Re: custom superglobals

Ron Korving wrote: > Hi, > > Wouldn't it be a good feature to have users create their own superglobals? I > think it would be good for at least two reasons (rather similar though): > > - Application settings can be stored in such a global, so that objects can > use them without needing the information passed to functions or using the > rather ugly "global" statement. > > - A singleton constructor could use it to grab information. Normally, in my > own database abstraction layer, I would create the database object and pass > the constructor information on where to connect. I don't want to implement > my DB class to open a file to read connection information and I don't want > it to use the "global" statement. This presents a problem if I want it to be > a singleton object, because I'd need the information everytime I call > getInstance() which is of course not really an option. Personally, I don't > consider using a superglobal from within the constructor an ugly practice. That's what $GLOBALS is for. -Rasmus