Hi, On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Jochem Maas <jochem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > please keep replies on list unless your intending to pay me > an hourly fee ... Yeap, i'm new in the list and i missed te cc of list... i'll try to remember, sorry > > Diogo Neves schreef: Now in understand "schreef" is from da system... >> >> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Jochem Maas <jochem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Diogo Neves schreef: > > ... > >> >> nop... I wanna manipulate the $this and the $arguments, and possible >> don't even execute the private method... >> >> I'm tring to develop a "hook system" for my classes... and i simple >> don't wanna to do all the hook verification every method of the class >> >> I'll send my files for you to see what I'm doing in "do something" on >> my __call() funtion > > the code looks messy what with the global $hooks, functions required for > hooking Yeap, but i'm only making tests... i'm not too horried about mess yet... > (the function name class_hooker() is very funny btw) ok... i missed that in my english... added :) > and you seem to > be mixing static/non-static class calls willy-nilly. > I'm never calling something static, i'm? > I'd rethink this if I we're you. if every can be hooked, then make the > hooking should be part of a base class, possibly a factory method for object > creation will help to keep things clean and in one place. a generic > 'hooking' > decorator object might also be an idea. or maybe just using subclasses to > change/augment behaviour is a much simpler and cleaner approach. yep... i'm thinking of a base class, but that has nothing to do with the __call, if u see, i'm already passing the "get_class( $this )" and not __CLASS__ on call_user_func of the user, but again only testing > > your code makes me think of the hooking mechanism in WordPress ... works > okay, > but it's a nightmare to code to (imho). right again, i'm trying to do a wapper for phpbb class's that have a similar hook system, but needs to be defined method by method, function by function... like a big mess... and even like that i don't get yet the criteria to have a hook or not :) > > BTW. function and method names beginning with '__' are considered reserved > by the engine, it's not best practice to name userland functions/methods > things like '__magic' > Yeap, in this case is my naming that is really pretty bad, but i needed something diferent from the normal hookable methods, then I simple added a '_'... but again tests, naming and code organization was not a horry, only logic... But again, i don't see why your php should see your class's private methods outside of itself, it should simple look for a public one, if it exists then call it, otherwise call the _call and let it handle it :S Anyway, thanks for answer me and give me that points, and if u know a really good hoking system, please give me reference ;) And please anyone else has an opinion of it should work or not? Thanks -- Thanks by your attention, Diogo Neves Web Developer @ SAPO.pt by PrimeIT.pt -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
