Suppose I have:
class A{
public $one;
public $two;
}
and an array with values:
array('one' => 234, 'two' => 2)
is there a way to have an instance of A filled with the right values from the array automatically?
You need to write yourself a function for that. PHP has get_object_varsDocs but no set counterpart:
function set_object_vars($object, array $vars) {
$has = get_object_vars($object);
foreach ($has as $name => $oldValue) {
$object->$name = isset($vars[$name]) ? $vars[$name] : NULL;
}
}
Usage:
$a = new A();
$vars = array('one' => 234, 'two' => 2);
set_object_vars($a, $vars);
PROTECTED and PRIVATE variables if used as a normal function. As 95% of all variables I use are protected for obvious reasons this does not work. (Wasted 20 mins on this.) Tried putting it in the class but then lots of array_key_exists needs 2 param warnings and no result so gave up. Might be usable with @menacingly suggestion but too clever for me so off to fudge it.If you want to allow for bulk-setting of attributes, you can also store them as a property. It allows you to encapsulate within the class a little better.
class A{
protected $attributes = array();
function setAttributes($attributes){
$this->attributes = $attributes;
}
public function __get($key){
return $this->attributes[$key];
}
}
@hakre version is quite good, but dangerous (suppose an id or password is in thoses props).
I would change the default behavior to that:
function set_object_vars($object, array $vars) {
$has = get_object_vars($object);
foreach ($has as $name => $oldValue) {
array_key_exists($name, $vars) ? $object->$name =$vars[$name] : NULL;
}
}
here, the previous properties that are not in the $vars array are not affected.
and if you want to set a prop to null on purpose, you can.
Yes there is.
You could use a pass thru method.
For example:
class A {
public $one, $tow;
function __construct($values) {
$this->one = $values['one'] ?: null;
$this->two = $values['two'] ?: null;
}
}
$a = new A(array('one' => 234, 'two' => 2));
Aalready exists or must it be created? If yes, with or without calling the constructor of that instance?Aain'tStdClass.Object, it's not.