The Typed Properties RFC for PHP has been merged to master, and will be available in PHP 7.4. 😍
But, before you pounce on this feature a...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Both of these examples are flawed.
First, you shouldn't be using public fields. Full stop. It breaks encapsulation, leaks implementation details of the class, and means your class can find itself in an unknown or inconsistent state at any time due to outside influence.
Php doesn't offer properties like C# and other languages, which are really just shorthand for getters and setters. Which is the preferred pattern for exposing private fields.
And to address your point about "double type checking". That's EXACTLY what you're getting. Php only checks types at the compilation stage for typed arguments and returns. Type hints offer no such safety. And even if they did, should you forget the type hint, php will happily let you assign an argument typed as a string into a field you meant to be an int. With the typed field, that's no longer possible.
And your argument for not being able to add additional constraints is also flawed. It has nothing to do with interfaces themselves, just bad interface design. Again, it's the breaking encapsulation and exposing direct fields which causes the problems you bring up. It has nothing to do with typed fields.
There's no "trade off" to be had with typed fields. There's just good code and bad code. And this is bad code.
It's all one example, going through iterations with changing requirements.
By design. (Outside influence is what's desired with a mutable model.)
The initial requirement is that price be an integer and description be a string, both being mutable.
The first and second code sample equally satisfy those requirements.
In C#.
But as you pointed out, PHP doesn't offer accessors.
The preferred (only) pattern in PHP at the moment is getter/setter methods - and we're now getting an alternative (public, type-hinted properties) which can satisfy the requirements of the first example, but can't satisfy the new requirements (abstraction, validation) introduced in the following examples.
The point was, if the input to
setPrice()has already been type-checked, you don't need the extra type-check when setting the property - your class is already safe from incorrect mutation.(If you want an extra layer of safety against bugs in your own implementation, sure, a type-hinted private field provides that extra safety. Personally, I'm getting that guarantee from static analysis already with a doc-block.)
Did you mean doc-blocks?
PHP checks all static type-hints at run-time, including property type-hints introduced by the RFC. (It's an interpreted language - there's no compilation stage during which assignments could be checked for correctness.)
There is in the example I used.
It's very likely a lot of PHP developers were excited about this feature so they could simplify models with trivial constraints in this manner.
There are other articles out there already presenting exactly this opportunity with very similar examples.
The point of this article was to make sure these people understand the trade-offs they're making in terms of being able to iterate to meet new requirements.
It seems you read the article making your own assumptions about the requirements for each example. The code in these examples satisfy the requirements for each of those examples at the time - the point was to illustrate how simple requirements often change towards more complex requirements.
You seem to be angry or offended about something, I'm not exactly sure what?
I think for the most part you've just completely misunderstood what I'm trying to say with this article. As mentioned, there are already other articles proposing the kind of change in the first example - in fact, it's similar to the example shown in the RFC itself.
I'm just trying to help people understand the consequences of making such a change.
Isn't the first example breaking the Encapsulation principle of OOP? I rarely ever use public properties, they are almost always protected or in some cases private.
I'd put these interfaced properties that you propose in Abstract classes rather than in Interfaces. Makes more sense in my opinion, Interfaces should stay stateless and remain the messaging contract. :)
Encapsulation Is Not Information Hiding
You can call it however you want but if another object can directly (on properties) change the state of your object, that object is not encapsulated :)
Typed property doesn't mean you should suddenly expose your properties as public and forego getters and setters ! These are two unrelated issues IMHO. What typed properties will allow you to do is replace
with
With the added bonus that it won't be only interpreted by your IDE but also trigger an error if you try and use something that's not a integer when using $price inside your class.
Now if you want to avoid using getters and setters for every single property but still maintain the ability to add validation/mutators/accessors later on, there's an old RFC that would solve this issue by using C# style getters and setters : wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax
Exactly! Docblocks have always been an abomination in my opinion, abusing PHP's metaprogramming flexibilities to create incomplete static analysis tooling for something that needs to be in the language itself.
A comment should be used to communicate to fellow humans, not to tools — that's what the rest of the syntax is for.
First we got parameter & return type hints, which made docblocks much less necessary. I see typed properties as the next major step to liberate us from ugly syntax.
But indeed, whether to use protected /get/set or public is completely unrelated to typed properties.
In many cases, protected fields are advisable.
The difference is that IF you use a public property somewhere (I use them commonly on simple DTO classes), or if a setter method does some (slightly too complicated) mutation, you now get some extra safety...
no, you've gained the option of doing anything else at the point of get and set - you can change your implementation - you can refactor your field into something different and maintain your existing interface. a public field is just that, once its there you can never remove it.
If we read this article carefully, we can see that the first example does not really break the principle of encapsulation. The first example shows two non typed properties with getters and setters, but theses ones doesn't provide any validation on the value defined by the user, they only provide type checking. The same type checking provided with public typed properties. Or the principle of encapsulation is to hide class implementation and control the state of the object, since the user can do anything stupid. When I see this it's just like C# auto-properties (a property with an empty getter and setter), it's a language concept.
Now for my opinion, this feature will make more senses if we can use embedded accessors like in the last example, so, interfaces declare properties like:
So it will be the property itself which will provide encapsulation (again, like C# does).
But for now it remains a dream, but it will surely be a great feature, and have a ton of use cases, like for my ORM for example, which will allow the user to give an explicit type for properties mapped to database table columns.
I second that!
Context is key here. There are objects in our daily life that are just a way to organise data. DTO's, entities and such. The integrity of those objects should be made sure from the outside anyway.
And then there are objects whose inner state is critical. It's objects where you might only want to expose properties via constructor and getters to control the state.
However, both types don't really justify hiding protected or private properties behind getters and setter that don't do anything else but to expose said properties as if they were public in the first place.
Doing anything else than getting a property in its getter, or setting it in its setter, breaks the Separation of Concerns. If validations are to be performed on the data of an instance, maybe you should prefer a real validation model; let's say, for the most simple example, a
validate()method which would check each potential flaw in the values, like a wrong file name, a negative value in an age, etc. You would execute thisvalidate()callback before the database inserts, for example.That's exactly what OOP frameworks like Symfony are doing, and that's a good way to go. One should never introduce unpredictable behavior in a getter or a setter. Getter gets, setter sets. Separation of Concerns.
From this point, you could decide to simply stop using getters and setters. And let's admit that having a typed public property feels exactly the same that having a private properties with getters/setters, except with less code and slightly more perf'. You could find it hypocritical. After all, encapsulation is about hiding private implementations; a private property exposed by a public getter is not encapsulated.
I thought like that back then in Java, but I evolved and I use getters/setters today. That's a question of consistency:
First, the lack of native typed collections PHP is a problem and makes PHP type system still very incomplete (without even speaking of generics). Since we don't have types like
string[], we still need adders on collections. Second, sometimes you would want to make a property read-only, and then you will need a getter with no setter. These specific needs can impose getters or adders in some cases, which leads to mixing pure public access with indirect method accessors. This mix feels kinda... I don't know... asymetric? Inconsistent. If there is only one case forcing me to use a getter or a setter, I will always use them, that's my way today.To me, accessors are more about consistency than encapsulation.
This is where it will shine. I don´t write setters, so changes internally will be written directly to the property.
It´s so strange that the RFC also has example with public properties. What an awful thing to recommend.
I don't think it's meant as a recommendation or "good practice" - I'm pretty sure the folks behind this RFC know what they're doing. This was probably just the first, most simple example that came to mind, in order to illustrate how the feature would work.
But yeah, clearly the community seem to have jumped to that conclusion - that was my motivation for writing this article 🙂
You gain debugging power. Goodluck debugging whoever changed that one property in an app that's got 5000 objects changing each other's properties on user input, such as mouse movement.
I'd like to know how to get mouse movement to PHP. Just curious...