madhura.cj at gmail.com
Sat Sep 15 12:01:50 CEST 2012
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Chanaka Dharmarathna <
pe.chanaka.ck at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I stumbled upon this piece of code (random pick) :
>> >> and it made me wonder if using a singleton for PMA_CommonFunctions is
>> >> necessary, because basicaly PMA_Commonfunctions is a collection of
>> >> methods, not really a 'living' object.
>> >> So then I had a look at the class, and I discovered that the class has
>> >> no class variables (apart from the _instance variable) and an empty
>> >> constructor.
> Exactly, that class has no properties except _instance which needed for
> implement this pattern for refer to the class instance itself. So this is
> not a living object.
> I search bit more in this kind of cases and get to know that, this kind of
> utility classes are making static. And it is faster than singleton class.
> From the both approaches our work can be done. But not the exact need for
> use singleton pattern here.
>> >> So basicly this should be a static class, with static methods, because
>> >> no instance is needed for it to work.
>> >> And the above piece of code will become :
>> >> PMA_CommonFunctions::backquote($_REQUEST['view']['name'])
>> >> BTW: If you convert it to a static class, don't forget to replace the
>> >> $this->method() calls by the static equivalent self::method().
> I'll do the necessary modifications if others think this approach is good.
> I also agree that making the methods static would be the better approach.
Since the class contains a set of utility functions, how about renaming the
class to 'Util' on the same time? This will save a bit of line space and
help us fix some coding style violations.
Thanks and Regards,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Developers