I've always worry about calling methods by referencing them via strings.
Basically in my current scenario, I use static data mapper methods to create and return an array of data model objects (eg. SomeDataMapper::getAll(1234)). Models follow the Active Record design pattern. In some cases, there could be hundreds of records returned, and I don't want to put everything into memory all at once. So, I am using an Iterator to page through the records, as follows
$Iterator = new DataMapperIterator('SomeDataMapper', 'getAll', array(1234));
while ($Iterator->hasNext()) {
$data = $Iterator->next();
}
Is that a good way of doing this? Is it a bad idea to pass as strings the name of the mapper class and the method? I worry that this idea is not portable to other languages. Is this generally true for languages like Ruby and Python? If so, can anyone recommend a good alternative?
FYI, for future peoples' refernce, I call the method like this:
$method = new ReflectionMethod($className, $methodName);
$returnValue = $method->invokeArgs(null, $parameters);
This is essentially a version of the factory pattern - Using strings to create a object instance.
However, I question the design idea of using an iterator to control the paging of data - that's not really the purpose of an iterator. Unless we just have name confusion, but I'd probably prefer to see something like this.
$pager = new DataMapperPager( 'SomeDataMapper', 'someMethod', array(1234) );
$pager->setPageNum( 1 );
$pager->setPageSize( 10 );
$rows = $pager->getResults();
foreach ( $rows as $row )
{
// whatever
}
Of course, DataMapperPager::getResults() could return an iterator or whatever you'd want.
It is an acceptable way of doing it. Both Python and Ruby support it and thus should be portable. Python can do it as easily as PHP can, however Ruby has a little more to it. In Python at least, it is useful for when the particular class you're referencing has not yet been imported nor seen yet in the file (i.e. the class is found lower in the same file as where you're trying to reference it.)
Getting a class object from a string in Ruby: http://infovore.org/archives/2006/08/02/getting-a-class-object-in-ruby-from-a-string-containing-that-classes-name/
PHP doesn't really support the passing of functions any other way. All dynamic method invocation functions in PHP take what they call a "callback" - see http://us.php.net/manual/en/language.pseudo-types.php#language.types.callback for documentation on that. As you'll see, they're just string or arrays of strings in different usage patterns, so you're not far off.
There are however, design patterns that work around this. For instance, you could define a DataMapper interface that all of your mapper classes must implement. Then, instead of passing in the class and method as string, you could pass the mapper instance to your iterator and since it requires the interface it could call the interface methods directly.
pseudocode:
interface DataMapper
{
public function mapData($data);
}
class DataMapperIterator ...
{
public function __construct(DataMapper $mapper, ...)
{
...
}
...
public function next()
{
... now we can call the method explicitly because of interface ...
$this->mapper->mapData($data);
}
}
class DataMapperImplemenation implements DataMapper
{
...
public function mapData($data)
{
...
}
...
}
Calling methods by name with passed in strings isn't horrible, there's probably only a performance penalty in that the bytecode generated can't be as optimized - there will always be a symbol lookup - but I doubt you'll notice this much.
Related
I am having some trouble applying Factory Pattern.
I have a class that I usually call as Product($modelNumber, $wheelCount). But in a part of legacy code that I am refactoring, I do not have $modelNumber, and only have $productID, where the link between {$modelNumber, $productID} is in the database (or in my case I can hardcode it, as I only have a select few products at the moment).
I need to be able to create my class using $productId, but how?
Using Procedural ways I would have a function that does the lookup, and I would put that function in a file, and include that file anywhere where I need to do the lookup. Thus do this:
$modelNumber = modelLookup($productId)
Product($modelNumber, $wheelCount);
But how do I do it using Object Oriented way?
Note: I have posted a more detailed situation here: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/233518/119333 and this is where Factory pattern (and other patterns, like interfaces and function pointer passing) were suggested conceptually, but I hit a wall when trying to implement them in PHP. It kind of seems like a simple question, but I think there are several ways to do it and I am a bit lost as to how. And so I need some help.
I provided a conceptual answer to your SRP problem on Programmers Exchange but I think I can demonstrate it here.
What you basically want is some other object that will do the work to get you the model number of given product ID.
class ProductModelNumberProvider {
public function findByProductId($productId) {
// The lookup logic...
}
}
Your factory should provide a setter constructor so it can make use of this object internally to lookup the model number if needed. So basically you will end up with a ProductFactory similar to this.
class ProductFactory {
private $productModelNumberProvider;
public function __construct(ProductModelNumberProvider $productModelNumberProvider) {
$this->productModelNumberProvider = $productModelNumberProvider;
}
public function getProductByIdAndWheels($productId, $wheels) {
$modelNumber = $this->productModelNumberProvider($productId);
return $this->getProductByModelNumberAndWheels($modelNumber, $wheels);
}
public function getProductByModelNumberAndWheels($modelNumber, $wheels) {
// Do your magic here...
return $product;
}
}
EDIT
On second thought the setter is not the best approach since having a ProductModelNumberProvider instance is mandatory. That is why I moved it to have it injected through the constructor instead.
I can think of something like this:
$factory = new ProductBuilder();
$factory->buildFromProductId($productId, $wheelCount); //uses modelLookup() internally
$factory->buildFromModelNumber($modelNumber, $wheelCount); //just returns Product()
It is basically creating a class on top of the procedural function, but it does separate the logic of creating the class separately from looking up the mapping.
I was trying to find a way to execute some code to alter the results of an objects methods without actually touching the object's code. One way I came up is using a decorator:
class Decorator {
private $object;
public function __construct($object) {
if (!is_object($object)) {
throw new Exception("Not an object");
}
$this->object = $object;
}
protected function doSomething(&$val) {
$val .= "!!";
}
public function __call($name, $arguments) {
$retVal = call_user_func_array(array($this->object, $name), $arguments);
$this->doSomething($retVal);
return $retVal;
}
}
class Test extends BaseTest {
public function run() {
return "Test->run()";
}
}
$o = new Decorator(new Test());
$o->run();
That way it will work properly but it has one disadvantage which makes it unusable for me right now - it would require replacing all lines with new Test() with new Decorator(new Test()) and this is exactly what I would like to avoid - lots of meddling with the existing code. Maybe something I could do in the base class?
One does not simply overload stuff in PHP. So what you want cannot be done. But the fact that you are in trouble now is a big tell your design is flawed. Or if it is not your code design the code you have to work with (I feel your pain).
If you cannot do what you want to do it is because you have tightly coupled your code. I.e. you make use of the new keyword in classes instead of injecting them (dependency injection) into the classes / methods that need it.
Besides not being able to easily swap classes you would also have a gard time easily testing your units because of the tight coupling.
UPDATE
For completeness (for possible future readers): if the specific class would have been namespaced and you were allowed to change the namespace you could have thought about changing the namespace. However this is not really good practice, because it may screw with for example autoloaders. An example of this would be PSR-0. But considering you cannot do this either way I don't see it is possible what you want. P.S. you should not really use this "solution".
UPDATE2
It looks like there has been some overload extension at some time (way way way back), but the only thing I have found about it is some bug report. And don't count on it still working now either way. ;-) There simply is no real overloading in PHP.
Found something (a dead project which doesn't work anymore that enables class overloading): http://pecl.php.net/package/runkit
Possibly another project (also dead of course): http://pecl.php.net/package/apd
I am not a PHP programmer, but I think that AOP is what you are looking for. You can try some frameworks, for example listed in this answer.
From the Wikipedia article on the decorator pattern:
Subclass the original "Decorator" class into a "Component" class
So I think you're supposed to keep the class to be decorated private and expose only the already-decorated class.
I was reading around about the Observer pattern, and found a dated article. Having read through, I noticed an interesting mention in this paragraph:
The key methods to look at here are attach(), detach(), and notify(). attach() and detach() handle adding and removing observers. We use a little trick here. Objects quoted in string context resolve to a unique identifier (even if __toString() is defined). You can use this fact to build keys for an associative array. The notify() method cycles through all attached observers, calling update() on each. The UploadManager class calls notify() whenever it has something important to report on upload and on error, in this case.
Which references this example:
function attach(UploadObserver $obs) {
$this->observers["$obs"] = $obs;
}
Now as mentioned, this article is dated. Casting objects to strings of course no longer works in this manner (I run 5.3.6 on my dev box, and push it for all client projects) but I'd like to achieve similar functionality. I can only think of (something like) this:
function attach(Observer $observer){
$this->_observers[md5(serialize($observer))] = $observer;
}
function detach(Observer $observer){
unset($this->_observers[md5(serialize($observer))]);
}
I'm curious, are there any other efficient ways to achieve this; creating a unique key from the object itself.
Caveat: I don't want to get into defined keys, I use those often enough with other repositories and such, implementing __set($key, $value), etc.
Note: I understand MD5 isn't ideal.
Update: Just found spl_object_hash, and I assume this is likely my best choice, however feel free to share your thoughts.
You're right that does not work that way any longer. You might want to use some other function instead: spl_object_hash()
function attach(Observer $observer){
$this->_observers[spl_object_hash($observer)] = $observer;
}
function detach(Observer $observer){
unset($this->_observers[spl_object_hash($observer)]);
}
The serialization based approach has a design problem btw: I stops working when objects are identical by value or in other words if objects return the same serialized value, e.g. NULL. This is fully controllable by the objects themselves when they implement the Serializable interface.
Have you tried the SPL object hash function?
Alternatively you could use SplObjectStorage directly.
Like:
function __construct(...){
$this->_observers = new SplObjectStorage;
}
function attach(Observer $observer) {
$this->_observers[$observer] = $observer;
}
function detach(Observer $observer){
unset($this->_observers[$observer]);
}
I'd like to have a generic wrapper-class for some classes to intercept and manipulate some of the method-calls. Method-call-forwarding, intercepting, no problem so far. But after thinking a while, i found a problem for which i have no solution: I'm using the built-in instanceof-operator everywhere in my application. Of course this won't work anymore, because the wrapper isn't an instance of the class inside it. I would like to continue using the operator and not to replace it with an other function.
Is there a way to implement a workaround for this problem? How does this operator work? Does it call a core-function of the classes which i am probably able to overwrite in my wrapper?
I know that this would not be a really "clean" solution to manipulate this operator, but i think this would be the simplest solution for me. And as we know, there are many things in PHP which are not that clean... :-)
Thanks for your answers, Ben
I don't know is it possible to trick a instanceof operator in way you want (recognize a class as subclass if it is not) but I think I found a solution that may suit your needs. If I understand correctly your problem then you simply want to inject some methods in any class with minimal changes in your whole code.
I think the best way to prepare a solution in this case is using traits (described here). With traits you can add methods to any class without direct inheritance and it can overwrite methods from base class. For overwriting method with traits you of course need a subclasses but they can be created dynamically. I don't know anything about your wrapping process but in my solution I used a special class for it. Lets look at my solution:
namespace someNameSpace;
//this is one of your class that you want to wrap - it can be declare under some other namespace if you need
class yourBaseClass { }
//your wrapper class as a trait
trait yourWrapper { }
//class for wrapping any object
class ObjectWrapperClass
{
//method for change object class (described on http://stackoverflow.com/a/3243949/4662836)
protected static function objectToObject($instance, $className)
{
return unserialize(sprintf('O:%d:"%s"%s', strlen($className), $className, strstr(strstr(serialize($instance), '"'), ':')));
}
//wrapping method
//$object is a object to be wrapped
//$wrapper is a full name of the wrapper trait
public static function wrap($object, $wrapper)
{
//take some information about the object to be wrapped
$reflection = new \ReflectionClass($object);
$baseClass = $reflection->getShortName();
$namespace = $reflection->getNamespaceName();
//perpare the name of the new wrapped class
$newClassName = "{$baseClass}Wrapped";
//if new wrapped class has not been declared before we need to do it now
if (!class_exists($newClassName)) {
//prepare a code of the wrapping class that inject trait
$newClassCode = "namespace {$namespace} { class {$newClassName} extends {$baseClass} { use {$wrapper}; } }";
//run the prepared code
eval($newClassCode);
}
//change the object class and return it
return self::objectToObject($object, $namespace . '\\' . $newClassName);
}
}
//lets test this solution
$originalObject = new yourBaseClass();
$wrappedObject = ObjectWrapperClass::wrap($originalObject, 'yourWrapper');
if ($wrappedObject instanceof yourBaseClass) {
echo 'It is working';
}
As you can see everything is happens during wrapping process.
If you have more wrappers then you can prepare the new wrapped class name in other way (for example to be corelated with wrapper name).
Probably I can describe a solution for your needs. (disclaimer: I'm author of Go! AOP Framework) From your description it looks like you want to dynamically add additional logic to your methods without touching the class. If I'm right, then you could have a look at Aspect-Oriented Paradigm that introduces a concept of interceptors for your source code, what is more important - your original classes will be untouched.
To have an idea, how this can be applied to your code, you could also have a look at my article http://go.aopphp.com/blog/2014/10/19/caching-like-a-pro/ that highlights all advantages and disadvantages of classical object-oriented patterns like decorator, proxy. I can make a conclusion, that all interceptors can not be extracted into separate modules in object-oriented way because of essential complexity and limitations of PHP for solving cross-cutting concerns. AOP extends traditional OOP model, so it will be possible to extract interceptors (called advices) into separate classes (called aspects).
Brilliant feature of AOP is that it keeps your original class names and this means that you shouldn't change typehints in your code or even hijack a instanceof operator. You will get your class with additional logic.
Not possible at all. Actually, maybe in the future: https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=71352
Use an interface instead of the concrete class. Apply the interface to Wrapper and Concrete Class.
See http://de3.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.interfaces.php
Have a look at decorator pattern. If your wrapper/wrapped classes implement the same interface, you can do everything elegantly (and use instanceof interface throughout the code).
Is there a way to implement a workaround for this problem? How does this operator work? Does it call a core-function of the classes which i am probably able to overwrite in my wrapper?
You cannot manipulate instanceof operator. Since you were interested how instanceof operator is implemented, here is a PHP representation of original C code:
class php_class {
public $interfaces = array(); // array of php_class objects (php classes can implement more than one interface)
public $parent = null; // php_class object (php classes can only extend one class)
}
function instanceof_operator($implementation, $abstraction) {
// forward recursion (iterates recursively through interfaces until a match is found)
for($i=0; $i<count($implementation->interfaces); $i++) {
if(instanceof_operator($implementation->interfaces[$i], $abstraction)) {
return true;
}
}
// backward recursion (iterates recursively through parents until a match is found)
while($implementation!=null) {
if($implementation == $abstraction) {
return true;
}
$implementation = $implementation->parent;
}
// no match was found
return false;
}
Whenever you declare a class to implement/extend an interface/class, imagine an entry is deposited on $interfaces or $parent fields that remains immutable until script terminates.
(This question uses PHP as context but isn't restricted to PHP only. e.g. Any language with built in hash is also relevant)
Let's look at this example (PHP):
function makeAFredUsingAssoc()
{
return array(
'id'=>1337,
'height'=>137,
'name'=>"Green Fred");
}
Versus:
class Fred
{
public $id;
public $height;
public $name;
public function __construct($id, $height, $name)
{
$this->id = $id;
$this->height = $height;
$this->name = $name;
}
}
function makeAFredUsingValueObject()
{
return new Fred(1337, 137, "Green Fred");
}
Method #1 is of course terser, however it may easily lead to error such as
$myFred = makeAFredUsingAssoc();
return $myFred['naem']; // notice teh typo here
Of course, one might argue that $myFred->naem will equally lead to error, which is true. However having a formal class just feels more rigid to me, but I can't really justify it.
What would be the pros/cons to using each approach and when should people use which approach?
Under the surface, the two approaches are equivalent. However, you get most of the standard OO benefits when using a class: encapsulation, inheritance, etc.
Also, look at the following examples:
$arr['naem'] = 'John';
is perfectly valid and could be a difficult bug to find.
On the other hand,
$class->setNaem('John');
will never work.
A simple class like this one:
class PersonalData {
protected $firstname;
protected $lastname;
// Getters/setters here
}
Has few advantages over an array.
There is no possibility to make some typos. $data['firtsname'] = 'Chris'; will work while $data->setFirtsname('Chris'); will throw en error.
Type hinting: PHP arrays can contain everything (including nothing) while well defined class contains only specified data.
public function doSth(array $personalData) {
$this->doSthElse($personalData['firstname']); // What if "firstname" index doesn't exist?
}
public function doSth(PersonalData $personalData) {
// I am guaranteed that following method exists.
// In worst case it will return NULL or some default value
$this->doSthElse($personalData->getFirstname());
}
We can add some extra code before set/get operations, like validation or logging:
public function setFirstname($firstname) {
if (/* doesn't match "firstname" regular expression */) {
throw new InvalidArgumentException('blah blah blah');
}
if (/* in debbug mode */) {
log('Firstname set to: ' . $firstname);
}
$this->firstname = $firstname;
}
We can use all the benefits of OOP like inheritance, polymorphism, type hinting, encapsulation and so on...
As mentioned before all of our "structs" can inherit from some base class that provides implementation for Countable, Serializable or Iterator interfaces, so our structs could use foreach loops etc.
IDE support.
The only disadvantage seems to be speed. Creation of an array and operating on it is faster. However we all know that in many cases CPU time is much cheaper than programmer time. ;)
After thinking about it for some time, here's my own answer.
The main thing about preferring value objects over arrays is clarity.
Consider this function:
// Yes, you can specify parameter types in PHP
function MagicFunction(Fred $fred)
{
// ...
}
versus
function MagicFunction(array $fred)
{
}
The intent is clearer. The function author can enforce his requirement.
More importantly, as the user, I can easily look up what constitutes a valid Fred. I just need to open Fred.php and discover its internals.
There is a contract between the caller and the callee. Using value objects, this contract can be written as syntax-checked code:
class Fred
{
public $name;
// ...
}
If I used an array, I can only hope my user would read the comments or the documentation:
// IMPORTANT! You need to specify 'name' and 'age'
function MagicFunction(array $fred)
{
}
Depending on the UseCase I might use either or. The advantage of the class is that I can use it like a Type and use Type Hints on methods or any introspection methods. If I just want to pass around some random dataset from a query or something, I'd likely use the array. So I guess as long as Fred has special meaning in my model, I'd use a class.
On a sidenote:
ValueObjects are supposed to be immutable. At least if you are refering to Eric Evan's definition in Domain Driven Design. In Fowler's PoEA, ValueObjects do not necessarily have to be immutable (though it is suggested), but they should not have identity, which is clearly the case with Fred.
Let me pose this question to you:
What's so different about making a typo like $myFred['naem'] and making a typo like $myFred->naem? The same issue still exists in both cases and they both error.
I like to use KISS (keep it simple, stupid) when I program.
If you are simply returning a subset of a query from a method, simply return an array.
If you are storing the data as a public/private/static/protected variable in one of your classes, it would be best to store it as a stdClass.
If you are going to later pass this to another class method, you might prefer the strict typing of the Fred class, i.e. public function acceptsClass(Fred $fredObj)
You could have just as easily created a standard class as opposed to an array if it is to be used as a return value. In this case you could care less about strict typing.
$class = new stdClass();
$class->param = 'value';
$class->param2 = 'value2';
return $class;
A pro for the hash: It is able to handle name-value combinations which are unknown at design time.
When the return value represents an entity in your application, you should use an object, as this is the purpose of OOP. If you just want to return a group of unrelated values then it's not so clear cut. If it's part of a public API, though, then a declared class is still the best way to go.
Honestly, I like them both.
Hash arrays are way faster than making objects, and time is money!
But, JSON doesn't like hash arrays (which seems a bit like OOP OCD).
Maybe for projects with multiple people, a well-defined class would be better.
Hash arrays might take more CPU time and memory (an object has a predefined amount), though its hard to be sure for every scenario.
But what really sucks is thinking about which one to use too much. Like I said, JSON doesn't like hashes. Oops, I used an array. I got to change a few thousand lines of code now.
I don't like it, but it seems that classes are the safer way to go.
The benefit of a proper Value Object is that there's no way to actually make an invalid one and no way to change one that exists (integrity and "immutability"). With only getters and type hinting parameters, there's NO WAY to screw it up in compilable code, which you can obviously easily do with malleable arrays.
Alternatively you could validate in a public constructor and throw an exception, but this provides a gentler factory method.
class Color
{
public static function create($name, $rgb) {
// validate both
if ($bothValid) {
return new self($name, $rgb);
} else {
return false;
}
}
public function getName() { return $this->_name; }
public function getRgb() { return $this->_rgb; }
protected function __construct($name, $rgb)
{
$this->_name = $name;
$this->_rgb = $rgb;
}
protected $_name;
protected $_rgb;
}
I have worked with OOP Languages over 10 years.
If you understand the way objects work you will love it.
Inheritance, Polymorphism, Encapsulation, Overloading are the key advantage of OOP.
On the other hand when we talk about PHP we have to consider that PHP isn't a full featured Object Oriented language.
For example we cant use method overloading or constructor overloading (straightforward).
Associative arrays in PHP is a VERY nice feature but i think that harms php enterprise applications.
When you write code you want to get clean and maintainable application.
Another think that you loose with Associative arrays is that you can't use intellisense.
So i think if you want to write cleanner and more maintainable code you have to use the OOP features when it is provided.
I prefer to have hard-coded properties like in your second example. I feel like it more clearly defines the expected class structure (and all possible properties on the class). As opposed to the first example which boils down to just always remembering to use the same key names. With the second you can always go back and look at the class to get an idea of the properties just by looking at the top of the file.
You'll better know you're doing something wrong with the second one -- if you try to echo $this->doesntExist you'll get an error whereas if you try to echo array['doesntExist'] you won't.