[PHP] strict nannying ...
OK I've got a machine set up with PHP5.4 and left the strict errors showing, and I'm falling at the first hurdle :) The functions for generating URL's are used both statically and as part of the class. STRICT complains because they are not marked 'static' ( and I'm assuming 'public static' is the correct addition here ) but then of cause the $this fallback fails because '$this' is not allowed IN the static use of the function? How do others get around this problem? I've some 120 static instances to fix in parallel with about the same number of class uses across about 40 odd functions. Do I really have to duplicate the code and rename every static use? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] strict nannying ...
On 15 Apr 2012, at 11:44, Lester Caine wrote:
I've got a machine set up with PHP5.4 and left the strict errors showing, and
I'm falling at the first hurdle :)
The functions for generating URL's are used both statically and as part of
the class. STRICT complains because they are not marked 'static' ( and I'm
assuming 'public static' is the correct addition here ) but then of cause the
$this fallback fails because '$this' is not allowed IN the static use of the
function?
How do others get around this problem? I've some 120 static instances to fix
in parallel with about the same number of class uses across about 40 odd
functions. Do I really have to duplicate the code and rename every static use?
If the class can be used both statically and as an instance why is it referring
to $this? When called statically $this will not exist.
To refer to the class when in a static method use self...
?php
class StaticClass
{
public static $staticVariable = 1234;
public static function staticMethod()
{
return self::otherStaticMethod();
}
public static function otherStaticMethod()
{
return self::$staticVariable;
}
}
-Stuart
--
Stuart Dallas
3ft9 Ltd
http://3ft9.com/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] strict nannying ...
Stuart Dallas wrote:
On 15 Apr 2012, at 11:44, Lester Caine wrote:
I've got a machine set up with PHP5.4 and left the strict errors showing, and
I'm falling at the first hurdle :)
The functions for generating URL's are used both statically and as part of the
class. STRICT complains because they are not marked 'static' ( and I'm assuming
'public static' is the correct addition here ) but then of cause the $this
fallback fails because '$this' is not allowed IN the static use of the function?
How do others get around this problem? I've some 120 static instances to fix in
parallel with about the same number of class uses across about 40 odd
functions. Do I really have to duplicate the code and rename every static use?
If the class can be used both statically and as an instance why is it referring
to $this? When called statically $this will not exist.
To refer to the class when in a static method use self...
?php
class StaticClass
{
public static $staticVariable = 1234;
public static function staticMethod()
{
return self::otherStaticMethod();
}
public static function otherStaticMethod()
{
return self::$staticVariable;
}
}
This is all legacy code only some of which I wrote, and the function IS working
happily with 'STRICT' switched off. I'm just trying to work out how to remove
the messages that switching 'STRICT' on creates - which in this case is
complaining when the function IS called statically without being defined as
such. The function creates a url based on the information supplied, and if no
information is supplied it uses $this to access the data directly. The problem
now is getting both uses of the function working, but it looks like I HAVE to
duplicate the code ... or rather work out how to get the correct values selected
before calling the static version of the code.
With reference to the above, does self:: replace parent:: when trying to call
the base functionality which is where I think I am trying to head ...
getDisplayUrl() gives me a url in one of a number of formats depending what
style of url is selected, and the base package that created it, so the use both
statically and 'dynamically' made perfect sense 10 years ago :)
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] strict nannying ...
On 15 Apr 2012, at 13:30, Lester Caine wrote:
Stuart Dallas wrote:
On 15 Apr 2012, at 11:44, Lester Caine wrote:
I've got a machine set up with PHP5.4 and left the strict errors showing,
and I'm falling at the first hurdle :)
The functions for generating URL's are used both statically and as part of
the class. STRICT complains because they are not marked 'static' ( and I'm
assuming 'public static' is the correct addition here ) but then of cause
the $this fallback fails because '$this' is not allowed IN the static use
of the function?
How do others get around this problem? I've some 120 static instances to
fix in parallel with about the same number of class uses across about 40
odd functions. Do I really have to duplicate the code and rename every
static use?
If the class can be used both statically and as an instance why is it
referring to $this? When called statically $this will not exist.
To refer to the class when in a static method use self...
?php
class StaticClass
{
public static $staticVariable = 1234;
public static function staticMethod()
{
return self::otherStaticMethod();
}
public static function otherStaticMethod()
{
return self::$staticVariable;
}
}
This is all legacy code only some of which I wrote, and the function IS
working happily with 'STRICT' switched off. I'm just trying to work out how
to remove the messages that switching 'STRICT' on creates - which in this
case is complaining when the function IS called statically without being
defined as such. The function creates a url based on the information
supplied, and if no information is supplied it uses $this to access the data
directly. The problem now is getting both uses of the function working, but
it looks like I HAVE to duplicate the code ... or rather work out how to get
the correct values selected before calling the static version of the code.
You don't need to duplicate code, you simply need to create different entry
points to the class based on whether it's accessed statically or as an
instantiated object. Something like this...
?php
class UrlGenerator
{
public static function buildURL($a, $b, $c)
{
...
}
public function getURL()
{
return self::buildURL($this-a, $this-b, $this-c);
}
}
?
No code duplication but clear separation between static and instantiated usage.
However, this is not the best way to structure this code IMO. The better option
would be to extract the static parts into a separate class, and use that new
class from the instantiated version.
With reference to the above, does self:: replace parent:: when trying to call
the base functionality which is where I think I am trying to head ...
getDisplayUrl() gives me a url in one of a number of formats depending what
style of url is selected, and the base package that created it, so the use
both statically and 'dynamically' made perfect sense 10 years ago :)
Using a class both statically and as instantiated objects makes sense now,
never mind ten years ago, but it has never made sense for both uses to share
the same entry points. It was possible, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.
The self and parent keywords do exactly what they say on the tin. Self refers
to the current class and parent refers to the parent class, both in a static
context. Some of these things are pretty self-explanatory.
-Stuart
--
Stuart Dallas
3ft9 Ltd
http://3ft9.com/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] strict nannying ...
Stuart Dallas wrote: No code duplication but clear separation between static and instantiated usage. However, this is not the best way to structure this code IMO. The better option would be to extract the static parts into a separate class, and use that new class from the instantiated version. I've sort of got a problem with that since duplicating every content package class and then deciding which version I should be accessing does not make sense. I'm slowly pulling the 'static' elements into their own function and leaving the instantiated elements alone but it's slow work. Those people who kept telling me 'just fix the errors' simply don't understand how complex that CAN be :( I've only worked my way through half a dozen packages and I've 20 or so to go ... all just to bring things 'up to acceptable php code' ;) With reference to the above, does self:: replace parent:: when trying to call the base functionality which is where I think I am trying to head ... getDisplayUrl() gives me a url in one of a number of formats depending what style of url is selected, and the base package that created it, so the use both statically and 'dynamically' made perfect sense 10 years ago:) Using a class both statically and as instantiated objects makes sense now, never mind ten years ago, but it has never made sense for both uses to share the same entry points. It was possible, but that doesn't mean it makes sense. The self and parent keywords do exactly what they say on the tin. Self refers to the current class and parent refers to the parent class, both in a static context. Some of these things are pretty self-explanatory. I think I've got that under control now. the 'parent::' was giving me errors for other reasons. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] strict nannying ...
On 15 Apr 2012, at 15:02, Lester Caine wrote: Stuart Dallas wrote: No code duplication but clear separation between static and instantiated usage. However, this is not the best way to structure this code IMO. The better option would be to extract the static parts into a separate class, and use that new class from the instantiated version. I've sort of got a problem with that since duplicating every content package class and then deciding which version I should be accessing does not make sense. I didn't suggest duplicating anything, just separating the elements so there's a clear distinction between static and instantiated. This is basic software engineering if you ask me. I was going to rant about defensive programming here, but life's too short! I'm slowly pulling the 'static' elements into their own function and leaving the instantiated elements alone but it's slow work. Those people who kept telling me 'just fix the errors' simply don't understand how complex that CAN be :( I've only worked my way through half a dozen packages and I've 20 or so to go ... all just to bring things 'up to acceptable php code' ;) It is as simple as that. Fix the errors. There may be a lot of them, and there may be complex interplay between different parts of your code, but it's still as simple as just fixing the errors. -Stuart -- Stuart Dallas 3ft9 Ltd http://3ft9.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] strict nannying ...
Stuart Dallas wrote: Stuart Dallas wrote: No code duplication but clear separation between static and instantiated usage. However, this is not the best way to structure this code IMO. The better option would be to extract the static parts into a separate class, and use that new class from the instantiated version. I've sort of got a problem with that since duplicating every content package class and then deciding which version I should be accessing does not make sense. I didn't suggest duplicating anything, just separating the elements so there's a clear distinction between static and instantiated. This is basic software engineering if you ask me. I was going to rant about defensive programming here, but life's too short! I'm slowly pulling the 'static' elements into their own function and leaving the instantiated elements alone but it's slow work. Those people who kept telling me 'just fix the errors' simply don't understand how complex that CAN be:( I've only worked my way through half a dozen packages and I've 20 or so to go ... all just to bring things 'up to acceptable php code';) It is as simple as that. Fix the errors. There may be a lot of them, and there may be complex interplay between different parts of your code, but it's still as simple as just fixing the errors. Actually is NOT as simple as that ... I have fixed the problems on the package set I use on a number of my sites, but it simply brings me back to your first comment, since fixing the problems is not the same as producing tidy code going to build on. The original code base comes from PHP4 times, but has now been developed into a base 'content' class from which all other 'content' classes are descended. The static functions create generic url, uri and the like, while the 'instantiated' version simply uses the objects own values to provide the variable elements. If I move the static functions into separate classes why is that better than packaging the descended code in the class itself? What I'm trying to establish here is in what way the code base needs re-writing in line with 'current good practice' while keeping the sites running as reliably as they have over the last few years with the 'bad practice' being flagged by 'STRICT' :( -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] strict nannying ...
On 15 Apr 2012, at 19:41, Lester Caine wrote: Stuart Dallas wrote: Stuart Dallas wrote: No code duplication but clear separation between static and instantiated usage. However, this is not the best way to structure this code IMO. The better option would be to extract the static parts into a separate class, and use that new class from the instantiated version. I've sort of got a problem with that since duplicating every content package class and then deciding which version I should be accessing does not make sense. I didn't suggest duplicating anything, just separating the elements so there's a clear distinction between static and instantiated. This is basic software engineering if you ask me. I was going to rant about defensive programming here, but life's too short! I'm slowly pulling the 'static' elements into their own function and leaving the instantiated elements alone but it's slow work. Those people who kept telling me 'just fix the errors' simply don't understand how complex that CAN be:( I've only worked my way through half a dozen packages and I've 20 or so to go ... all just to bring things 'up to acceptable php code';) It is as simple as that. Fix the errors. There may be a lot of them, and there may be complex interplay between different parts of your code, but it's still as simple as just fixing the errors. Actually is NOT as simple as that ... I have fixed the problems on the package set I use on a number of my sites, but it simply brings me back to your first comment, since fixing the problems is not the same as producing tidy code going to build on. The original code base comes from PHP4 times, but has now been developed into a base 'content' class from which all other 'content' classes are descended. The static functions create generic url, uri and the like, while the 'instantiated' version simply uses the objects own values to provide the variable elements. If I move the static functions into separate classes why is that better than packaging the descended code in the class itself? Better is highly subjective. For me it's better because it follows the DRY and KISS principles. If the URL building is going to be used both statically as well as within the context of an object, that code does not belong within the class which is the type of that object. If we were only talking objects then yes, it would make sense to put that functionality into the base class, but NOT as a static method. To repeat, this is highly subjective, and I can only base my opinion on my education and experience. There is no right way. What I'm trying to establish here is in what way the code base needs re-writing in line with 'current good practice' while keeping the sites running as reliably as they have over the last few years with the 'bad practice' being flagged by 'STRICT' :( The code needs rewriting so that static functions are called statically, and non-static functions are called on an object. Outside of that and a few other simple rules PHP doesn't care how you organise your code. -Stuart -- Stuart Dallas 3ft9 Ltd http://3ft9.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
