|
|
Posted by Marijn on 09/04/07 21:14
On Sep 4, 4:52 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> ELINTPimp wrote:
> > On Sep 4, 2:40 am, Marijn <marijn.huizendv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi there,
>
> >> Again a question with no simple yes or no answer at least, opinions
> >> will probably be scattered so no unanimous yes or no answer ;)
>
> >> What would you think is the best of the following to options given
> >> that it is more likely that the databaseConnection is set?
>
> >> SomeClass {
>
> >> [.............]
>
> >> /**
> >> * Sets the connection to the database in use.
> >> *
> >> * @return DatabaseFactory
> >> */
> >> private function __getDatabaseConnection(){
> >> if (isset($this->__databaseConnection)) {
> >> return($this->__databaseConnection);
> >> } else {
> >> $this->__databaseConnection = new DatabaseFactory();
> >> $this->__databaseConnection->create();
> >> return($this->__databaseConnection);
> >> };
> >> }
>
> >> }
>
> >> Or
>
> >> SomeClass {
>
> >> [.............]
>
> >> /**
> >> * Sets the connection to the database in use.
> >> *
> >> * @return DatabaseFactory
> >> */
> >> private function __getDatabaseConnection(){
> >> if (!$this->__databaseConnection) {
> >> $this->__databaseConnection = new DatabaseFactory();
> >> };
> >> return($this->__databaseConnection);
> >> }
>
> >> }
>
> >> The second option definitely has less repetitive code but does that
> >> really make it the better option given the fact that the
> >> databaseConnection property is probably set?
>
> >> By the way, another small convention question: Should you terminate
> >> control structures with a semicolon?
>
> >> Thanks
>
> >> Marijn
>
> >>From looking at your code, it looks like you intend to put this
> > connection function in all of your classes that need to talk to the
> > database. Your code looks like it wants a singleton pattern.
>
> > You're on the right path with your code, but why not abstract that
> > logic to a class of its own (I assume mysql):
>
> > class db {
> > static private $_instance;
> > public $connection;
>
> > private __construct () {
> > //do database initiation, such as loading config data and the like
> > $this->connection = mysql_connect(...);
> > //exception handling
> > mysql_select_db($schema, $this->connection);
> > //exception handling
> > }
>
> > public static function getInstance() {
> > if (is_null(self::$_instance)) {
> > self::$_instance = new db();
> > }
> > return self::$_instance;
> > }
> > } // end db class
>
> > now, in your other classes, you simply type:
>
> > class someClass {
>
> > public function someMethod() {
> > //just putting this in a generic method, but you could put it in
> > the constructor, if you wish
> > $db = db::getInstance();
> > //and you connection handle is $db->connection
> > }
>
> > A lot less code in your classes, and a bit easier to understand in my
> > opinion. Also has the advantages of encapsulation to the db
> > connection so you can do fun things like centralizing exception
> > handling and/or create some generic functions to handle your query
> > formats, etc.
>
> I do something very similar in my classes, and find it easier to use.
>
> However, there is a whole design concept around the Factory class, and
> some people prefer it. It helps when you need to pass parameters to the
> Factory, for instance, before actually creating the object.
>
> --
> ==================
> Remove the "x" from my email address
> Jerry Stuckle
> JDS Computer Training Corp.
> jstuck...@attglobal.net
> ==================
Just returned from the office, boy did this get of topic ;)
First My DatabaseFactory returns a singleton of a MySQL class (later
on i can easily support other databases if i would prefer). I am
thinking of making the DatabaseFactory itself a Singleton so that the
Singleton logic does not need to be repeated in every database
implementation.
The reason why i have this function is that it is used in an abstract
class for implementation of database objects in php. By extending the
abstract class i easily can create a implementation of the database
data with it's own methods. But i don't want to create the database
connection before actualy using it.
To solve the problem I will move my connection of the database from
the database constructor to another function. The database resource
can be created and only if a query method is called it will check if
it is connected. If not connected connect else connect and query.
Still i feel like people misunderstood my first question: What is
better:
if ($mostLikelyValue) {
break;
} else {
performSomeAction();
}
theRequiredAction();
OR
if (!mostLikelyValue) {
performSomeAction();
}
theRequiredAction();
Where in my opinion the second one is more readable and the first one
probably faster (?)
On the naming conventions regarding access types:
OK say i will go for my own path of naming variables, properties and
parameters and there access type. Is that really more straightforward?
I would rather have seen reserved normal function names for methods
like __call() and __get and the
no underscore for public, one underscore for protected and two
underscores for private (or some other distinguishing character).
Is there really no commonly used way (accept for the one that bluntly
ignores protected)
I really do like the way everybody mixes in and gets involved in a
good way in these types of discussions. Thanks for that, love to hear
more from you guys.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|