What are the performance, security, or "other" implications of using the following form to declare a new class instance in PHP
<?php
$class_name = 'SomeClassName';
$object = new $class_name;
?>
This is a contrived example, but I've seen this form used in Factories (OOP) to avoid having a big if/switch statement.
Problems that come immediately to mind are
You lose the ability to pass arguments into a constructor (LIES. Thanks Jeremy)
Smells like eval(), with all the security concerns it brings to the table (but not necessarily the performance concerns?)
What other implications are there, or what search engine terms other than "Rank PHP Hackery" can someone use to research this?
One of the issues with the resolving at run time is that you make it really hard for the opcode caches (like APC). Still, for now, doing something like you describe in your question is a valid way if you need a certain amount of indirection when instanciating stuff.
As long as you don't do something like
$classname = 'SomeClassName';
for ($x = 0; $x < 100000; $x++){
$object = new $classname;
}
you are probably fine :-)
(my point being: Dynamically looking up a class here and then doesn't hurt. If you do it often, it will).
Also, be sure that $classname can never be set from the outside - you'd want to have some control over what exact class you will be instantiating.
It looks you can still pass arguments to the constructor, here's my test code:
<?php
class Test {
function __construct($x) {
echo $x;
}
}
$class = 'Test';
$object = new $class('test'); // echoes "test"
?>
That is what you meant, right?
So the only other problem you mentioned and that I can think of is the security of it, but it shouldn't be too difficult to make it secure, and it's obviously a lot more secure than using eval().
I would add that you can also instanciate it with a dynamic number of parameters using :
<?php
$class = "Test";
$args = array('a', 'b');
$ref = new ReflectionClass($class);
$instance = $ref->newInstanceArgs($args);
?>
But of course you add some more overhead by doing this.
About the security issue I don't think it matters much, at least it's nothing compared to eval(). In the worst case the wrong class gets instanciated, of course this is a potential security breach but much harder to exploit, and it's easy to filter using an array of allowed classes, if you really need user input to define the class name.
There may indeed be a performance hit for having to resolve the name of the variable before looking up the class definition. But, without declaring classes dynamically you have no real way to do "dyanmic" or "meta" programming. You would not be able to write code generation programs or anything like a domain-specific language construct.
We use this convention all over the place in some of the core classes of our internal framework to make the URL to controller mappings work. I have also seen it in many commercial open source applications (I'll try and dig for an example and post it). Anyway, the point of my answer is that it seems well worth what is probably a slight performance decrease if it makes more flexible, dynamic code.
The other trade-off that I should mention, though, is that performance aside, it does make the code slightly less obvious and readable unless you are very careful with your variable names. Most code is written once, and re-read and modified many times, so readability is important.
Alan, there's nothing wrong with dynamic class initialisation. This technique is present also in Java language, where one can convert string to class using Class.forClass('classname') method. It is also quite handy to defer algorithm complexity to several classes instead of having list of if-conditions. Dynamic class names are especially well suited in situations where you want your code to remain open for extension without the need for modifications.
I myself often use different classes in conjunction with database tables. In one column I keep class name that will be used to handle the record. This gives me great power of adding new types of records and handle them in unique way without changing a single byte in existing code.
You shouldn't be concerned about the performance. It has almost no overhead and objects themselves are super fast in PHP. If you need to spawn thousands of identical objects, use Flyweight design pattern to reduce memory footprint. Especially, you should not sacrifice your time as a developer just to save milliseconds on server. Also op-code optimisers work seamlessly with this technique. Scripts compiled with Zend Optimizer did not misbehave.
So I've recently encountered this, and wanted to give my thoughts on the "other" implications of using dynamic instantiation.
For one thing func_get_args() throws a bit of a wrench into things. For example I want to create a method that acts as a constructor for a specific class (e.g. a factory method). I'd need to be able to pass along the params passed to my factory method to the constructor of the class I'm instantiating.
If you do:
public function myFactoryMethod()
{
$class = 'SomeClass'; // e.g. you'd get this from a switch statement
$obj = new $class( func_get_args() );
return $obj;
}
and then call:
$factory->myFactoryMethod('foo','bar');
You're actually passing an array as the first/only param, which is the same as new SomeClass( array( 'foo', 'bar' ) ) This is obviously not what we want.
The solution (as noted by #Seldaek) requires us to convert the array into params of a constructor:
public function myFactoryMethod()
{
$class = 'SomeClass'; // e.g. you'd get this from a switch statement
$ref = new ReflectionClass( $class );
$obj = $ref->newInstanceArgs( func_get_args() );
return $obj;
}
Note: This could not be accomplished using call_user_func_array, because you can't use this approach to instantiate new objects.
HTH!
I use dynamic instantiation in my custom framework. My application controller needs to instantiate a sub-controller based on the request, and it would be simply ridiculous to use a gigantic, ever-changing switch statement to manage the loading of those controllers. As a result, I can add controller after controller to my application without having to modify the app controller to call them. As long as my URIs adhere to the conventions of my framework, the app controller can use them without having to know anything until runtime.
I'm using this framework in a production shopping cart application right now, and the performance is quite favorable, too. That being said, I'm only using the dynamic class selection in one or two spots in the whole app. I wonder in what circumstances you would need to use it frequently, and whether or not those situations are ones that are suffering from a programmer's desire to over-abstract the application (I've been guilty of this before).
One problem is that you can't address static members like that, for instance
<?php
$className = 'ClassName';
$className::someStaticMethod(); //doesn't work
?>
#coldFlame: IIRC you can use call_user_func(array($className, 'someStaticMethod') and call_user_func_array() to pass params
class Test {
function testExt() {
print 'hello from testExt :P';
}
function test2Ext()
{
print 'hi from test2Ext :)';
}
}
$class = 'Test';
$method_1 = "testExt";
$method_2 = "test2Ext";
$object = new $class(); // echoes "test"
$object->{$method_2}(); // will print 'hi from test2Ext :)'
$object->{$method_1}(); // will print 'hello from testExt :P';
this trick works in both php4 and php5 :D enjoy..
Related
I have some pattern that works great for me, but that I have some difficulty explaining to fellow programmers. I am looking for some justification or literature reference.
I personally work with PHP, but this would also be applicable to Java, Javascript, C++, and similar languages. Examples will be in PHP or Pseudocode, I hope you can live with this.
The idea is to use a lazy evaluation container for intermediate results, to avoid multiple computation of the same intermediate value.
"Dynamic programming":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_programming
The dynamic programming approach seeks to solve each subproblem only once, thus reducing the number of computations: once the solution to a given subproblem has been computed, it is stored or "memo-ized": the next time the same solution is needed, it is simply looked up
Lazy evaluation container:
class LazyEvaluationContainer {
protected $values = array();
function get($key) {
if (isset($this->values[$key])) {
return $this->values[$key];
}
if (method_exists($this, $key)) {
return $this->values[$key] = $this->$key();
}
throw new Exception("Key $key not supported.");
}
protected function foo() {
// Make sure that bar() runs only once.
return $this->get('bar') + $this->get('bar');
}
protected function bar() {
.. // expensive computation.
}
}
Similar containers are used e.g. as dependency injection containers (DIC).
Details
I usually use some variation of this.
It is possible to have the actual data methods in a different object than the data computation methods?
It is possible to have computation methods with parameters, using a cache with a nested array?
In PHP it is possible to use magic methods (__get() or __call()) for the main retrieval method. In combination with "#property" in the class docblock, this allows type hints for each "virtual" property.
I often use method names like "get_someValue()", where "someValue" is the actual key, to distinguish from regular methods.
It is possible to distribute the data computation to more than one object, to get some kind of separation of concerns?
It is possible to pre-initialize some values?
EDIT: Questions
There is already a nice answer talking about a cute mechanic in Spring #Configuration classes.
To make this more useful and interesting, I extend/clarify the question a bit:
Is storing intermediate values from dynamic programming a legitimate use case for this?
What are the best practices to implement this in PHP? Is some of the stuff in "Details" bad and ugly?
If I understand you correctly, this is quite a standard procedure, although, as you rightly admit, associated with DI (or bootstrapping applications).
A concrete, canonical example would be any Spring #Configuration class with lazy bean definitions; I think it displays exactly the same behavior as you describe, although the actual code that accomplishes it is hidden from view (and generated behind the scenes). Actual Java code could be like this:
#Configuration
public class Whatever {
#Bean #Lazy
public OneThing createOneThing() {
return new OneThing();
}
#Bean #Lazy
public SomeOtherThing createSomeOtherThing() {
return new SomeOtherThing();
}
// here the magic begins:
#Bean #Lazy
public SomeThirdThing getSomeThirdThing() {
return new SomeThirdThing(this.createOneThing(), this.createOneThing(), this.createOneThing(), createSomeOtherThing());
}
}
Each method marked with #Bean #Lazy represents one "resource" that will be created once it is needed (and the method is called) and - no matter how many times it seems that the method is called - the object will only be created once (due to some magic that changes the actual code during loading). So even though it seems that in createOneThing() is called two times in createOneThing(), only one call will occur (and that's only after someone tries to call createSomeThirdThing() or calls getBean(SomeThirdThing.class) on ApplicationContext).
I think you cannot have a universal lazy evaluation container for everything.
Let's first discuss what you really have there. I don't think it's lazy evaluation. Lazy evaluation is defined as delaying an evaluation to the point where the value is really needed, and sharing an already evaluated value with further requests for that value.
The typical example that comes to my mind is a database connection. You'd prepare everything to be able to use that connection when it is needed, but only when there really is a database query needed, the connection is created, and then shared with subsequent queries.
The typical implementation would be to pass the connection string to the constructor, store it internally, and when there is a call to the query method, first the method to return the connection handle is called, which will create and save that handle with the connection string if it does not exist. Later calls to that object will reuse the existing connection.
Such a database object would qualify for lazy evaluating the database connection: It is only created when really needed, and it is then shared for every other query.
When I look at your implementation, it would not qualify for "evaluate only if really needed", it will only store the value that was once created. So it really is only some sort of cache.
It also does not really solve the problem of universally only evaluating the expensive computation once globally. If you have two instances, you will run the expensive function twice. But on the other hand, NOT evaluating it twice will introduce global state - which should be considered a bad thing unless explicitly declared. Usually it would make code very hard to test properly. Personally I'd avoid that.
It is possible to have the actual data methods in a different object than the data computation methods?
If you have a look at how the Zend Framework offers the cache pattern (\Zend\Cache\Pattern\{Callback,Class,Object}Cache), you'd see that the real working class is getting a decorator wrapped around it. All the internal stuff of getting the values stored and read them back is handled internally, from the outside you'd call your methods just like before.
The downside is that you do not have an object of the type of the original class. So if you use type hinting, you cannot pass a decorated caching object instead of the original object. The solution is to implement an interface. The original class implements it with the real functions, and then you create another class that extends the cache decorator and implements the interface as well. This object will pass the type hinting checks, but you are forced to manually implement all interface methods, which do nothing more than pass the call to the internal magic function that would otherwise intercept them.
interface Foo
{
public function foo();
}
class FooExpensive implements Foo
{
public function foo()
{
sleep(100);
return "bar";
}
}
class FooCached extends \Zend\Cache\Pattern\ObjectPattern implements Foo
{
public function foo()
{
//internally uses instance of FooExpensive to calculate once
$args = func_get_args();
return $this->call(__FUNCTION__, $args);
}
}
I have found it impossible in PHP to implement a cache without at least these two classes and one interface (but on the other hand, implementing against an interface is a good thing, it shouldn't bother you). You cannot simply use the native cache object directly.
It is possible to have computation methods with parameters, using a cache with a nested array?
Parameters are working in the above implementation, and they are used in the internal generation of a cache key. You should probably have a look at the \Zend\Cache\Pattern\CallbackCache::generateCallbackKey method.
In PHP it is possible to use magic methods (__get() or __call()) for the main retrieval method. In combination with "#property" in the class docblock, this allows type hints for each "virtual" property.
Magic methods are evil. A documentation block should be considered outdated, as it is no real working code. While I found it acceptable to use magic getter and setter in a really easy-to-understand value object code, which would allow to store any value in any property just like stdClass, I do recommend to be very careful with __call.
I often use method names like "get_someValue()", where "someValue" is the actual key, to distinguish from regular methods.
I would consider this a violation of PSR-1: "4.3. Methods: Method names MUST be declared in camelCase()." And is there a reason to mark these methods as something special? Are they special at all? The do return the value, don't they?
It is possible to distribute the data computation to more than one object, to get some kind of separation of concerns?
If you cache a complex construction of objects, this is completely possible.
It is possible to pre-initialize some values?
This should not be the concern of a cache, but of the implementation itself. What is the point in NOT executing an expensive computation, but to return a preset value? If that is a real use case (like instantly return NULL if a parameter is outside of the defined range), it must be part of the implementation itself. You should not rely on an additional layer around the object to return a value in such cases.
Is storing intermediate values from dynamic programming a legitimate use case for this?
Do you have a dynamic programming problem? There is this sentence on the Wikipedia page you linked:
There are two key attributes that a problem must have in order for dynamic programming to be applicable: optimal substructure and overlapping subproblems. If a problem can be solved by combining optimal solutions to non-overlapping subproblems, the strategy is called "divide and conquer" instead.
I think that there are already existing patterns that seem to solve the lazy evaluation part of your example: Singleton, ServiceLocator, Factory. (I'm not promoting singletons here!)
There also is the concept of "promises": Objects are returned that promise to return the real value later if asked, but as long as the value isn't needed right now, would act as the values replacement that could be passed along instead. You might want to read this blog posting: http://blog.ircmaxell.com/2013/01/promise-for-clean-code.html
What are the best practices to implement this in PHP? Is some of the stuff in "Details" bad and ugly?
You used an example that probably comes close to the Fibonacci example. The aspect I don't like about that example is that you use a single instance to collect all values. In a way, you are aggregating global state here - which probably is what this whole concept is about. But global state is evil, and I don't like that extra layer. And you haven't really solved the problem of parameters enough.
I wonder why there are really two calls to bar() inside foo()? The more obvious method would be to duplicate the result directly in foo(), and then "add" it.
All in all, I'm not too impressed until now. I cannot anticipate a real use case for such a general purpose solution on this simple level. I do like IDE auto suggest support, and I do not like duck-typing (passing an object that only simulates being compatible, but without being able to ensure the instance).
I don't have a specific situation I'm dealing with, so consider this more of a general question. If language is important, answers can tend more toward PHP.
If I have a large array (or other data type) of data which I require in multiple functions, that does not change, how should I use that data? For example, maybe I have an array that looks like
$states = array(
"AL" => "Alabama",
...
"WY" => "Wyoming"
);
Obviously, this array won't need to change anytime soon. If I have five functions that have to use the above array, what is the best solution? My three ideas are:
Declare it as a global constant
This one seems the most straightforward, however some people I've talked to seem to recommend shying away from using global variables. Any insight here would be appreciated.
Pass it into the function
This one seems like a bad idea to me because it never changes, and function parameters should be for variables, right? Not to mention having to pass it into a function that doesn't use it, just so it can be used by another function. That seems like a poor practice.
Have it be returned by a function
This is one that I haven't seen used a lot, but I've used myself a couple of times for passing mysqli_connect() information to multiple functions. It worked quite well. Is this regarded as poor practice? Should I just suck it up and use a global constant?
I realize that using a global constant sounds obvious, but I've heard (and read) more than one mantra like, "if you're declaring globals, you're doing it wrong" and stuff like that. Can anyone explain why this might be?
Thanks for any insight that you can give me, guys.
My general advice would be to build a "service provider" class, which is analogous to your "return it from a function" option. Here are some specific thoughts:
Declare it as a global constant
First, constants can only be scalar values, so you cannot technically have an "constant" array. Second, what you say is almost always true: globals are a hint that there is a better way (with some exception).
Pass it into the function
If they are actually constant (in the "real world" sense, not the computer-science sense), then you are right, passing to a function should be considered code-clutter (unless the functions should be abstracted from the knowledge of the "global" value, but that's a domain-specific architecture choice.
Have it be returned by a function
Ding Ding! The reason is essentially this: Anyone can access these to "read", but only the "function" can "write". I put "function" in quotes because it could also be a class or singleton object instance. Basically, you provide a semantically appropriate provider of this static information.
One of the benefits of this approach is that you may only need the data quite seldom in a long-running program. The service provider may in that case be written to fetch the values from some out-of-memory persistence and free the memory when it is not needed anymore. Nobody else should need to be responsible for that memory management. Along the same lines, imagine that the project grows and these datum need to be loaded from a database instead of a static array... if you have centralized the access, this is remarkably easy to facilitate and you don't need to have a huge heap of memory lying around for the entire length of your program's execution holding values that are almost never accessed.
If you insist on NOT using globals (which is indeed a bad habit!) then you can "hide" it inside a function:
function get_state($state_code){
static $states = array(
"AL" => "Alabama",
...
"WY" => "Wyoming"
);
return $states[$state_code];
}
But, in this case, it seems to me that using a global array would be just fine, kind of like creating an Enam in Java.
Sounds like a wrapping class would be in order that bundles those functions that are apparently related together:
class CountryHelper {
protected static $states = array('AL' => ..., ...);
public function foo() {
self::$states ...
}
public function bar() {
self::$states ...
}
}
It depends on the environment you are working in - in MVC, I would inject this as a static property of the Controller so you can access it via:
$this -> settings('states')[$state];
Otherwise, I'd just stick with static fields of a Settings class:
class Settings
{
static $states = array( ... );
}
Or even with a singleton filled up at script startup, that could load settings from elsewhere if needed [yaml / ini] - though singleton using is not a good practice in my opinion.
Anyway don't go global, always namespace your vars / functions properly.
I've recently been reading up articles on how to optimize code for scalability in PHP. Several of the articles I've read today have discouraged the use of additional methods to simply return objects from a class.
So basically, they say:
If you have a class like this:
class myClass
{
public $something;
public function setSomething($val)
{
$this->something=$val;
}//function end
}//class end
$myClassInstance=new myClass;
And you want to get the class property $something, you should do this:
//echo $something from myClass
echo $myClassInstance->something;
And not this:
//echo $something from myClass using an additional method (getSomething()) that returns the property
echo $myClassInstance->getSomething();
Because there is a speed difference. The discouraged method is slower ($myClassInstance->getSomething()) which is why it is discouraged.
But, I see so many people still using the discouraged method (tutorials, code examples, ect). I could understand if they had to have the property set to private for whatever reason, but this is generally not the case.
So my question is, is there a benefit or something that I am missing to using the discouraged method? If so, what?
The reason for someone to use getter and setter methods is due to encapsulation. Directly accessing $something would render it both readable and writeable, however accessing it via getSomething() would instead just give the caller a copy (ie won't alter the original value).
What if you wanted to apply some logic to your "GetTitle" later such as filters or change some of the output by introducing special logic? You never know when these things will start popping out.
Additionnaly, people saying the function accessor style is slower are using a 1 million loops to benchmark it, but seriously, are you going to display 1 million titles on a page?
I recently started learning the basics of OOP in PHP.
I am new to a whole lot of concepts.
In the traditional procedural way of doing things, if I had a repetitive task, I wrote a function and called it each time.
Since this seems to be a regular occurence, I created a small library of 5-10 functions, which I included in my procedural projects and used.
In OOP, what is the valid way of using your functions and having them accessible from all objects?
To make things closer to the real world, I created a thumbnail class, that takes an image filename as an argument and can perform some operations on it.
In procedural programming. when I had a function for creating thumbnails, I also had a function to create a random md5 string, check a given folder if said string existed, and repeat if it did, so I could generate a unique name for my thumbnails before saving them.
But if I wanted to generate another unique name for another purpose, say saving a text file, I could call that function again.
So, long story short, what is the valid OOP way to have the method randomise_and_check($filename) (and all other methods in my library) accessible from all the objects in my application?
Great question. The first thing you want to do is identify the primary objects you will be working with. An easy way to do this is to identify all the nouns related to your project. In your example it sounds like you will be working with images and strings, from this we can create two classes which will contain related attributes (functions, member variables, etc). And as you wisely mentioned, we need to ensure that the algorithms you are converting into OOP can be called from any context, so we try to keep them abstract as possible (within reason).
So for your specific situation I would suggest something like:
// Good object reference, abstract enough to cover any type of image
// But specific enough to provide semantic API calls
class Image
{
// Using your example, but to ensure you follow the DRY principle
// (Don't repeat yourself) this method should be broken up into two
// separate methods
public static function randomise_and_check($fileUri)
{
// Your code here
....
// Example of call to another class from within this class
$hash = String::generateHash();
}
}
// Very abstract, but allows this class to grow over time, by adding more
// string related methods
class String
{
public static function generateHash()
{
return md5(rand());
}
}
// Calling code example
$imageStats = Image::radomise_and_check($fileUri);
There are several other approaches and ideas that can be employed, such as whether or not to instantiate objects, or whether we should create a parent class from which we can extend, but these concepts will become evident over time and with practice. I think the code snippet provided should give you a good idea what you can do to make the jump from procedural to OOP. And, as always, don't forget to read the docs for more info.
-- Update --
Adding an OOP example:
class Image
{
protected $sourceUri;
public function setSourceUri($sourceUri)
{
$this->sourceUri = $sourceUri;
}
public function generateThumb()
{
return YourGenerator::resize($this->getSourceUri);
}
}
$image = new Image();
$image->setSourceUri($imageUri);
$thumbnail = $image->generateThumbnail();
The way I see it, you have two options:
Don't worry about cramming yourself into OOP and just make them standard, global functions in some utilities.php file you include wherever you want to use it. This is my preferred method.
If you take the more OOP approach, you could make them static functions ("methods") in some utilities class. From the PHP documentation:
<?php
class Foo {
public static function aStaticMethod() {
// ...
}
}
Foo::aStaticMethod();
$classname = 'Foo';
$classname::aStaticMethod(); // As of PHP 5.3.0
?>
Create an (abstract) Util-class with static functions:
example from my Util class:
abstract Class Util{
public static function dump($object){
echo '<pre class=\"dump\">' . print_r($object, true) . '</pre>';
}
}
How to use:
<?
$object = new Whatever();
//what's in the object?
Util::dump($object);
?>
For a beginner, OOP development is not all that different from procedural (once you master the basic concepts it gets quite a bit different, but that's not important to learning the basics).
You deal in OO concepts all the time, you just don't realize it. When you click on a file in your file manager, and manipulate that file.. you're using Object Oriented concepts. The file has attributes (size, type, read-only, etc..) and things you can do with it (open, copy, delete).
You just apply those concepts to development by creating objects that have properties and things you can do with it (methods).
In the OOP world, you don't typically make things available to everything else. OOP is all about "encapsulation", which is limiting access to only that which is needed. Why would you make a "haircut" method available to an orange juice object? You wouldn't. You only make the "haircut" method available to objects that need haircuts.
Writing reusable OO software is very difficult. Even professionals can't get it right a lot of the time. It requires a mixture of experience, training, practice, and frankly luck in some cases.
You should read about Dependency Injection as it seems to apply to your specific problem. Basically, you have an object that depends on some abstraction, maybe the "Image Library" functionality. In your controller, you would create an instance of the "Image Library" object and inject that dependency into whatever other objects required it.
That is, you need to stop thinking on the global scope altogether. Instead, you have to compartmentalize functionailties in a sane way and tie them together. Basically, objects should only know about as little as they need to know (also look up Law of Demeter and SOLID). I reiterate, this is tough to do correctly, and most of the time you can still have an application that works beautifully even if it's done incorrectly.
If you want to be very strict about this you should apply this line of thinking to everything, but if you have a function that wraps something very simple like return isset($_POST[$key]) ? $_POST[$key] : $default; I see no real harm in creating a global function for that. You could create an HttpPost wrapper class, but that is overkill in most circumstances IMO.
The short answer: use ordinary function. OOP encourages you to think about data and associated routines, using static functions instead of ordinary does not make your program more object-oriented. Following the single programming paradigm is not practical, combine them when you see that this will make your program cleaner.
My code is located here: https://github.com/maniator/SmallFry
Should I make it so that that the App class does not have to use static functions but at the same time be able to set and set variables for the app from anywhere?
Or should I keep it how it is now with App::get and App::set methods?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of both?
How would I accomplish that 1st task if I was to undertake it?
Related Question
Sample code:
//DEFAULT TEMPLATE
App::set('APP_NAME', 'SmallVC');
//END DEFAULT TEMPLAT
//
//DEFAULT TEMPLATE
App::set('DEFAULT_TEMPLATE', 'default');
//END DEFAULT TEMPLATE
//DEFAULT TITLE
App::set('DEFAULT_TITLE', 'Small-VC');
//END DEFAULT TITLE
//LOGIN SEED
App::set('LOGIN_SEED', "lijfg98u5;jfd7hyf");
//END LOGIN SEED
App::set('DEFAULT_CONTROLLER', 'AppController');
if(App::get('view')){
$template_file = $cwd.'/../view/'.App::get('view').'/'.App::get('method').'.stp';
if(is_file($template_file)){
include $template_file;
}
else {
include $cwd.'/../view/missingview.stp'; //no such view error
}
}
else {
App::set('template', 'blank');
include $cwd.'/../view/missingfunction.stp'; //no such function error
}
I think you have a feeling that static is bad. What I am posting may seem fairly crazy as it is a massive change. At the very least hopefully it presents a different idea of the world.
Miško Hevery wrote static methods are a death to testability.
I like testing, so for that reason I don't use them. So, how else can we solve the problem? I like to solve it using what I think is a type of dependency injection. Martin Fowler has a good but complicated article on it here.
For each object at construction I pass the objects that are required for them to operate. From your code I would make AppController become:
class AppController
{
protected $setup;
public function __construct(array $setup = array())
{
$setup += array('App' => NULL, 'Database' => NULL);
if (!$setup['App'] instanceof App)
{
if (NULL !== $setup['App'])
{
throw new InvalidArgumentException('Not an App.');
}
$setup['App'] = new App();
}
// Same for Database.
// Avoid doing any more in the constructor if possible.
$this->setup = $setup;
}
public function otherFunction()
{
echo $this->setup['App']->get('view');
}
}
The dependancies default to values that are most likely (your default constructions in the if statements). So, normally you don't need to pass a setup. However, when you are testing or want different functionality you can pass in mocks or different classes (that derive from the right base class). You can use interfaces as an option too.
Edit The more pure form of dependency injection involves further change. It requires that you pass always pass required objects rather than letting the class default one when the object isn't passed. I have been through a similar change in my codebase of +20K LOC. Having implemented it, I see many benefits to going the whole way. Objects encapsulation is greatly improved. It makes you feel like you have real objects rather than every bit of code relying on something else.
Throwing exceptions when you don't inject all of the dependencies causes you to fix things quickly. With a good system wide exception handler set with set_exception_handler in some bootstrap code you will easily see your exceptions and can fix each one quickly. The code then becomes simpler in the AppController with the check in the constructor becoming:
if (!$setup['App'] instanceof App)
{
throw new InvalidArgumentException('Not an App.');
}
With every class you then write all objects would be constructed upon initialisation. Also, with each construction of an object you would pass down the dependencies that are required (or let the default ones you provide) be instantiated. (You will notice when you forget to do this because you will have to rewrite your code to take out dependencies before you can test it.)
It seems like a lot of work, but the classes reflect the real world closer and testing becomes a breeze. You can also see the dependencies you have in your code easily in the constructor.
Well, if it was me, I would have the end goal of injecting the App dependency into any class (or class tree) that needs it. That way in testing or reusing the code you can inject whatever you want.
Note I said reuse there. That's because it's hard to re-use code that has static calls in it. That's because it's tied to the global state so you can't really "change" the state for a subrequest (or whatever you want to do).
Now, on to the question at hand. It appears that you have a legacy codebase, which will complicate things. The way I would approach it is as follows:
Create a non-static version of the app class (name it something different for now) that does nothing but proxy its get/set calls to the real app class. So, for example:
class AppProxy {
public function set($value) {
return App::set($value);
}
}
For now, all it has to do is proxy. Once we finish getting all the code talking to the proxy instead of the static app, we'll make it actually function. But until then, this will keep the application running. That way you can take your time implementing these steps and don't need to do it all in one big sweep.
Pick a main class (one that does a lot for the application, or is important) that you easily control the instantiation of. Preferably one that you instantiate in only one place (in the bootstrap is the easiest). Change that class to use Dependency Injection via the constructor to get the "appproxy".
a. Test this!
Pick another class tree to work on, based on what you think will be most important and easiest.
a. Test!!!
If you have more calls to App::, Go to #3
Change the existing App class to be non-static.
a. Test!!!!!!!!!!
Remove the AppProxy and replace with App in the dependency injectors. If you did it right, you should only have one place to change to make this switch.
Pat yourself on the back and go get a drink, cause you're done.
The reason that I segmented it out like this is that once a step is completed (any step), you can still ship working software. So this conversion could take literally months (depending on the size of your codebase) without interrupting business as usual...
Now, once you're done, you do get some significant benefits:
Easy to test since you can just create a new App object to inject (or mock it as needed).
Side effects are easier to see since the App object is required wherever it could be changed.
It's easier to componentize libraries this way since their side effects are localized/
It's easier to override (polymorphism) the core app class if it's injected than if it's static.
I could go on, but I think it's pretty easy to find resources on why statics are generally bad. So that's the approach I would use to migrate away from a static class to an instance...
If you don't want to have static functions but global access from everywhere WITHOUT passing the object to the places where it is actually needed then you pretty much can only use one thing:
A global variable
So you are not really better of doing that. But that is the only thing i can think of that would fulfill your requirements.
If you App object is something like an application config a first possible step would be to pass it to the objects that need it:
class Login {
public function __construct() {
$this->_login_seed = App::get('LOGIN_SEED');
self::$_ms = Database::getConnection();
}
changes into:
class Login {
public function __construct(App $app) {
$this->_login_seed = $app->get('LOGIN_SEED');
self::$_ms = Database::getConnection();
}