OOP php user system

[Yorian]

Hey,

Although I've been using classes and object for quite a while now I've
never actually programmed proper OO code yet. It ofcourse depends on
what you call proper OO code. I have been seperating parts of the
website. Like a user class, guestbook class, etc. But I've been
putting all the code in one single class instead of of spreiding it.

Since a short while I've been reading up on OOP and now I am trying to
actually do things the way they should be done to make a nice
maintainable module. Which in fact means that I'm trying to stick to
some rules: Don't repeat yourself, seperation of concerns,
encapsulation, etc.

I've created (not finished just started it) a user system, this
according to the mvc pattern. The names for the classes aren't perfect
(user should actually be named userController, and userData should be
named user, etc.).

Could any of you guys have a look and see if I'm going in the right
direction?

The few classes (put in a single file for the sake of easy reading)
can be found here: http://web-develop.nl/user_oop.phps

Hope you guys can give me some useful comments.

Thanks

[Jessica Griego]

Re: OOP php user system


"Yorian" <yorianbenjamin @hotmail.comwro te in message
news:8b1c4864-385d-45fa-bb75-3b9d2b736532@t3 9g2000prh.googl egroups.com...

Hey,
>
Although I've been using classes and object for quite a while now I've
never actually programmed proper OO code yet. It ofcourse depends on
what you call proper OO code. I have been seperating parts of the
website. Like a user class, guestbook class, etc. But I've been
putting all the code in one single class instead of of spreiding it.
>
Since a short while I've been reading up on OOP and now I am trying to
actually do things the way they should be done to make a nice
maintainable module. Which in fact means that I'm trying to stick to
some rules: Don't repeat yourself, seperation of concerns,
encapsulation, etc.
>
I've created (not finished just started it) a user system, this
according to the mvc pattern. The names for the classes aren't perfect
(user should actually be named userController, and userData should be
named user, etc.).
>
Could any of you guys have a look and see if I'm going in the right
direction?
>
The few classes (put in a single file for the sake of easy reading)
can be found here: http://web-develop.nl/user_oop.phps
>
Hope you guys can give me some useful comments.

The thing I like most, Yorian, is that it is well formatted! I don't know
what language the comments are in, however I do recognize 'singleton'. For
the classes that are singletons, you need to make the __constructor a
private function and use the 'static' keyword for the other
functions/variables in the class. You'd necissarily need a way to supply
those singletons the constructor args. You can either let the caller set the
values via 'setters' and/or create a static function, like 'initialize',
that essentially carries out the responsibility of __construct. You should
also think about defining __clone, __copy, etc. specifically as private so
that you are guaranteed not to have more than one instance of the singleton.

Again, I like the code most because I can readily tell what it is
doing...because it is well formatted. Above all, that will save time, money,
and frustration when you need to add to it or modify it in some way in the
future.

Cheers

[703designs]

Re: OOP php user system

On Nov 9, 10:37 pm, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:

"Yorian" <yorianbenja... @hotmail.comwro te in message
>
news:8b1c4864-385d-45fa-bb75-3b9d2b736532@t3 9g2000prh.googl egroups.com...
>
>
>

Hey,

>

Although I've been using classes and object for quite a while now I've
never actually programmed proper OO code yet. It ofcourse depends on
what you call proper OO code. I have been seperating parts of the
website. Like a user class, guestbook class, etc. But I've been
putting all the code in one single class instead of of spreiding it.

>

Since a short while I've been reading up on OOP and now I am trying to
actually do things the way they should be done to make a nice
maintainable module. Which in fact means that I'm trying to stick to
some rules: Don't repeat yourself, seperation of concerns,
encapsulation, etc.

>

I've created (not finished just started it) a user system, this
according to the mvc pattern. The names for the classes aren't perfect
(user should actually be named userController, and userData should be
named user, etc.).

>

Could any of you guys have a look and see if I'm going in the right
direction?

>

The few classes (put in a single file for the sake of easy reading)
can be found here:http://web-develop.nl/user_oop.phps

>

Hope you guys can give me some useful comments.

>
The thing I like most, Yorian, is that it is well formatted! I don't know
what language the comments are in, however I do recognize 'singleton'. For
the classes that are singletons, you need to make the __constructor a
private function and use the 'static' keyword for the other
functions/variables in the class. You'd necissarily need a way to supply
those singletons the constructor args. You can either let the caller set the
values via 'setters' and/or create a static function, like 'initialize',
that essentially carries out the responsibility of __construct. You should
also think about defining __clone, __copy, etc. specifically as private so
that you are guaranteed not to have more than one instance of the singleton.
>
Again, I like the code most because I can readily tell what it is
doing...because it is well formatted. Above all, that will save time, money,
and frustration when you need to add to it or modify it in some way in the
future.
>
Cheers

Instead of using all of those getAttribute methods, you could use a
generic __get method that returns the attribute.

Thomas

[703designs]

Re: OOP php user system

On Nov 9, 10:46 pm, 703designs <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote:

On Nov 9, 10:37 pm, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:
>
>
>

"Yorian" <yorianbenja... @hotmail.comwro te in message

>

news:8b1c4864-385d-45fa-bb75-3b9d2b736532@t3 9g2000prh.googl egroups.com....

>

Hey,

>

Although I've been using classes and object for quite a while now I've
never actually programmed proper OO code yet. It ofcourse depends on
what you call proper OO code. I have been seperating parts of the
website. Like a user class, guestbook class, etc. But I've been
putting all the code in one single class instead of of spreiding it.

>

Since a short while I've been reading up on OOP and now I am trying to
actually do things the way they should be done to make a nice
maintainable module. Which in fact means that I'm trying to stick to
some rules: Don't repeat yourself, seperation of concerns,
encapsulation, etc.

>

I've created (not finished just started it) a user system, this
according to the mvc pattern. The names for the classes aren't perfect
(user should actually be named userController, and userData should be
named user, etc.).

>

Could any of you guys have a look and see if I'm going in the right
direction?

>

The few classes (put in a single file for the sake of easy reading)
can be found here:http://web-develop.nl/user_oop.phps

>

Hope you guys can give me some useful comments.

>

The thing I like most, Yorian, is that it is well formatted! I don't know
what language the comments are in, however I do recognize 'singleton'. For
the classes that are singletons, you need to make the __constructor a
private function and use the 'static' keyword for the other
functions/variables in the class. You'd necissarily need a way to supply
those singletons the constructor args. You can either let the caller set the
values via 'setters' and/or create a static function, like 'initialize',
that essentially carries out the responsibility of __construct. You should
also think about defining __clone, __copy, etc. specifically as privateso
that you are guaranteed not to have more than one instance of the singleton.

>

Again, I like the code most because I can readily tell what it is
doing...because it is well formatted. Above all, that will save time, money,
and frustration when you need to add to it or modify it in some way in the
future.

>

Cheers

>
Instead of using all of those getAttribute methods, you could use a
generic __get method that returns the attribute.
>
Thomas

Ah, my fault, it's late. I meant that you can use __get to point to
those methods automatically using call_user_func. So that
$userInstance->last_name would call that method.

Thomas

[Jessica Griego]

Re: OOP php user system


"703designs " <thomasmallen@g mail.comwrote in message
news:87a79792-c2b5-477a-8376-774d3951453f@a2 6g2000prf.googl egroups.com...
On Nov 9, 10:46 pm, 703designs <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote:

On Nov 9, 10:37 pm, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:
>
>
>

"Yorian" <yorianbenja... @hotmail.comwro te in message

>

news:8b1c4864-385d-45fa-bb75-3b9d2b736532@t3 9g2000prh.googl egroups.com...

>

Hey,

>

Although I've been using classes and object for quite a while now I've
never actually programmed proper OO code yet. It ofcourse depends on
what you call proper OO code. I have been seperating parts of the
website. Like a user class, guestbook class, etc. But I've been
putting all the code in one single class instead of of spreiding it.

>

Since a short while I've been reading up on OOP and now I am trying to
actually do things the way they should be done to make a nice
maintainable module. Which in fact means that I'm trying to stick to
some rules: Don't repeat yourself, seperation of concerns,
encapsulation, etc.

>

I've created (not finished just started it) a user system, this
according to the mvc pattern. The names for the classes aren't perfect
(user should actually be named userController, and userData should be
named user, etc.).

>

Could any of you guys have a look and see if I'm going in the right
direction?

>

The few classes (put in a single file for the sake of easy reading)
can be found here:http://web-develop.nl/user_oop.phps

>

Hope you guys can give me some useful comments.

>

The thing I like most, Yorian, is that it is well formatted! I don't
know
what language the comments are in, however I do recognize 'singleton'.
For
the classes that are singletons, you need to make the __constructor a
private function and use the 'static' keyword for the other
functions/variables in the class. You'd necissarily need a way to supply
those singletons the constructor args. You can either let the caller set
the
values via 'setters' and/or create a static function, like 'initialize',
that essentially carries out the responsibility of __construct. You
should
also think about defining __clone, __copy, etc. specifically as private
so
that you are guaranteed not to have more than one instance of the
singleton.

>

Again, I like the code most because I can readily tell what it is
doing...because it is well formatted. Above all, that will save time,
money,
and frustration when you need to add to it or modify it in some way in
the
future.

>

Cheers

>
Instead of using all of those getAttribute methods, you could use a
generic __get method that returns the attribute.
>
Thomas

Ah, my fault, it's late. I meant that you can use __get to point to
those methods automatically using call_user_func. So that
$userInstance->last_name would call that method.

========

IMO, that's very bad advice. __get and __set only get executed when a caller
tries to access an *undefined* interface. You're abusing the actual intent
of __get/set. It makes it terribly hard to debug and manage. It doesn't
allow you to strongly type the input(s) or output(s). It's also a
performance hit. Further, you should notice tools like php documentor and
any screen dump of the object would not accurately show any validation for
the properties being set. I'd think about always being specific and not try
to rig the jury to obtain the get/set functionality that is supplied by
other oop languages. __get and __set are NOT php's version of other
languages' get/set construct.

[703designs]

Re: OOP php user system

On Nov 9, 11:28 pm, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:

"703designs " <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote in message
>
news:87a79792-c2b5-477a-8376-774d3951453f@a2 6g2000prf.googl egroups.com...
On Nov 9, 10:46 pm, 703designs <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote:
>
>
>

On Nov 9, 10:37 pm, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:

>

"Yorian" <yorianbenja... @hotmail.comwro te in message

>

>news:8b1c486 4-385d-45fa-bb75-3b9d2b736532@t3 9g2000prh.googl egroups.com....

>

Hey,

>

Although I've been using classes and object for quite a while now I've
never actually programmed proper OO code yet. It ofcourse depends on
what you call proper OO code. I have been seperating parts of the
website. Like a user class, guestbook class, etc. But I've been
putting all the code in one single class instead of of spreiding it..

>

Since a short while I've been reading up on OOP and now I am tryingto
actually do things the way they should be done to make a nice
maintainable module. Which in fact means that I'm trying to stick to
some rules: Don't repeat yourself, seperation of concerns,
encapsulation, etc.

>

I've created (not finished just started it) a user system, this
according to the mvc pattern. The names for the classes aren't perfect
(user should actually be named userController, and userData should be
named user, etc.).

>

Could any of you guys have a look and see if I'm going in the right
direction?

>

The few classes (put in a single file for the sake of easy reading)
can be found here:http://web-develop.nl/user_oop.phps

>

Hope you guys can give me some useful comments.

>

The thing I like most, Yorian, is that it is well formatted! I don't
know
what language the comments are in, however I do recognize 'singleton'..
For
the classes that are singletons, you need to make the __constructor a
private function and use the 'static' keyword for the other
functions/variables in the class. You'd necissarily need a way to supply
those singletons the constructor args. You can either let the caller set
the
values via 'setters' and/or create a static function, like 'initialize',
that essentially carries out the responsibility of __construct. You
should
also think about defining __clone, __copy, etc. specifically as private
so
that you are guaranteed not to have more than one instance of the
singleton.

>

Again, I like the code most because I can readily tell what it is
doing...because it is well formatted. Above all, that will save time,
money,
and frustration when you need to add to it or modify it in some way in
the
future.

>

Cheers

>

Instead of using all of those getAttribute methods, you could use a
generic __get method that returns the attribute.

>

Thomas

>
Ah, my fault, it's late. I meant that you can use __get to point to
those methods automatically using call_user_func. So that
$userInstance->last_name would call that method.
>
========
>
IMO, that's very bad advice. __get and __set only get executed when a caller
tries to access an *undefined* interface. You're abusing the actual intent
of __get/set. It makes it terribly hard to debug and manage. It doesn't
allow you to strongly type the input(s) or output(s). It's also a
performance hit. Further, you should notice tools like php documentor and
any screen dump of the object would not accurately show any validation for
the properties being set. I'd think about always being specific and not try
to rig the jury to obtain the get/set functionality that is supplied by
other oop languages. __get and __set are NOT php's version of other
languages' get/set construct.

Sorry, Python's my first language and this sort of thing works very
cleanly there. I'll keep these drawbacks in mind: I guess that __get's
not quite ready for primetime.

Thomas

[Jessica Griego]

Re: OOP php user system


"703designs " <thomasmallen@g mail.comwrote in message
news:b0914478-f249-4d4a-9e10-586c7092ac07@i2 0g2000prf.googl egroups.com...
On Nov 9, 11:28 pm, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:

"703designs " <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote in message
>
news:87a79792-c2b5-477a-8376-774d3951453f@a2 6g2000prf.googl egroups.com...
On Nov 9, 10:46 pm, 703designs <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote:
>
>
>

On Nov 9, 10:37 pm, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:

>

"Yorian" <yorianbenja... @hotmail.comwro te in message

>

>news:8b1c486 4-385d-45fa-bb75-3b9d2b736532@t3 9g2000prh.googl egroups.com...

>

Hey,

>

Although I've been using classes and object for quite a while now
I've
never actually programmed proper OO code yet. It ofcourse depends on
what you call proper OO code. I have been seperating parts of the
website. Like a user class, guestbook class, etc. But I've been
putting all the code in one single class instead of of spreiding it.

>

Since a short while I've been reading up on OOP and now I am trying
to
actually do things the way they should be done to make a nice
maintainable module. Which in fact means that I'm trying to stick to
some rules: Don't repeat yourself, seperation of concerns,
encapsulation, etc.

>

I've created (not finished just started it) a user system, this
according to the mvc pattern. The names for the classes aren't
perfect
(user should actually be named userController, and userData should
be
named user, etc.).

>

Could any of you guys have a look and see if I'm going in the right
direction?

>

The few classes (put in a single file for the sake of easy reading)
can be found here:http://web-develop.nl/user_oop.phps

>

Hope you guys can give me some useful comments.

>

The thing I like most, Yorian, is that it is well formatted! I don't
know
what language the comments are in, however I do recognize 'singleton'.
For
the classes that are singletons, you need to make the __constructor a
private function and use the 'static' keyword for the other
functions/variables in the class. You'd necissarily need a way to
supply
those singletons the constructor args. You can either let the caller
set
the
values via 'setters' and/or create a static function, like
'initialize',
that essentially carries out the responsibility of __construct. You
should
also think about defining __clone, __copy, etc. specifically as
private
so
that you are guaranteed not to have more than one instance of the
singleton.

>

Again, I like the code most because I can readily tell what it is
doing...because it is well formatted. Above all, that will save time,
money,
and frustration when you need to add to it or modify it in some way in
the
future.

>

Cheers

>

Instead of using all of those getAttribute methods, you could use a
generic __get method that returns the attribute.

>

Thomas

>
Ah, my fault, it's late. I meant that you can use __get to point to
those methods automatically using call_user_func. So that
$userInstance->last_name would call that method.
>
========
>
IMO, that's very bad advice. __get and __set only get executed when a
caller
tries to access an *undefined* interface. You're abusing the actual intent
of __get/set. It makes it terribly hard to debug and manage. It doesn't
allow you to strongly type the input(s) or output(s). It's also a
performance hit. Further, you should notice tools like php documentor and
any screen dump of the object would not accurately show any validation for
the properties being set. I'd think about always being specific and not
try
to rig the jury to obtain the get/set functionality that is supplied by
other oop languages. __get and __set are NOT php's version of other
languages' get/set construct.

Sorry, Python's my first language and this sort of thing works very
cleanly there. I'll keep these drawbacks in mind: I guess that __get's
not quite ready for primetime.

===========

I understand, however Python's get/set is not php's get/set. I was *very*
excited when I saw the __get/set in php for the first time! That is, until I
saw that it was NOT what I was used to either. Maybe they'll put actual
get/set constructs in another version down the road...because I have
relatively no use for what php is trying to get out of the current
implementation.

Have a good one.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: OOP php user system

703designs wrote:

On Nov 9, 11:28 pm, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:

>"703designs " <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote in message
>>
>news:87a7979 2-c2b5-477a-8376-774d3951453f@a2 6g2000prf.googl egroups.com...
>On Nov 9, 10:46 pm, 703designs <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote:
>>
>>
>>

>>On Nov 9, 10:37 pm, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:
>>>"Yorian" <yorianbenja... @hotmail.comwro te in message
>>>news:8b1c486 4-385d-45fa-bb75-3b9d2b736532@t3 9g2000prh.googl egroups.com...
>>>>Hey,
>>>>Although I've been using classes and object for quite a while now I've
>>>>never actually programmed proper OO code yet. It ofcourse depends on
>>>>what you call proper OO code. I have been seperating parts of the
>>>>website. Like a user class, guestbook class, etc. But I've been
>>>>putting all the code in one single class instead of of spreiding it.
>>>>Since a short while I've been reading up on OOP and now I am trying to
>>>>actually do things the way they should be done to make a nice
>>>>maintainabl e module. Which in fact means that I'm trying to stick to
>>>>some rules: Don't repeat yourself, seperation of concerns,
>>>>encapsulati on, etc.
>>>>I've created (not finished just started it) a user system, this
>>>>according to the mvc pattern. The names for the classes aren't perfect
>>>>(user should actually be named userController, and userData should be
>>>>named user, etc.).
>>>>Could any of you guys have a look and see if I'm going in the right
>>>>direction ?
>>>>The few classes (put in a single file for the sake of easy reading)
>>>>can be found here:http://web-develop.nl/user_oop.phps
>>>>Hope you guys can give me some useful comments.
>>>The thing I like most, Yorian, is that it is well formatted! I don't
>>>know
>>>what language the comments are in, however I do recognize 'singleton'.
>>>For
>>>the classes that are singletons, you need to make the __constructor a
>>>private function and use the 'static' keyword for the other
>>>functions/variables in the class. You'd necissarily need a way to supply
>>>those singletons the constructor args. You can either let the caller set
>>>the
>>>values via 'setters' and/or create a static function, like 'initialize',
>>>that essentially carries out the responsibility of __construct. You
>>>should
>>>also think about defining __clone, __copy, etc. specifically as private
>>>so
>>>that you are guaranteed not to have more than one instance of the
>>>singleton.
>>>Again, I like the code most because I can readily tell what it is
>>>doing...beca use it is well formatted. Above all, that will save time,
>>>money,
>>>and frustration when you need to add to it or modify it in some way in
>>>the
>>>future.
>>>Cheers
>>Instead of using all of those getAttribute methods, you could use a
>>generic __get method that returns the attribute.
>>Thomas

>Ah, my fault, it's late. I meant that you can use __get to point to
>those methods automatically using call_user_func. So that
>$userInstanc e->last_name would call that method.
>>
>========
>>
>IMO, that's very bad advice. __get and __set only get executed when a caller
>tries to access an *undefined* interface. You're abusing the actual intent
>of __get/set. It makes it terribly hard to debug and manage. It doesn't
>allow you to strongly type the input(s) or output(s). It's also a
>performance hit. Further, you should notice tools like php documentor and
>any screen dump of the object would not accurately show any validation for
>the properties being set. I'd think about always being specific and not try
>to rig the jury to obtain the get/set functionality that is supplied by
>other oop languages. __get and __set are NOT php's version of other
>languages' get/set construct.

>
Sorry, Python's my first language and this sort of thing works very
cleanly there. I'll keep these drawbacks in mind: I guess that __get's
not quite ready for primetime.
>
Thomas

In addition, the generic __get and __set methods are contrary to good OO
design, even in Python.

Part of good OO design is to keep separate things separate - that
includes attributes. Independent getter and setter methods, while a
paid to code, do this quite nicely. They also allow for easier
validation/massage of the data. A single __get/__set method pair does
not do this.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[703designs]

Re: OOP php user system

On Nov 10, 6:02 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

703designs wrote:

On Nov 9, 11:28 pm, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:

"703designs " <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote in message

>

>news:87a7979 2-c2b5-477a-8376-774d3951453f@a2 6g2000prf.googl egroups.com....
On Nov 9, 10:46 pm, 703designs <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote:

>

>On Nov 9, 10:37 pm, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:
>>"Yorian" <yorianbenja... @hotmail.comwro te in message
>>>news:8b1c486 4-385d-45fa-bb75-3b9d2b736532@t3 9g2000prh.googl egroups.com...
>>>Hey,
>>>Although I've been using classes and object for quite a while now I've
>>>never actually programmed proper OO code yet. It ofcourse depends on
>>>what you call proper OO code. I have been seperating parts of the
>>>website. Like a user class, guestbook class, etc. But I've been
>>>putting all the code in one single class instead of of spreiding it..
>>>Since a short while I've been reading up on OOP and now I am tryingto
>>>actually do things the way they should be done to make a nice
>>>maintainab le module. Which in fact means that I'm trying to stick to
>>>some rules: Don't repeat yourself, seperation of concerns,
>>>encapsulatio n, etc.
>>>I've created (not finished just started it) a user system, this
>>>according to the mvc pattern. The names for the classes aren't perfect
>>>(user should actually be named userController, and userData should be
>>>named user, etc.).
>>>Could any of you guys have a look and see if I'm going in the right
>>>direction?
>>>The few classes (put in a single file for the sake of easy reading)
>>>can be found here:http://web-develop.nl/user_oop.phps
>>>Hope you guys can give me some useful comments.
>>The thing I like most, Yorian, is that it is well formatted! I don't
>>know
>>what language the comments are in, however I do recognize 'singleton'.
>>For
>>the classes that are singletons, you need to make the __constructor a
>>private function and use the 'static' keyword for the other
>>functions/variables in the class. You'd necissarily need a way to supply
>>those singletons the constructor args. You can either let the callerset
>>the
>>values via 'setters' and/or create a static function, like 'initialize',
>>that essentially carries out the responsibility of __construct. You
>>should
>>also think about defining __clone, __copy, etc. specifically as private
>>so
>>that you are guaranteed not to have more than one instance of the
>>singleton.
>>Again, I like the code most because I can readily tell what it is
>>doing...becau se it is well formatted. Above all, that will save time,
>>money,
>>and frustration when you need to add to it or modify it in some way in
>>the
>>future.
>>Cheers
>Instead of using all of those getAttribute methods, you could use a
>generic __get method that returns the attribute.
>Thomas
Ah, my fault, it's late. I meant that you can use __get to point to
those methods automatically using call_user_func. So that
$userInstance->last_name would call that method.

>

========

>

IMO, that's very bad advice. __get and __set only get executed when a caller
tries to access an *undefined* interface. You're abusing the actual intent
of __get/set. It makes it terribly hard to debug and manage. It doesn't
allow you to strongly type the input(s) or output(s). It's also a
performance hit. Further, you should notice tools like php documentor and
any screen dump of the object would not accurately show any validationfor
the properties being set. I'd think about always being specific and not try
to rig the jury to obtain the get/set functionality that is supplied by
other oop languages. __get and __set are NOT php's version of other
languages' get/set construct.

>

Sorry, Python's my first language and this sort of thing works very
cleanly there. I'll keep these drawbacks in mind: I guess that __get's
not quite ready for primetime.

>

Thomas

>
In addition, the generic __get and __set methods are contrary to good OO
design, even in Python.
>
Part of good OO design is to keep separate things separate - that
includes attributes.  Independent getter and setter methods, while a
paid to code, do this quite nicely.  They also allow for easier
validation/massage of the data.  A single __get/__set method pair does
not do this.
>
--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstuck...@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

I never said that a single get/set pair should do that. Another part
of good OO design is to not reference object attributes directly, but
rather to always have getter and setter methods.

Thomas

[Jessica Griego]

Re: OOP php user system


"703designs " <thomasmallen@g mail.comwrote in message
news:45e468c4-d444-4a80-94e9-11a263b2a0dc@s1 g2000prg.google groups.com...
On Nov 10, 6:02 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

703designs wrote:

On Nov 9, 11:28 pm, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:

"703designs " <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote in message

>

>news:87a7979 2-c2b5-477a-8376-774d3951453f@a2 6g2000prf.googl egroups.com...
On Nov 9, 10:46 pm, 703designs <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote:

>

>On Nov 9, 10:37 pm, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:
>>"Yorian" <yorianbenja... @hotmail.comwro te in message
>>>news:8b1c486 4-385d-45fa-bb75-3b9d2b736532@t3 9g2000prh.googl egroups.com...
>>>Hey,
>>>Although I've been using classes and object for quite a while now
>>>I've
>>>never actually programmed proper OO code yet. It ofcourse depends on
>>>what you call proper OO code. I have been seperating parts of the
>>>website. Like a user class, guestbook class, etc. But I've been
>>>putting all the code in one single class instead of of spreiding it.
>>>Since a short while I've been reading up on OOP and now I am trying
>>>to
>>>actually do things the way they should be done to make a nice
>>>maintainab le module. Which in fact means that I'm trying to stick to
>>>some rules: Don't repeat yourself, seperation of concerns,
>>>encapsulatio n, etc.
>>>I've created (not finished just started it) a user system, this
>>>according to the mvc pattern. The names for the classes aren't
>>>perfect
>>>(user should actually be named userController, and userData should
>>>be
>>>named user, etc.).
>>>Could any of you guys have a look and see if I'm going in the right
>>>direction?
>>>The few classes (put in a single file for the sake of easy reading)
>>>can be found here:http://web-develop.nl/user_oop.phps
>>>Hope you guys can give me some useful comments.
>>The thing I like most, Yorian, is that it is well formatted! I don't
>>know
>>what language the comments are in, however I do recognize
>>'singleton' .
>>For
>>the classes that are singletons, you need to make the __constructor a
>>private function and use the 'static' keyword for the other
>>functions/variables in the class. You'd necissarily need a way to
>>supply
>>those singletons the constructor args. You can either let the caller
>>set
>>the
>>values via 'setters' and/or create a static function, like
>>'initialize ',
>>that essentially carries out the responsibility of __construct. You
>>should
>>also think about defining __clone, __copy, etc. specifically as
>>private
>>so
>>that you are guaranteed not to have more than one instance of the
>>singleton.
>>Again, I like the code most because I can readily tell what it is
>>doing...becau se it is well formatted. Above all, that will save time,
>>money,
>>and frustration when you need to add to it or modify it in some way
>>in
>>the
>>future.
>>Cheers
>Instead of using all of those getAttribute methods, you could use a
>generic __get method that returns the attribute.
>Thomas
Ah, my fault, it's late. I meant that you can use __get to point to
those methods automatically using call_user_func. So that
$userInstance->last_name would call that method.

>

========

>

IMO, that's very bad advice. __get and __set only get executed when a
caller
tries to access an *undefined* interface. You're abusing the actual
intent
of __get/set. It makes it terribly hard to debug and manage. It doesn't
allow you to strongly type the input(s) or output(s). It's also a
performance hit. Further, you should notice tools like php documentor
and
any screen dump of the object would not accurately show any validation
for
the properties being set. I'd think about always being specific and not
try
to rig the jury to obtain the get/set functionality that is supplied by
other oop languages. __get and __set are NOT php's version of other
languages' get/set construct.

>

Sorry, Python's my first language and this sort of thing works very
cleanly there. I'll keep these drawbacks in mind: I guess that __get's
not quite ready for primetime.

>

Thomas

>
In addition, the generic __get and __set methods are contrary to good OO
design, even in Python.
>
Part of good OO design is to keep separate things separate - that
includes attributes. Independent getter and setter methods, while a
paid to code, do this quite nicely. They also allow for easier
validation/massage of the data. A single __get/__set method pair does
not do this.
>
--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstuck...@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

I never said that a single get/set pair should do that. Another part
of good OO design is to not reference object attributes directly, but
rather to always have getter and setter methods.

=======

Hey Thomas. I don't think that's what Jerry is saying. In your suggested
implementation, all caller access to interfaces would come through __get and
__set. He assumes all of your validation would be contained in one single
and potentially large function (either __get or _set). What he fails to
realize, or give you credit for, is the fact that you very well could have
getters and settered defined in your object...either made public or private.
__get and __set could merely have a switch statement that defers the input
arguments to those getters/setter you have defined - which in fact *are*
independent. This scenario is outside of Jerry's criticism as things are
kept separate. It was just a bad assumption on his part.

My comment was, and still is, that __get/__set in php is meant to work in
the opposite way that other OOP languages use them - php uses them for
undefined interface references made by a caller.

As for Jerry's take on __get/__set in other languages, most bind them to the
specific interface...i.e .

Public Property Foo As Boolean
Get Foo() As Boolean
Return myFoo
End Get
Set Foo(ByVal Value As Boolean)
myFoo = Value
End Set
End Property

I just get the impression that Jerry doesn't work with many other
languages...eno ugh to not make such a silly statement.

Cheers, Thomas

[703designs]

Re: OOP php user system

On Nov 10, 9:45 am, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:

"703designs " <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote in message
>
news:45e468c4-d444-4a80-94e9-11a263b2a0dc@s1 g2000prg.google groups.com...
On Nov 10, 6:02 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:
>
>
>

703designs wrote:

On Nov 9, 11:28 pm, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:
>"703designs " <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote in message

>

>>news:87a797 92-c2b5-477a-8376-774d3951453f@a2 6g2000prf.googl egroups.com...
>On Nov 9, 10:46 pm, 703designs <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote:

>

>>On Nov 9, 10:37 pm, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:
>>>"Yorian" <yorianbenja... @hotmail.comwro te in message
>>>>news:8b1c48 64-385d-45fa-bb75-3b9d2b736532@t3 9g2000prh.googl egroups.com...
>>>>Hey,
>>>>Although I've been using classes and object for quite a while now
>>>>I've
>>>>never actually programmed proper OO code yet. It ofcourse dependson
>>>>what you call proper OO code. I have been seperating parts of the
>>>>website. Like a user class, guestbook class, etc. But I've been
>>>>putting all the code in one single class instead of of spreiding it.
>>>>Since a short while I've been reading up on OOP and now I am trying
>>>>to
>>>>actually do things the way they should be done to make a nice
>>>>maintainabl e module. Which in fact means that I'm trying to stickto
>>>>some rules: Don't repeat yourself, seperation of concerns,
>>>>encapsulati on, etc.
>>>>I've created (not finished just started it) a user system, this
>>>>according to the mvc pattern. The names for the classes aren't
>>>>perfect
>>>>(user should actually be named userController, and userData should
>>>>be
>>>>named user, etc.).
>>>>Could any of you guys have a look and see if I'm going in the right
>>>>direction ?
>>>>The few classes (put in a single file for the sake of easy reading)
>>>>can be found here:http://web-develop.nl/user_oop.phps
>>>>Hope you guys can give me some useful comments.
>>>The thing I like most, Yorian, is that it is well formatted! I don't
>>>know
>>>what language the comments are in, however I do recognize
>>>'singleton '.
>>>For
>>>the classes that are singletons, you need to make the __constructor a
>>>private function and use the 'static' keyword for the other
>>>functions/variables in the class. You'd necissarily need a way to
>>>supply
>>>those singletons the constructor args. You can either let the caller
>>>set
>>>the
>>>values via 'setters' and/or create a static function, like
>>>'initialize' ,
>>>that essentially carries out the responsibility of __construct. You
>>>should
>>>also think about defining __clone, __copy, etc. specifically as
>>>private
>>>so
>>>that you are guaranteed not to have more than one instance of the
>>>singleton.
>>>Again, I like the code most because I can readily tell what it is
>>>doing...beca use it is well formatted. Above all, that will save time,
>>>money,
>>>and frustration when you need to add to it or modify it in some way
>>>in
>>>the
>>>future.
>>>Cheers
>>Instead of using all of those getAttribute methods, you could use a
>>generic __get method that returns the attribute.
>>Thomas
>Ah, my fault, it's late. I meant that you can use __get to point to
>those methods automatically using call_user_func. So that
>$userInstanc e->last_name would call that method.

>

>========

>

>IMO, that's very bad advice. __get and __set only get executed when a
>caller
>tries to access an *undefined* interface. You're abusing the actual
>intent
>of __get/set. It makes it terribly hard to debug and manage. It doesn't
>allow you to strongly type the input(s) or output(s). It's also a
>performance hit. Further, you should notice tools like php documentor
>and
>any screen dump of the object would not accurately show any validation
>for
>the properties being set. I'd think about always being specific and not
>try
>to rig the jury to obtain the get/set functionality that is suppliedby
>other oop languages. __get and __set are NOT php's version of other
>languages' get/set construct.

>

Sorry, Python's my first language and this sort of thing works very
cleanly there. I'll keep these drawbacks in mind: I guess that __get's
not quite ready for primetime.

>

Thomas

>

In addition, the generic __get and __set methods are contrary to good OO
design, even in Python.

>

Part of good OO design is to keep separate things separate - that
includes attributes. Independent getter and setter methods, while a
paid to code, do this quite nicely. They also allow for easier
validation/massage of the data. A single __get/__set method pair does
not do this.

>

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstuck...@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

>
I never said that a single get/set pair should do that. Another part
of good OO design is to not reference object attributes directly, but
rather to always have getter and setter methods.
>
=======
>
Hey Thomas. I don't think that's what Jerry is saying. In your suggested
implementation, all caller access to interfaces would come through __get and
__set. He assumes all of your validation would be contained in one single
and potentially large function (either __get or _set). What he fails to
realize, or give you credit for, is the fact that you very well could have
getters and settered defined in your object...either made public or private.
__get and __set could merely have a switch statement that defers the input
arguments to those getters/setter you have defined - which in fact *are*
independent. This scenario is outside of Jerry's criticism as things are
kept separate. It was just a bad assumption on his part.
>
My comment was, and still is, that __get/__set in php is meant to work in
the opposite way that other OOP languages use them - php uses them for
undefined interface references made by a caller.
>
As for Jerry's take on __get/__set in other languages, most bind them to the
specific interface...i.e .
>
Public Property Foo As Boolean
  Get Foo() As Boolean
    Return myFoo
  End Get
  Set Foo(ByVal Value As Boolean)
    myFoo = Value
  End Set
End Property
>
I just get the impression that Jerry doesn't work with many other
languages...eno ugh to not make such a silly statement.
>
Cheers, Thomas

Right, I think Jerry missed the part of my recommendation of calling
call_user_func( method) in __get. Getter and setter methods would still
be abound.

Thanks,
Thomas

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: OOP php user system

703designs wrote:

On Nov 10, 6:02 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

>703designs wrote:

>>On Nov 9, 11:28 pm, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:
>>>"703design s" <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote in message
>>>news:87a7979 2-c2b5-477a-8376-774d3951453f@a2 6g2000prf.googl egroups.com...
>>>On Nov 9, 10:46 pm, 703designs <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote:
>>>>On Nov 9, 10:37 pm, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:
>>>>>"Yorian" <yorianbenja... @hotmail.comwro te in message
>>>>>news:8b1c4 864-385d-45fa-bb75-3b9d2b736532@t3 9g2000prh.googl egroups.com...
>>>>>>Hey,
>>>>>>Althoug h I've been using classes and object for quite a while now I've
>>>>>>never actually programmed proper OO code yet. It ofcourse depends on
>>>>>>what you call proper OO code. I have been seperating parts of the
>>>>>>website . Like a user class, guestbook class, etc. But I've been
>>>>>>putting all the code in one single class instead of of spreiding it.
>>>>>>Since a short while I've been reading up on OOP and now I am trying to
>>>>>>actuall y do things the way they should be done to make a nice
>>>>>>maintaina ble module. Which in fact means that I'm trying to stick to
>>>>>>some rules: Don't repeat yourself, seperation of concerns,
>>>>>>encapsula tion, etc.
>>>>>>I've created (not finished just started it) a user system, this
>>>>>>accordi ng to the mvc pattern. The names for the classes aren't perfect
>>>>>>(user should actually be named userController, and userData should be
>>>>>>named user, etc.).
>>>>>>Could any of you guys have a look and see if I'm going in the right
>>>>>>direction ?
>>>>>>The few classes (put in a single file for the sake of easy reading)
>>>>>>can be found here:http://web-develop.nl/user_oop.phps
>>>>>>Hope you guys can give me some useful comments.
>>>>>The thing I like most, Yorian, is that it is well formatted! I don't
>>>>>know
>>>>>what language the comments are in, however I do recognize 'singleton'.
>>>>>For
>>>>>the classes that are singletons, you need to make the __constructor a
>>>>>private function and use the 'static' keyword for the other
>>>>>function s/variables in the class. You'd necissarily need a way to supply
>>>>>those singletons the constructor args. You can either let the caller set
>>>>>the
>>>>>values via 'setters' and/or create a static function, like 'initialize',
>>>>>that essentially carries out the responsibility of __construct. You
>>>>>should
>>>>>also think about defining __clone, __copy, etc. specifically as private
>>>>>so
>>>>>that you are guaranteed not to have more than one instance of the
>>>>>singleto n.
>>>>>Again, I like the code most because I can readily tell what it is
>>>>>doing...be cause it is well formatted. Above all, that will save time,
>>>>>money,
>>>>>and frustration when you need to add to it or modify it in some way in
>>>>>the
>>>>>future.
>>>>>Cheers
>>>>Instead of using all of those getAttribute methods, you could use a
>>>>generic __get method that returns the attribute.
>>>>Thomas
>>>Ah, my fault, it's late. I meant that you can use __get to point to
>>>those methods automatically using call_user_func. So that
>>>$userInstanc e->last_name would call that method.
>>>========
>>>IMO, that's very bad advice. __get and __set only get executed when a caller
>>>tries to access an *undefined* interface. You're abusing the actual intent
>>>of __get/set. It makes it terribly hard to debug and manage. It doesn't
>>>allow you to strongly type the input(s) or output(s). It's also a
>>>performanc e hit. Further, you should notice tools like php documentor and
>>>any screen dump of the object would not accurately show any validation for
>>>the properties being set. I'd think about always being specific and not try
>>>to rig the jury to obtain the get/set functionality that is supplied by
>>>other oop languages. __get and __set are NOT php's version of other
>>>languages' get/set construct.
>>Sorry, Python's my first language and this sort of thing works very
>>cleanly there. I'll keep these drawbacks in mind: I guess that __get's
>>not quite ready for primetime.
>>Thomas

>In addition, the generic __get and __set methods are contrary to good OO
>design, even in Python.
>>
>Part of good OO design is to keep separate things separate - that
>includes attributes. Independent getter and setter methods, while a
>paid to code, do this quite nicely. They also allow for easier
>validation/massage of the data. A single __get/__set method pair does
>not do this.
>>
>--
>============== ====
>Remove the "x" from my email address
>Jerry Stuckle
>JDS Computer Training Corp.
>jstuck...@attg lobal.net
>============== ====

>
I never said that a single get/set pair should do that. Another part
of good OO design is to not reference object attributes directly, but
rather to always have getter and setter methods.
>
Thomas

Then if each attribute has it's own get/set pair (as in good OO design),
there is no need for the __get/__set methods.

That's why you won't find them in good OO languages such as SmallTalk,
Java and even C++.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Jessica Griego]

Re: OOP php user system


"703designs " <thomasmallen@g mail.comwrote in message
news:e6f2d6a9-1ab8-441d-b6cf-1d63c6b94908@a1 7g2000prm.googl egroups.com...
On Nov 10, 9:45 am, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:

"703designs " <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote in message
>
news:45e468c4-d444-4a80-94e9-11a263b2a0dc@s1 g2000prg.google groups.com...
On Nov 10, 6:02 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:
>
>
>

703designs wrote:

On Nov 9, 11:28 pm, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:
>"703designs " <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote in message

>

>>news:87a797 92-c2b5-477a-8376-774d3951453f@a2 6g2000prf.googl egroups.com...
>On Nov 9, 10:46 pm, 703designs <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote:

>

>>On Nov 9, 10:37 pm, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:
>>>"Yorian" <yorianbenja... @hotmail.comwro te in message
>>>>news:8b1c48 64-385d-45fa-bb75-3b9d2b736532@t3 9g2000prh.googl egroups.com...
>>>>Hey,
>>>>Although I've been using classes and object for quite a while now
>>>>I've
>>>>never actually programmed proper OO code yet. It ofcourse depends
>>>>on
>>>>what you call proper OO code. I have been seperating parts of the
>>>>website. Like a user class, guestbook class, etc. But I've been
>>>>putting all the code in one single class instead of of spreiding
>>>>it.
>>>>Since a short while I've been reading up on OOP and now I am
>>>>trying
>>>>to
>>>>actually do things the way they should be done to make a nice
>>>>maintainabl e module. Which in fact means that I'm trying to stick
>>>>to
>>>>some rules: Don't repeat yourself, seperation of concerns,
>>>>encapsulati on, etc.
>>>>I've created (not finished just started it) a user system, this
>>>>according to the mvc pattern. The names for the classes aren't
>>>>perfect
>>>>(user should actually be named userController, and userData should
>>>>be
>>>>named user, etc.).
>>>>Could any of you guys have a look and see if I'm going in the
>>>>right
>>>>direction ?
>>>>The few classes (put in a single file for the sake of easy
>>>>reading)
>>>>can be found here:http://web-develop.nl/user_oop.phps
>>>>Hope you guys can give me some useful comments.
>>>The thing I like most, Yorian, is that it is well formatted! I
>>>don't
>>>know
>>>what language the comments are in, however I do recognize
>>>'singleton '.
>>>For
>>>the classes that are singletons, you need to make the __constructor
>>>a
>>>private function and use the 'static' keyword for the other
>>>functions/variables in the class. You'd necissarily need a way to
>>>supply
>>>those singletons the constructor args. You can either let the
>>>caller
>>>set
>>>the
>>>values via 'setters' and/or create a static function, like
>>>'initialize' ,
>>>that essentially carries out the responsibility of __construct. You
>>>should
>>>also think about defining __clone, __copy, etc. specifically as
>>>private
>>>so
>>>that you are guaranteed not to have more than one instance of the
>>>singleton.
>>>Again, I like the code most because I can readily tell what it is
>>>doing...beca use it is well formatted. Above all, that will save
>>>time,
>>>money,
>>>and frustration when you need to add to it or modify it in some way
>>>in
>>>the
>>>future.
>>>Cheers
>>Instead of using all of those getAttribute methods, you could use a
>>generic __get method that returns the attribute.
>>Thomas
>Ah, my fault, it's late. I meant that you can use __get to point to
>those methods automatically using call_user_func. So that
>$userInstanc e->last_name would call that method.

>

>========

>

>IMO, that's very bad advice. __get and __set only get executed when a
>caller
>tries to access an *undefined* interface. You're abusing the actual
>intent
>of __get/set. It makes it terribly hard to debug and manage. It
>doesn't
>allow you to strongly type the input(s) or output(s). It's also a
>performance hit. Further, you should notice tools like php documentor
>and
>any screen dump of the object would not accurately show any
>validation
>for
>the properties being set. I'd think about always being specific and
>not
>try
>to rig the jury to obtain the get/set functionality that is supplied
>by
>other oop languages. __get and __set are NOT php's version of other
>languages' get/set construct.

>

Sorry, Python's my first language and this sort of thing works very
cleanly there. I'll keep these drawbacks in mind: I guess that __get's
not quite ready for primetime.

>

Thomas

>

In addition, the generic __get and __set methods are contrary to good OO
design, even in Python.

>

Part of good OO design is to keep separate things separate - that
includes attributes. Independent getter and setter methods, while a
paid to code, do this quite nicely. They also allow for easier
validation/massage of the data. A single __get/__set method pair does
not do this.

>

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstuck...@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

>
I never said that a single get/set pair should do that. Another part
of good OO design is to not reference object attributes directly, but
rather to always have getter and setter methods.
>
=======
>
Hey Thomas. I don't think that's what Jerry is saying. In your suggested
implementation, all caller access to interfaces would come through __get
and
__set. He assumes all of your validation would be contained in one single
and potentially large function (either __get or _set). What he fails to
realize, or give you credit for, is the fact that you very well could have
getters and settered defined in your object...either made public or
private.
__get and __set could merely have a switch statement that defers the input
arguments to those getters/setter you have defined - which in fact *are*
independent. This scenario is outside of Jerry's criticism as things are
kept separate. It was just a bad assumption on his part.
>
My comment was, and still is, that __get/__set in php is meant to work in
the opposite way that other OOP languages use them - php uses them for
undefined interface references made by a caller.
>
As for Jerry's take on __get/__set in other languages, most bind them to
the
specific interface...i.e .
>
Public Property Foo As Boolean
Get Foo() As Boolean
Return myFoo
End Get
Set Foo(ByVal Value As Boolean)
myFoo = Value
End Set
End Property
>
I just get the impression that Jerry doesn't work with many other
languages...eno ugh to not make such a silly statement.
>
Cheers, Thomas

Right, I think Jerry missed the part of my recommendation of calling
call_user_func( method) in __get. Getter and setter methods would still
be abound.

=========

Bingo!

And, my take on Jerry is that he likes to assume he is correct, without ever
actually being correct. The nature of a troll I suppose. :^)

[703designs]

Re: OOP php user system

On Nov 10, 10:17 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

703designs wrote:

On Nov 10, 6:02 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

703designs wrote:
>On Nov 9, 11:28 pm, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:
>>"703designs " <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote in message
>>>news:87a7979 2-c2b5-477a-8376-774d3951453f@a2 6g2000prf.googl egroups.com...
>>On Nov 9, 10:46 pm, 703designs <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote:
>>>On Nov 9, 10:37 pm, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:
>>>>"Yorian" <yorianbenja... @hotmail.comwro te in message
>>>>>news:8b1c4 864-385d-45fa-bb75-3b9d2b736532@t3 9g2000prh.googl egroups.com...
>>>>>Hey,
>>>>>Although I've been using classes and object for quite a while nowI've
>>>>>never actually programmed proper OO code yet. It ofcourse dependson
>>>>>what you call proper OO code. I have been seperating parts of the
>>>>>website. Like a user class, guestbook class, etc. But I've been
>>>>>putting all the code in one single class instead of of spreiding it.
>>>>>Since a short while I've been reading up on OOP and now I am trying to
>>>>>actually do things the way they should be done to make a nice
>>>>>maintainab le module. Which in fact means that I'm trying to stickto
>>>>>some rules: Don't repeat yourself, seperation of concerns,
>>>>>encapsulat ion, etc.
>>>>>I've created (not finished just started it) a user system, this
>>>>>accordin g to the mvc pattern. The names for the classes aren't perfect
>>>>>(user should actually be named userController, and userData should be
>>>>>named user, etc.).
>>>>>Could any of you guys have a look and see if I'm going in the right
>>>>>directio n?
>>>>>The few classes (put in a single file for the sake of easy reading)
>>>>>can be found here:http://web-develop.nl/user_oop.phps
>>>>>Hope you guys can give me some useful comments.
>>>>The thing I like most, Yorian, is that it is well formatted! I don't
>>>>know
>>>>what language the comments are in, however I do recognize 'singleton'.
>>>>For
>>>>the classes that are singletons, you need to make the __constructor a
>>>>private function and use the 'static' keyword for the other
>>>>functions/variables in the class. You'd necissarily need a way to supply
>>>>those singletons the constructor args. You can either let the caller set
>>>>the
>>>>values via 'setters' and/or create a static function, like 'initialize',
>>>>that essentially carries out the responsibility of __construct. You
>>>>should
>>>>also think about defining __clone, __copy, etc. specifically as private
>>>>so
>>>>that you are guaranteed not to have more than one instance of the
>>>>singleton .
>>>>Again, I like the code most because I can readily tell what it is
>>>>doing...bec ause it is well formatted. Above all, that will save time,
>>>>money,
>>>>and frustration when you need to add to it or modify it in some way in
>>>>the
>>>>future.
>>>>Cheers
>>>Instead of using all of those getAttribute methods, you could use a
>>>generic __get method that returns the attribute.
>>>Thomas
>>Ah, my fault, it's late. I meant that you can use __get to point to
>>those methods automatically using call_user_func. So that
>>$userInstan ce->last_name would call that method.
>>========
>>IMO, that's very bad advice. __get and __set only get executed when a caller
>>tries to access an *undefined* interface. You're abusing the actual intent
>>of __get/set. It makes it terribly hard to debug and manage. It doesn't
>>allow you to strongly type the input(s) or output(s). It's also a
>>performance hit. Further, you should notice tools like php documentor and
>>any screen dump of the object would not accurately show any validation for
>>the properties being set. I'd think about always being specific and not try
>>to rig the jury to obtain the get/set functionality that is suppliedby
>>other oop languages. __get and __set are NOT php's version of other
>>languages' get/set construct.
>Sorry, Python's my first language and this sort of thing works very
>cleanly there. I'll keep these drawbacks in mind: I guess that __get's
>not quite ready for primetime.
>Thomas
In addition, the generic __get and __set methods are contrary to good OO
design, even in Python.

>

Part of good OO design is to keep separate things separate - that
includes attributes.  Independent getter and setter methods, while a
paid to code, do this quite nicely.  They also allow for easier
validation/massage of the data.  A single __get/__set method pair does
not do this.

>

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstuck...@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

>

I never said that a single get/set pair should do that. Another part
of good OO design is to not reference object attributes directly, but
rather to always have getter and setter methods.

>

Thomas

>
Then if each attribute has it's own get/set pair (as in good OO design),
there is no need for the __get/__set methods.
>
That's why you won't find them in good OO languages such as SmallTalk,
Java and even C++.
>
--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstuck...@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

If my application design is such that getting and setting will
probably be required in the future, I can avoid massive refactoring by
mapping assignment to __set and retrieval to __get. That way, in the
early stages I can use:

echo $this->name;

and even if it's used site-wide, I can instantly map all of these
references to $this->getName() if I use __get properly.

That is, if __get worked the way we wish it did :^)

You should check out Manning Press' "PHP in Action." It has some top-
notch writing on this subject. Their recommendation is the same as
Jessica's (that __get's not designed/implemented appropriately for
this use quite yet).

Thanks,
Thomas

[Jessica Griego]

Re: OOP php user system


"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote in message
news:gf9jet$nn4 $2@registered.m otzarella.org.. .

703designs wrote:

>On Nov 10, 6:02 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

>>703designs wrote:
>>>On Nov 9, 11:28 pm, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:
>>>>"703designs " <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote in message
>>>>news:87a797 92-c2b5-477a-8376-774d3951453f@a2 6g2000prf.googl egroups.com...
>>>>On Nov 9, 10:46 pm, 703designs <thomasmal...@g mail.comwrote:
>>>>>On Nov 9, 10:37 pm, "Jessica Griego" <j...@example.c omwrote:
>>>>>>"Yorian " <yorianbenja... @hotmail.comwro te in message
>>>>>>news:8b1c 4864-385d-45fa-bb75-3b9d2b736532@t3 9g2000prh.googl egroups.com...
>>>>>>>Hey,
>>>>>>>Althou gh I've been using classes and object for quite a while now
>>>>>>>I've
>>>>>>>never actually programmed proper OO code yet. It ofcourse depends
>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>what you call proper OO code. I have been seperating parts of the
>>>>>>>websit e. Like a user class, guestbook class, etc. But I've been
>>>>>>>puttin g all the code in one single class instead of of spreiding
>>>>>>>it.
>>>>>>>Since a short while I've been reading up on OOP and now I am trying
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>actual ly do things the way they should be done to make a nice
>>>>>>>maintain able module. Which in fact means that I'm trying to stick
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>some rules: Don't repeat yourself, seperation of concerns,
>>>>>>>encapsul ation, etc.
>>>>>>>I've created (not finished just started it) a user system, this
>>>>>>>accordin g to the mvc pattern. The names for the classes aren't
>>>>>>>perfec t
>>>>>>>(user should actually be named userController, and userData should
>>>>>>>be
>>>>>>>named user, etc.).
>>>>>>>Could any of you guys have a look and see if I'm going in the right
>>>>>>>directio n?
>>>>>>>The few classes (put in a single file for the sake of easy reading)
>>>>>>>can be found here:http://web-develop.nl/user_oop.phps
>>>>>>>Hope you guys can give me some useful comments.
>>>>>>The thing I like most, Yorian, is that it is well formatted! I don't
>>>>>>know
>>>>>>what language the comments are in, however I do recognize
>>>>>>'singleto n'.
>>>>>>For
>>>>>>the classes that are singletons, you need to make the __constructor
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>private function and use the 'static' keyword for the other
>>>>>>functio ns/variables in the class. You'd necissarily need a way to
>>>>>>supply
>>>>>>those singletons the constructor args. You can either let the caller
>>>>>>set
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>values via 'setters' and/or create a static function, like
>>>>>>'initiali ze',
>>>>>>that essentially carries out the responsibility of __construct. You
>>>>>>should
>>>>>>also think about defining __clone, __copy, etc. specifically as
>>>>>>private
>>>>>>so
>>>>>>that you are guaranteed not to have more than one instance of the
>>>>>>singleton .
>>>>>>Again, I like the code most because I can readily tell what it is
>>>>>>doing...b ecause it is well formatted. Above all, that will save
>>>>>>time,
>>>>>>money,
>>>>>>and frustration when you need to add to it or modify it in some way
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>future.
>>>>>>Cheers
>>>>>Instead of using all of those getAttribute methods, you could use a
>>>>>generic __get method that returns the attribute.
>>>>>Thomas
>>>>Ah, my fault, it's late. I meant that you can use __get to point to
>>>>those methods automatically using call_user_func. So that
>>>>$userInstan ce->last_name would call that method.
>>>>========
>>>>IMO, that's very bad advice. __get and __set only get executed when a
>>>>caller
>>>>tries to access an *undefined* interface. You're abusing the actual
>>>>intent
>>>>of __get/set. It makes it terribly hard to debug and manage. It
>>>>doesn't
>>>>allow you to strongly type the input(s) or output(s). It's also a
>>>>performan ce hit. Further, you should notice tools like php documentor
>>>>and
>>>>any screen dump of the object would not accurately show any validation
>>>>for
>>>>the properties being set. I'd think about always being specific and
>>>>not try
>>>>to rig the jury to obtain the get/set functionality that is supplied
>>>>by
>>>>other oop languages. __get and __set are NOT php's version of other
>>>>languages ' get/set construct.
>>>Sorry, Python's my first language and this sort of thing works very
>>>cleanly there. I'll keep these drawbacks in mind: I guess that __get's
>>>not quite ready for primetime.
>>>Thomas
>>In addition, the generic __get and __set methods are contrary to good OO
>>design, even in Python.
>>>
>>Part of good OO design is to keep separate things separate - that
>>includes attributes. Independent getter and setter methods, while a
>>paid to code, do this quite nicely. They also allow for easier
>>validation/massage of the data. A single __get/__set method pair does
>>not do this.
>>>
>>--
>>============= =====
>>Remove the "x" from my email address
>>Jerry Stuckle
>>JDS Computer Training Corp.
>>jstuck...@att global.net
>>============= =====

>>
>I never said that a single get/set pair should do that. Another part
>of good OO design is to not reference object attributes directly, but
>rather to always have getter and setter methods.
>>
>Thomas

>
Then if each attribute has it's own get/set pair (as in good OO design),
there is no need for the __get/__set methods.
>
That's why you won't find them in good OO languages such as SmallTalk,
Java and even C++.

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry!

The 'need' could be as simple as convenience! OOP languages bind getters and
setters directly into the properties available to the caller...such that:

object.property = something // initiates a __set

and

print object.property // initiates a __get

That's not so hard to understand! And while Java and C++ fit the bill, I
hardly would hold SmallTalk up as a beacon for OOP! However, ALL of those
languages operate in the way I've just displayed. Thomas is simply trying to
coerse php to do what the rest of us hope it eventually will...give us the
same or similar constructs.

BTW, quit accusing Thomas of bad design! If you read his suggestion, you'd
have noticed that he's not balling up all of his validation in __get/set as
you've twice accused him of. He suggested using php's call user func
function...I said it could be as easy as a switch statement and a direct
call to the getter/setter. Thus far, your arguments are MOOT. You've only to
state that "there is no need for the __get/__set methods" (if you've already
defined getters/setters). Ok then! Statement noted.

Do you ever offer advice that actually further's someone's understanding of
php or help better the content of a thread in which you've posted, Jerry? I
can't see that you do.