sorry for that weird subject but I don't know how to express it in an other way.
I'm trying to access a method from a calling class. Like in this example:
class normalClass {
public function someMethod() {
[...]
//this method shall access the doSomething method from superClass
}
}
class superClass {
public function __construct() {
$inst = new normalClass;
$inst->someMethod();
}
public function doSomething() {
//this method shall be be accessed by domeMethod form normalClass
}
}
Both classes are not related by inheritance and I don't want to set the function to static.
Is there any way to achieve that?
Thanks for your help!
You can pass a reference to the first object like this:
class normalClass {
protected $superObject;
public function __construct(superClass $obj) {
$this->superObject = $obj;
}
public function someMethod() {
//this method shall access the doSomething method from superClass
$this->superObject->doSomething();
}
}
class superClass {
public function __construct() {
//provide normalClass with a reference to ourself
$inst = new normalClass($this);
$inst->someMethod();
}
public function doSomething() {
//this method shall be be accessed by domeMethod form normalClass
}
}
You could use debug_backtrace() for this. It is a bit iffy but for debugging purposes it is usefull.
class normalClass {
public function someMethod() {
$trace = debug_backtrace();
$trace[1]['object']->doSomething();
}
}
You have a few options. You can use aggregation like so
class normalClass
{
protected $superClass;
public function __construct( superClass $superClass )
{
$this->superClass = $superClass;
}
public function someMethod()
{
$this->superClass->doSomething();
}
}
class superClass
{
public function __construct()
{
$inst = new normalClass( $this );
$inst->someMethod();
}
public function doSomething()
{ //this method shall be be accessed by domeMethod form normalClass
}
}
Or just a straight-up setter
class normalClass
{
protected $superClass;
public function setSuperClass( superClass $superClass )
{
$this->superClass = $superClass;
}
public function someMethod()
{
if ( !isset( $this->superClass ) )
{
throw new Exception( 'you must set a superclass' );
}
$this->superClass->doSomething();
}
}
class superClass
{
public function __construct()
{
$inst = new normalClass();
$inst->setSuperClass( $this );
$inst->someMethod();
}
public function doSomething()
{ //this method shall be be accessed by domeMethod form normalClass
}
}
Depending on your use case, you might want to pass the instance to the function only:
class normalClass {
public function someMethod($object) {
$object->doSomething();
}
}
If normalClass::someMethod() can be called by multiple, distinct $objects, this might be the better choice (instead of providing the $object to the whole normalClass instance).
But regardless of that you might consider creating an Interface to use for type hinting:
interface ISomethingDoer {
public function doSomething();
}
class normalClass {
public function someMethod(ISomethingDoer $object) {
# Now PHP will generate an error if an $object is passed
# to this function which does not implement the above interface.
// ...
class superClass implements ISomethingDoer {
// ...
woah I had the same problem than you but instead of going with the so simple pass the reference to the object, I went with an event manager, Basically, when something would happen in the normal class, it would trigger an event which was listened by a class and that said class(the listener) would call the super class to execute that functionality and if necessary pass it new arguments.
Anyways, whether you pass it as a parameter to your object or you go with an event based approach, both solutions work. Choose the one you prefers.
For more information on events, sympony explains it quite good.
http://symfony.com/doc/current/components/event_dispatcher/introduction.html
Related
I am not sure how to name this, but here it goes. Lets suppose i have the following
class A {
public function aa() {
$this->bb();
}
public function bb() {
}
}
class B extends a {
}
class C {
__construct(B $service) {
$this->service = $service;
}
public function aa() {
$this->service->aa();
}
}
My call in code will be
$C = new C(new B());
$C->aa();
So this will basically execute A:aa() which is what i want. As you can see, in A::aa() AA::bb() is called.
What I need. When AA::bb() is called i want to execute some code defined in class C, but I am not allowed to change the A class. I can only change the B class or the C class.
My idea was to add a listener in the B class and overwrite the bb() function like this
class B extends a {
public $listener;
bb() {
parent::bb();
$this->listener();
}
}
class C {
__construct(B $service) {
$this->service = $service;
}
public function aa() {
$this->service->listener = function() { }
$this->service->aa();
}
}
But I don't like this idea a lot, doesn't look like a good one. What are my options here?
Again, I CANNOT change the A class and i can only call the C class.
PHP version is 5.3
You have two options. Extend or decorate.
First one would be kinda what you have already written, though, I would not use public visibility for the listener:
class Foo extends A {
private $listener;
public function setListener(callable $func) {
$this->listener = $func;
}
public function bb() {
call_user_func($this->listener);
return parent:bb();
}
}
In the example I passed the listener via setter injection, but you can also use constructor injection and pass the $listened in the overloaded __construct() method. When you extend a class, the "interface restriction" does not aply to the constructor's signature.
The other approach is to use a decorator:
class Foo {
private $target;
public function __construct(A $target) {
$this->target = $target;
}
public function bb($callback) {
$callback();
return $this->target->bb();
}
public function __call($method, $arguments) {
return call_user_func_array(
array( $this->target, $method ),
$arguments
);
}
}
The second approach would let you alter the interface.
Which option you pick depend on the exact functionality you actually need to implement. The decorator is a solution for, when you need drastic change in the objects behavior - for example, it is really good for adding access control.
I understand that you want to execute code in C after code in A completes. You cannot change A.
As written, C::aa calls A::aa, which calls A::bb and the stack unwinds. Why not just do the work in C::aa after the service call finishes?
class C {
public function aa() {
$this->service->aa();
// whatever you want to do
}
}
If, on the other hand, you need to call code after A::aa is called but before A::bb is called then the example you posted would suffice with clarity:
class B extends a {
public $listener;
public function bb() {
call_user_func($this->listener);
parent::bb();
}
}
Note the use of call_user_func, which is necessary for PHP 5.3 to call an anonymous function stored in a member variable.
The magical __call() and __callStatic can pretty much handle any non existing method on the class, but is there a way to handle a non existing magical method on a class?!
Here's an example on why I need this:
I have a class called DoSomething:
class DoSomething{
public function ok(){
echo 'Something!';
}
}
I want to call this class as a function for a reason! which should call the __invoke function of that class:
$doSomething = new DoSomething();
$doSomething();
Normally by doing that, the class should look for the __invoke function, however in my case I don't to have that function declared on my class (DoSomething), instead I want to be able to call another function (such as the ok()) if the __invoke doesn't exist.
I was expecting something like this to work, but of course it didn't :)
public function __call($class, $arguments)
{
$object = IoC::resolve($class);
$object->ok(...$arguments);
}
The main goal is to use the class as a function, without having to declare the __invoke method. Handle the function does not exist error and call another function instead.
I think that would be really cool :D I appreciate suggestions or other solutions to achieve this.
Internal solution
Extract an abstract class
You could extract an abstract class and have your classes extend it:
<?php
abstract class Invokable
{
public function __invoke()
{
return $this->ok();
}
abstract public function ok();
}
class DoSomething extends Invokable
{
public function ok()
{
echo 'Something';
}
}
$doSomething = new DoSomething();
echo $doSomething();
For an example, see:
https://3v4l.org/m0ih8
Extract a trait
You could extract a trait and have your classes use it:
<?php
trait InvokableTrait
{
public function __invoke()
{
return $this->ok();
}
}
class DoSomething
{
use InvokableTrait;
public function ok()
{
echo 'Something';
}
}
$doSomething = new DoSomething();
echo $doSomething();
For an example, see:
https://3v4l.org/ftUfI
External Solution
Create a proxy
You could create a proxy (a decorator) that composes the object that is not invokable:
<?php
class InvokableDecorator
{
private $decorated;
public function __construct($decorated)
{
$this->decorated = $decorated;
}
public function __call($name, $arguments)
{
/**
* delegate to decorated object if the method exists
*/
if (method_exists($this->decorated, $name)) {
return $this->decorated->{$name}($arguments);
}
}
public function __invoke()
{
return $this->decorated->ok();
}
}
class DoSomething
{
public function ok()
{
echo 'Something';
}
}
$doSomething = new InvokableDecorator(new DoSomething());
echo $doSomething();
For an example, see:
https://3v4l.org/C3XEX
Create a handler
You could create a handler that takes care of determining this externally:
<?php
class Handler
{
public function handle($subject)
{
if (is_callable($subject)) {
return $subject();
}
if (method_exists($subject, 'ok')) {
return $subject->ok();
}
throw new \BadMethodCallException(sprintf(
'Unable to handle instance of "%s"',
get_class($subject)
));
}
}
class DoSomething
{
public function ok()
{
echo 'Something';
}
}
$handler = new Handler();
echo $handler->handle(new DoSomething());
For an example, see:
https://3v4l.org/E0NVs
I have a Factory Method to instance a class. Is there a way to prevent this class from direct instancing?
The only option I see is to use an argument passed into the __construct(), but that's not something I'm looking for.
On the other hand, making the __construct() private would be ideal, but I don't want MyClass to extend the Factory without actual need.
What do you guys think?
Factory Method:
class Factory
{
public static function instance()
{
return new MyClass(true);
}
}
MyClass:
class MyClass
{
public function __construct($isFactory = false)
{
if (!$isFactory) {
throw new Exception('Use Factory::instance() to create an object');
}
}
}
There are hacks to do that:
abusing inheritance to use a protected constructor
putting the factory method inside the class so that it can call the private constructor, which is actually not a hack. But then why not using the constructor in the first place?
using reflection to access the private constructor
I'm not promoting anything of that. What I personally do is documenting the API with things like #internal and leave it to the client following that contract.
In essence, your code should have read something like this:
THE FACTORY
<?php
class Factory {
public static function instance(){
return new MyClass(true); //HERE YOU ARE INSTANTIATING
}
}
THE CLASS TO BE INSTANTIATED VIA THE FACTORY
<?php
//NOT MyClass() <--- YOU ARE DEFINING.... NOT INSTANTIATING...
class MyClass {
public function __construct($isFactory = false) {
if (!$isFactory) {
throw new Exception('Use Factory::instance() to create an object');
}
}
//...MORE METHODS
}
Could you try this instead?
<?php
class Factory
{
private static $FACTORY_GUARANTOR; //ONLY SET DURING INSTANTIATION
public static function instance($type) {
if (class_exists($type)) {
self::$FACTORY_GUARANTOR = 1;
$instance = new $type();
self::$FACTORY_GUARANTOR = null;
return $instance;
}
else {
throw new Exception("Class not found...");
}
}
//YOU CAN GET $FACTORYGUARANTOR EXTERNALLY BUT NEVER SET IT;
public static function getGuarantor(){
return self::$FACTORY_GUARANTOR;
}
}
class MyClass {
protected $property1;
protected $property3;
protected $property2;
public function __construct() {
// IF SOMEONE TRIES TO INSTANTIATE THE CLASS OUTSIDE OF THE FACTORY... BLOW A WHISTLE
if(!Factory::getGuarantor()){
throw new Exception('Use Factory::instance() to create an object');
}
// IF THE PROGRAM MADE IT TO THIS POINT;
// JUST INSTANTIATE THE CLASS BECAUSE MOST LIKELY IT IS COMING FROM THE FACTORY
var_dump($this); // A LITTLE CONFIRMATION....
}
//...MORE METHODS
}
// TRY IT OUT:
/*INSTANCE A: RIGHT*/ $theClass = Factory::instance("MyClass"); //INSTANTIATES THE CLASS
/*INSTANCE B: WRONG*/ $theClass = new MyClass(); //THROWS AN EXCEPTION
The easiest way is to define your base class as abstract. The abstract classes cannot be directly instanced, so you will have to redefine their abstract members in the inherited classes:
abstract class Factory
{
abstract public function foo();
}
class InheritedClass extends Factory
{
public function foo()
{
// Do something
}
}
// $obj1 = new Factory(); // Will produce an error
$obj1 = new InheritedClass(); // Will be executed successfully
You can read more for the abstract classes here: PHP: Class Abstraction - Manual.
For me, the best way is to use ReflectionClass:
class MyClass
{
public const FRIEND_CLASSES = [Factory::class];
protected function __construct() {}
}
trait Constructor
{
protected function createObject(string $className, array $args = [])
{
if (!in_array(static::class, $className::FRIEND_CLASSES)) {
throw new \Exception("Call to private or protected {$className}::__construct() from invalid context");
}
$reflection = new ReflectionClass($className);
$constructor = $reflection->getConstructor();
$constructor->setAccessible(true);
$object = $reflection->newInstanceWithoutConstructor();
$constructor->invokeArgs($object, $args);
return $object;
}
}
class Factory
{
use Constructor;
public function MyClass(): MyClass
{
return $this->createObject(MyClass::class);
}
}
In constant FRIEND_CLASSES you can define in which classes the class can be instanced.
trait is used because this functionality can be used in different factories that are not related.
If you need to put parameters into constructor of the class, put them as second parameter of createObject.
Details I described in the article "Forbidding of creating objects outside factory in PHP"
I have three classes. Class A, Class B, Class C. What I am trying to do, send a request to Class B form Class A, and Class B must redirect that request to Class c.
May be a simple example from below will give a certain idea.
class classa {
public function __construct() {
$obj_classb = new classb;
$obj_classb -> someRequest(); // This request must go to Class B and query the Class C
}
}
class classb {
//This class must do something, which is going to redirect any sorts of request it receives to the next classc
}
class classc {
public function someRequest() {
//do whatever
}
}
Any Idea?
You can create a "redirector" class by overriding the __call method like this:
class classb {
private $obj_classc;
public function __construct() {
$this->obj_classc = new classc;
}
public function __call($name, $arguments) {
return call_user_func_array(array($this->obj_classc, $name), $arguments);
}
}
Of course this will "forward" only method calls; if you are interested in forwarding property getters/setters etc you will have to override more magic methods.
Choosing the forwarding target can also be arranged (in this example it's just an automatically-created classc object; but you can pass it as a parameter in the constructor or provide it in any other way you choose).
Update: Magic functions you need to override to forward property accesses:
public function __set($name, $value) {
$this->obj_classc->$name = $value;
}
public function __get($name) {
return $this->obj_classc->$name;
}
public function __isset($name) {
return isset($this->obj_classc->$name);
}
public function __unset($name) {
unset($this->obj_classc->$name);
}
Is it ok to put factory() method to the factoried object's class?
class User {
public static function factory($id) {
return new User($id);
}
private function __construct($id) {
}
}
And when consider placing factory() method into separated class?
class User {
public function __construct($id) {
}
}
class UserFactory {
public static function factory($id) {
return new User($id)
}
}
I can't see any benefits of using additional class for factory, but I consider that there are some benefits I don't know about. :)
When to put factory() method into factoried object and when put factory() method to separated class?
The advantage with putting the factory method inside the class itself is protecting the class from being instantiated without using the factory method:
class User {
public static function factory($id) {
return new User($id);
}
private function __construct($id) {
// Now, only the factory method within this class can call this method.
// (Additionally, this method was static, which it shouldn't.)
}
}
I let other add to this with advantages of the opposite solution.
If you have a static creator method there is not much use in putting in into a factory.
It's only really useful to put factory method in it's own class if it isn't static and you want to inject it somewhere.
class User {
public static function __construct($id) {
}
}
class UserFactory {
public function factory($id) {
return new User($id)
}
}
class SomethingUserReleated {
public function __construct(UserFactory $factory) {
$this->userFactory = $factory;
}
public function iNeedToCreateAnUserForSomething() {
$userOne = $this->userFactory->factory(1233);
$userTwo = $this->userFactory->factory(123533);
}
}
Since you can't to the above with static methods.
Moving the factory methods into separate class allows you to separate object-methods and factory-specific methods (that are only needed while creating a new object).
class User {
public static function __construct($id, $name){
// call this directly or via Factory
}
}
class UserFactory {
private static function randomName(){
// return some random name
}
public static function factory($id){
return new User($id, UserFactory::randomName());
}
}