Scott Mattocks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rusty Keele wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Which is a better approach to use:
>
> 1. require_once('path/to/class.php');
>
> or
>
> 2. if(!class_exists('path/to/class.php')) require('path/to/class.php');
>
> I have been using the first approach in all my files where I need to
> instantiate a specific class, but I am wondering if the second approach is
> more efficient? Are there any benefits to using the second approach - such
> as less caching of objects - or do these two statements do the same thing?
It depends on which version of PHP you are using. require_once was not
very efficient in PHP 4 and early versions of PHP 5. I believe it has
been fixed in later versions of PHP 5.
On a side not, you are passing a file path to class_exists. That is
incorrect. You should pass the class name.
On another side note, require, include, require_once and include_once
are language constructs not functions. You don't need the () and some
would tell you that it is incorrect to add them.
Scott Mattocks
I am using PHP 5.2.5, and I recently created a new class that will store
database login credentials such as hostname, username and password.
Now I am searching for all the PHP files that have the db credentials in
the code and I'm changing them to instantiate an object of my new class and get
the credentials from it.
I am using require_once to make sure the class file is included, but would
I be better off to first check and see if the class exists, and if not then
require the class file?
Ultimately, I am trying to decide if there are any advantages to using
class_exists rather than require_once.
-Rusty
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
_______________________________________________
UPHPU mailing list
[email protected]
http://uphpu.org/mailman/listinfo/uphpu
IRC: #uphpu on irc.freenode.net
