting things from the database.
I now feel that I may not even need my page class because right on the webpage I can just use those DB methods to call my content. (I store all images, content, page title, description in mysql). Is this not a legitimate way to do this? Won't I need to create a new object each time? such as:
$pg_ID = 2;
$title = new DB($pgID);
$title->get('pages', $pgID, $lang); // 3 tables to pull from for each page
$images = new DB($pgID);
$images->get('images', $pgID, $lang);
$structure = new DB($pgID); // I need these tables mostly because my site is in two languages
$images->get('pages_list', $pgID);
I do not like this potential solution just because to me its counter intuitive. Why should I have to create new objects just to reuse a function? However, what I do right now is something I feel is going to get me some hate mail.
$page = new Page();
$page->find('pages', $pgID, $lang);
$page->lookup($pgID);
$page->retrieve('images', $pgID, $lang);
These are 3 separate functions in my Page class that perform very similar things. Find gets my pages content out of the database and returns it as an object. Lookup does basically the same thing but only needs to pass one variable because its only to do with the html structure of each page regardless of which language is being accessed. retrieve gets all images from a table that get shown in a slider with different language descriptions. But as you can see, all three functions do basically the same thing! They query the database. Thanks for the help with this I am literally just getting into this OOP and its driving me insane. Stack has been very helpful and I think I just didn't know how to search for this to find the answer. Feel free to point me to other questions/answers that I may have missed. It was hard for me to think of the keywords to search for.
we may create other classes indeed, but efficiently so. Maybe we can render DB a public state function. I like the idea of creating a database object, pass it as parameter to an other object, which could then format data with the link he just received:
$pg_ID = 2;
$db = new DB($pg_id);
$page = new Page($db,$pg_ID);
// make sure you assign the parameters a private properties in `Page()` ctor.
then, from inside your function, you can call images, titles and structures at will from $this
$title = $this->DB->get('pages', $this->pgID, $lang);
$images = $this->DB->get('images', $this->pgID, $lang);
$structure = $this->DB->get('pages_list', $this->pgID);
and you can those other method as well
$page->find('pages', $this->pgID, $lang);
$page->lookup($this->pgID);
$page->retrieve('images', $this->pgID, $lang);
Now we do not need to create a new object each time we want information from the database.
Now...
the way I access member functions here $this->pgID is better used by defining a getter: $this->pgID(). I like my getter to have the same name as the property. This might not be a very good idea though.
private function pgID() {
return $this->pgID;
}
As for abstract classes..
I did in fact come very lately into thinking abstract classes were quite cool indeed. I've some problem with wording it, having a constant constructor with custom mandatory functions and possible different implementation of classes seems awesome:
abstract class Page {
function __construct($db,$pgID,$lang,$params='') {
$this->db = $db;
$this->pgID = $pgID;
$this->lang = $lang;
$this->init($params);
}
function pgID() {
return $this->pgID;
}
function lang() {
return $this->lang;
}
abstract function init();
abstract function retrieve();
}
class Structure extends Page {
function init($params) {
// some specific to Structure foo here
}
function retrieve($what='pages_list') {
return $this->db->get($what,$this->pgID,$this->lang);
}
}
class Image extends Page {
function init($params) {
// some specific to Image foo here
}
function retrieve($what='images') {
$images = $this->db->get($what,$this->pgID,$this->lang);
// plus some foo to resize each images
return $images;
}
}
ok, hope you're still there! Now we have a Structure and Image class with requisites constructor arguments, generic functions and a custom retrieve function. We could use them that way:
$db = new DB(2);
$template = new Structure($db,2,'fr');
$template->retrieve();
$slideshow = new Image($db,4,'en');
$slideshow->retrieve();
I do hope you do not have to create a new instance of DB if you use a different page id :-)
jokes appart this helps me using classes in a better structured way, as I might have many different classes to represent different parts of a site, but when called from an index all of them will have the same function names, like retrieve() or print(), list()...
I don't want to get into the weeds on a SPECIFIC implementation for you situation, rather I am going to offer some generic guidance.
First off, you shouldn't have to create a separate database object (dbo) for title, images, or structure. Chances are the DSN used for each dbo you are initializing are the exact same, so I would create a singleton dbo which can be shared across multiple objects. For reference take a look at Doctrine's connection manager.
Secondly, I think your objectification could be implemented better. Following most ORMS implementation, you have a Record class and a Table class. The Record class is a specific instance of a Record in your schema, whereas the Table class executes queries against your store which may result in multiple records. These results are then hydrated into an array (of records).
So what I would suggest is something like this (code has not been tested and some of it has been stubbed for brevity):
class PageTable
{
public static function getById($id)
{
// Validate id, if invalid throw exception
$dbo = Database::getConnection();
$stmt = $dbo->prepare('SELECT * FROM page WHERE id = :id');
$stmt->bindParam(array('id' => $id));
$stmt->execute();
$result = $stmt->fetch();
$page = new Page;
// Hydration
$page->setId($result['id']);
$page->setImages($result['images']);
return $page;
}
}
class Page
{
protected $id;
protected $title;
public function setId($id){}
public function getId(){}
}
Hopefully this separation of Record and methods affecting a single, or multiple records makes sense. You should take a look at a DBAL, like Doctrine.
I know there are loads of questions on this, I have done quite a bit of reading. I'd like to ask this in context of my project to see what suggestions you may have.
I have quite a large web application with many classes, e.g. users and articles (which i consider to be the main classes) and smaller classes such as images and comments. Now on a page, lets say for example an article, it could contain many instances of images and comments. Makes sense right? Now on say an articles page I call a static method which returns an array of article objects.
That's the background, so here are the questions.
Since building a large amount of the app I came to realise it would be very useful to have a core system class containing settings and shared functions. There for I extended all of my classes with a new core class. Seemed relatively simple and quick to implement. I know CodeIgniter does something similar. I feel now though my app is becoming a bit messy.
Question Is this a good idea? Creating an instance of core is exactly what I want when calling an instance of an article, but what about when i'm creating multiple instances using the static method, or calling multiple images or comments on a page. I'm calling the core class unnecessarily right? Really it only needs to be called once per page (for example the constructor defines various settings from the database, I don't want to this every time, only once per page obviously), but all instances of all classes should have access to that core class. Sounds exactly like I want the singleton approach, but I know that's a waste of time in PHP.
Here's an idea of what my code looks like at this point. I've tried to keep it as simple as I can.
class core {
public function __construct(){
...define some settings which are retrieve from the database
}
public function usefulFunction(){
}
}
class user extends core {
public function __construct(){
parent::__construct();
}
public function getUser($user_id){
$db = new database();
$user = /* Get user in assoc array from db */
$this->__setAll($user);
}
public static function getUsers(){
$db = new database();
$users = /* Get users from database in assoc array from db */
foreach($users as $user) {
$arrUsers[] = new self();
$arrUsers[]->__setAll($user);
}
return $arrUsers;
}
private function __setAll($attributes) {
foreach($attributes as $key => $value)
{
$this->__set($key, $value);
}
}
public function __set($key, $value) {
$this->$key = $value;
}
}
The other issue I'm having is efficiently using/sharing a database connection. Currently each method in a class requiring a database connection creates a new instance of the database, so on a page I might be doing this 5 or 10 times. Something like the dependency injection principle sounds much better.
Question Now if i'm passing the instance of the DB into the new user class, i know I need something like this...
class user{
protected $db;
public function __construct($db){
$this->db = $db;
}
... etc
}
$db = new database();
$user = new user($db);
... but when I want to run the static function users::getUsers() what is the best way to gain access to the database instance? Do i need to pass it as a variable in each static method? (there are many static methods in many classes). It doesn't seem like the best way of doing it but maybe there isn't another way.
Question If extending all of my classes off the core class as suggested in part 1, can I create an instance of the DB there and access that some how?
Question I also have various files containing functions (not oop) which are like helper files. What's the best way for these to access the database? Again i've been creating a new instance in each function. I don't really want to pass the db as a parameter to each one. Should I use globals, turn these helper files into classes and use dependency injection or something different all together?
I know there is lots of advice out there, but most info and tutorials on PHP are out of date and don't ever seem to cover something this complex...if you can call it complex?
Any suggestions on how to best layout my class structure. I know this seems like a lot, but surely this is something most developers face everyday. If you need any more info just let me know and thanks for reading!
You asked in a comment that I should elaborate why it is a bad idea. I'd like to highlight the following to answer that:
Ask yourself if you really need it.
Do design decisions for a need, not just because you can do it. In your case ask yourself if you need a core class. As you already have been asked this in comments you wrote that you actually do not really need it so the answer is clear: It is bad to do so because it is not needed and for not needing something it introduces a lot of side-effects.
Because of these side-effects you don't want to do that. So from zero to hero, let's do the following evolution:
You have two parts of code / functionality. The one part that does change, and the other part that is some basic functionality (framework, library) that does not change. You now need to bring them both together. Let's simplify this even and reduce the frame to a single function:
function usefulFunction($with, $four, $useful, $parameters)
{
...
}
And let's reduce the second part of your application - the part that changes - to the single User class:
class User extends DatabaseObject
{
...
}
I already introduced one small but important change here: The User class does not extend from Core any longer but from DatabaseObject because if I read your code right it's functionality is to represents a row from a database table, probably namely the user table.
I made this change already because there is a very important rule. Whenver you name something in your code, for example a class, use a speaking, a good name. A name is to name something. The name Core says absolutely nothing other that you think it's important or general or basic or deep-inside, or that it's molten iron. No clue. So even if you are naming for design, choose a good name. I thought, DatabaseObject and that was only a very quick decision not knowing your code even, so I'm pretty sure you know the real name of that class and it's also your duty do give it the real name. It deserves one, be generous.
But let's leave this detail aside, as it's only a detail and not that much connected to your general problem you'd like to solve. Let's say the bad name is a symptom and not the cause. We play Dr. House now and catalog the symptoms but just to find the cause.
Symptoms found so far:
Superfluous code (writing a class even it's not needed)
Bad naming
May we diagnose: Disorientation? :)
So to escape from that, always do what is needed and choose simple tools to write your code. For example, the easiest way to provide the common functions (your framework) is as easy as making use of the include command:
include 'my-framework.php';
usefuleFunction('this', 'time', 'really', 'useful');
This very simple tow-line script demonstrates: One part in your application takes care of providing needed functions (also called loading), and the other part(s) are using those (that is just program code as we know it from day one, right?).
How does this map/scale to some more object oriented example where maybe the User object extends? Exactly the same:
include 'my-framework.php';
$user = $services->store->findUserByID($_GET['id']);
The difference here is just that inside my-framework.php more is loaded, so that the commonly changing parts can make use of the things that don't change. Which could be for example providing a global variable that represents a Service Locator (here $services) or providing auto-loading.
The more simple you will keep this, the better you will progress and then finally you will be faced with real decisions to be made. And with those decisions you will more directly see what makes a difference.
If you want some more discussion / guidance for the "database class" please consider to take a read of the very good chapter about the different ways how to handle these in the book Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture which somewhat is a long title, but it has a chapter that very good discusses the topic and allows you to choose a fitting pattern on how to access your database quite easily. If you keep things easy from the beginning, you not only progress faster but you are also much easier able to change them later.
However if you start with some complex system with extending from base-classes (that might even do multiple things at once), things are not that easily change-able from the beginning which will make you stick to such a decision much longer as you want to then.
You can start with an abstract class that handles all of your Database queries, and then constructs them into objects. It'll be easy to set yourself up with parameterized queries this way, and it will standardize how you interact with your database. It'll also make adding new object models a piece of cake.
http://php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.abstract.php
abstract class DB
{
abstract protected function table();
abstract protected function fields();
abstract protected function keys();
public function find()
{
//maybe write yourself a parameterized method that all objects will use...
global $db; //this would be the database connection that you set up elsewhere.
//query, and then pack up as an object
}
public function save()
{
}
public function destroy()
{
}
}
class User extends DB
{
protected function table()
{
//table name
}
protected function fields()
{
//table fields here
}
protected function keys()
{
//table key(s) here
}
//reusable pattern for parameterized queries
public static function get_user( $id )
{
$factory = new User;
$params = array( '=' => array( 'id' => $id ) );
$query = $factory->find( $params );
//return the object
}
}
You'll want to do your database connection from a common configuration file, and just leave it as a global variable for this pattern.
Obviously this is just scratching the surface, but hopefully it gives you some ideas.
Summarize all answers:
Do not use single "God" class for core.
It's better to use list of classes that make their jobs. Create as many class as you need. Each class should be responsible for single job.
Do not use singletones, it's old technique, that is not flexible, use dependecy injection container (DIC) instead.
First, the the best thing to do would be to use Singleton Pattern to get database instance.
class Db{
protected $_db;
private function __construct() {
$this->_db = new Database();
}
public static function getInstance() {
if (!isset(self::$_db)) {
self::$_db = new self();
}
return self::$_db;
}
}
Now you can use it like db::getInstance(); anywhere.
Secondly, you are trying to invent bicycle called Active Record pattern, in function __setAll($attributes).
In third, why do you wrote this thing in class that extends Core?
public function __construct(){
parent::__construct();
}
Finally, class names should be capitalized.
I am not sure if this is totally the wrong thing to do, so I am looking for a bit of advice.
I have set up a database class with the constructor establishing a PDO connection to a MySQL database.
I've been looking at singletons and global variables, but there always seems to be someone who recommends against either/or.
I'm experimenting with a user class which extends the database class, so I can call upon the PDO functions/methods but maintain separate user class code. Is this a stupid thing to do?
You should generally pass a connection into your user, so your user class would take a database type object into its constructor and then use that database object to execute queries against the database. That way your data access logic remains separate from your business logic. This is called composition, as opposed to what you're talking about, which is inhertance.
If you really wanted to be technical, it would be best to have a user object with nothing but public variables, and then you would use a 'service' to implement your business logic.
class UserService implements IUserService
{
private $_db;
function __construct(IDb $db) {
$this->_db = db;
}
function GetAllUsers() {
$users = Array();
$result = $this->_db->Query("select * from user")
foreach($result as $user) {
//Would resolve this into your user domain object here
users[] = $user;
}
return users;
}
}
Well, ask yourself if User is a special case of Database. I'm not sure how others perceive it, but I would be kind of offended. I think what you need is to read about the Liskov substitution principle.
As for solving your "people tell me that globals are bad" issue, here are two videos you should watch:
The Clean Code Talks - Don't Look For Things!
The Clean Code Talks - Global State and Singletons
The idea behind class extensions in OOP is for child classes to be related to the parent classes. For instance, a school might have a Person class with extension classes of Faculty and Students. Both of the child classes are people, so it makes sense for them to extend the Person class. But a User is not a type of Database, so some people might get upset if you make it an extension.
Personally, I would send the database object as an argument to the User class in the constructor and simply assign that object to a class property. For instance:
class User
{
protected $db;
function __construct($username, $password, $db)
{
//some code...
$this->db = $db;
}
}
Alternatively, though some might yell at you for it, you can use the global keyword to inherit a variable in the global scope for use within your methods. The downside is that you would then have to declare it global in every method that needs it, or you could do:
class User
{
protected $db;
function __construct($username, $password)
{
global $db;
//some code...
$this->db = $db;
}
}
But in answer to your question, no I don't think you should make User an extension of Database; even though it would do what you need, it isn't a proper OOP practice.
It is pretty simple according to the definition of an object. It is the encapsulation of data and the operation which is performed on that data so if we only consider the theoretical point of view it would leads us in pleasurable environment.
My suggestion would be to create an abstract data access class with the generalized basic crud operations and a simple query execution using either PDO, ADO or some other database abstraction library. Now use this class as a parent for most of your model classes like the User.
Now the basic CRUD is provided by the abstract data access class and you can write the behavior specific to the user object like getting all posts for the user by consuming the simple query interface of the abstract parent class.
This approach will bring more modularity in term of coupling functionality and more readability and reuse-ability.
I don't see anything wrong with it for specific cases. You could use it for something as simple as wrapping a user's DB credentials in an object so they don't have to specify them everywhere the DB object is used.
$db = new UserDB();
would be a bit nicer than
$db = new StandarDB($username, $password, $default_db);