|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 07/25/07 00:34
Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Michael Fesser wrote:
>> .oO(Sanders Kaufman)
>
>>> That's ONE use for the constructor.
>>
>> It's the only use. As it's name suggests - it's used to create an object
>> (and a destructor is called while cleaning up, respectively). In PHP the
>> constructor is more or less just for initialization, in other languages
>> it's also used to allocate memory for the new object.
>
> That was funny.
> It took just two sentences for you to contradict yourself.
>
There was no contradiction in what he said.
> You're somewhat correct when you say that it's "more or less just for
> initialization". It is indeed useful for MORE than just initializing
> the object. In fact, it's also pretty good at re-initializing the object.
>
As he said - it is the ONLY use.
>
>>> If clsGrandKid has a constructor, then clsKid's and clsMama's
>>> constructors don't get called - not until I manually call them from
>>> within clsGrandKid.
>>
>> In PHP, yes. But this doesn't mean that you're supposed to call the
>> parent constructor multiple times or not at all! In PHP you might get
>> the result you expect, other compilers might kill you for doing that.
>
> Yeah - that's why I said in my OP that I'm not concerned, in this
> particular case, with how "good" programmers do it. I just need to know
> if, in doing so, I'm exposing myself to a threat from something like
> Zombie processes.
>
It's how ANY programmer should be doing it.
When you use a system function incorrectly, you run into all kinds of
potential problems.
>
>> It's a
>> quite useful pattern for database objects or - as in my framwork - for
>> having a global application object. Firstly, it would be fatal if there
>> would be a second one, secondly, using the Singleton pattern allows
>> kinda "superglobal" access to the application object from everywhere.
>
> One of my core design principles at this stage is to avoid having a
> global application object. This foundation/framework that I'm building
> is to be used to *create* such objects... but not to be one in and of
> itself. Also, I maximize its value if I can keep the features atomic
> enough to be implemented independent of the framework as a whole.
>
There is nothing wrong with a global application object. It's not the
same as global variables. Singletons are quite common for things like this.
> So building it around a global application object would be a mistake for
> this particular project.
>
Or not building it around a global application object could be a
mistake. It depends on what you're doing.
> I am, however, simultaneously developing a reference model for this
> foundation/framework and it IS a global application object.
>
> btw - this project I'm working on is a HIPPA thing. If any of you guys
> out there are looking for work - go to the local hospital's IT
> department. There's some HUGE ka-ching out there!
>
> But don't do it in Dallas. This is MY turf. ;)
And you have to be HIPPA certified to do it. And HIPPA certification is
not easy - nor is it cheap.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|