is this a good idea with static data

Question

So i have an ever growing system in PHP where i have a static class that takes care of the database connection stuff.

<?php 
    class Database {
        // ... connection upon construction and ways of escaping the data
        public function query($query) {
            // performs query and returns the data.
        }
    }

    class API { // Not actually called api, but for the purposes of this
        private static $database = false;

        public static function GetDatabase() {
            if (static::$database === false) {
                static::$database = new Database(connection information)
            }
            return static::$database;
        }
    }
?>

I also have alot of "controllers" or database adapters that perform specific sets of functionality.

<?php 
    class UserDBAdapter {
        public function newUser($info) {
            // validates and builds the query statements

            API::GetDatabase()->query($query);
        }
    }
?>

So the real question is that i need the UserDBAdapter here and there through out the code. Say in a couple different files and possibly in other controllers and i do not want to pass it in as a variable (it can get annoying when every method has it). I also do not want to create 2 of these objects (for speed purposes).

So could i do something the same as i do with $database object. I do not initialize them until they are called, which should be efficient, and they wont need to be recreated throughout an entire process, and no matter the scope. At least thats why i started this idea, but i do not know if its the best idear.

Thanks

Have you considered using an ORM such as [doctrine](http://www.doctrine-project.org/)? It seems like that is basically what you are trying to implement. — lakenen, Dec 14 '11 at 20:39
Does your "user" mean the "database user" you connect, or some "entity / object / data" you use in your application ? — umlcat, Dec 14 '11 at 20:39

score 2 · Accepted Answer · answered Dec 14 '11 at 20:47

I think what you are doing is fine, you're storing the database connection in a registry you can easily access throughout your project.

I guess, ideally, you could overwrite this with setDatabase and getDatabase methods in your other classes too, with API::getDatabase() as a fallback?

Zend Framework has Zend_Db_Adapter::getDefaultAdapter() which I've been known to use.. or I assign an adapter to the registry with Zend_Registry::set('dbAdapter', $dbAdapter). I know you aren't using Zend, but its an example of someone doing something similar.

umlcat · Answer 2 · 2011-12-14T21:33:38.803

0

Usually, the "controllers" you mention are managed as a separate class in a separate file.

Sometimes, are "singletons" one single item used in all application. And sometimes, have several copies, depending of it usage, and are called "entities".

You can learn more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-Relational_Mapping

edited Dec 14 '11 at 21:33

answered Dec 14 '11 at 20:45

umlcat

4,091
3
19
29

No the UserDBAdapter performs operations on the database around user rows. So, name changing (passing in the uid and name), password changing, registration, blah blah blah. Everything that has to do with the user itself would be in the user DB Adapter. I know they are in a separate file, but i am using a very simple editor, stackoverflow.com, and i do not really want to go to town. Its suppose to be a "representation". ANYWAYS, of course the singleton pattern. I do like that idear alot. I total forgot about it :) – ThePrimeagen Dec 14 '11 at 20:49
i remember now why i like what i was doing and why i did not go with Singleton. I sometimes use more than 1 database connection. So i want the ability to use any number of databases. – ThePrimeagen Dec 14 '11 at 21:11

is this a good idea with static data

2 Answers2