Re: Re: Scope woe

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Peter Ford<pete@justcroft.com> wrote: > Luke wrote: >>> >> Thanks for the replies :) >> >> Surely if I pass it as a parameter to the __construct then I would have to >> make an instance of the otherObject, notice that messwithotherthings is >> static? >> >> Also, if I'm not using OOP properly, Eddie, how would I use it properly to >> prevent this situation? >> >> Thanks, >> > > Hmmm, I didn't notice the method was static - that means my idea really won't > work... > > I did have a bad feeling about this, and Eddie confirmed my unease with the > point about OOP. > > Really, you should need your $firstobject to be a singleton: > eg. > > class FirstObject > { >    private static $theInstance = NULL; > >    public $propertyContainingObject; > >    protected function __construct() >    { >        // whatever >    } > >    public static function getInstance() >    { >        if (!self::$theInstance) >        { >            self::$theInstance = new FirstObject(); >        } >        return self::$theInstance; >    } > >    // ... other methods ... > } > > > So then: > > class OtherObject > { >    static function messWithOtherThings() >    { >        $firstObject = FirstObject::getInstance(); >        $firstObject->propertyContainingObject->methodInsideThatObject(); >    } > } > > > > I think that works, and is reasonable to the OOP purists... > > > -- > Peter Ford                              phone: 01580 893333 > Developer                               fax:   01580 893399 > Justcroft International Ltd., Staplehurst, Kent > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > I wouldn't really recommend going with a singleton in this situation, as there exists a different solution (my other post :P) and there are very few actual use-cases where the pattern makes sense, and deploying it unnecessarily can cause a whole lot of headache D: