Php – When should I use ‘self’ over ‘$this’

classoopphpscope

In PHP 5, what is the difference between using self and $this?

When is each appropriate?

Best Solution

Short Answer

Use $this to refer to the current object. Use self to refer to the current class. In other words, use $this->member for non-static members, use self::$member for static members.

Full Answer

Here is an example of correct usage of $this and self for non-static and static member variables:

<?php
class X {
    private $non_static_member = 1;
    private static $static_member = 2;

    function __construct() {
        echo $this->non_static_member . ' '
           . self::$static_member;
    }
}

new X();
?>

Here is an example of incorrect usage of $this and self for non-static and static member variables:

<?php
class X {
    private $non_static_member = 1;
    private static $static_member = 2;

    function __construct() {
        echo self::$non_static_member . ' '
           . $this->static_member;
    }
}

new X();
?>

Here is an example of polymorphism with $this for member functions:

<?php
class X {
    function foo() {
        echo 'X::foo()';
    }

    function bar() {
        $this->foo();
    }
}

class Y extends X {
    function foo() {
        echo 'Y::foo()';
    }
}

$x = new Y();
$x->bar();
?>

Here is an example of suppressing polymorphic behaviour by using self for member functions:

<?php
class X {
    function foo() {
        echo 'X::foo()';
    }

    function bar() {
        self::foo();
    }
}

class Y extends X {
    function foo() {
        echo 'Y::foo()';
    }
}

$x = new Y();
$x->bar();
?>

The idea is that $this->foo() calls the foo() member function of whatever is the exact type of the current object. If the object is of type X, it thus calls X::foo(). If the object is of type Y, it calls Y::foo(). But with self::foo(), X::foo() is always called.

From http://www.phpbuilder.com/board/showthread.php?t=10354489:

By http://board.phpbuilder.com/member.php?145249-laserlight

Related Solutions

Inversion of Control

The Inversion-of-Control (IoC) pattern, is about providing any kind of callback (which controls reaction), instead of acting ourself directly (in other words, inversion and/or redirecting control to external handler/controller). The Dependency-Injection (DI) pattern is a more specific version of IoC pattern, and is all about removing dependencies from your code.

Every DI implementation can be considered IoC, but one should not call it IoC, because implementing Dependency-Injection is harder than callback (Don't lower your product's worth by using general term "IoC" instead).

For DI example, say your application has a text-editor component, and you want to provide spell checking. Your standard code would look something like this:

public class TextEditor {

    private SpellChecker checker;

    public TextEditor() {
        this.checker = new SpellChecker();
    }
}

What we've done here creates a dependency between the TextEditor and the SpellChecker. In an IoC scenario we would instead do something like this:

public class TextEditor {

    private IocSpellChecker checker;

    public TextEditor(IocSpellChecker checker) {
        this.checker = checker;
    }
}

In the first code example we are instantiating SpellChecker (this.checker = new SpellChecker();), which means the TextEditor class directly depends on the SpellChecker class.

In the second code example we are creating an abstraction by having the SpellChecker dependency class in TextEditor's constructor signature (not initializing dependency in class). This allows us to call the dependency then pass it to the TextEditor class like so:

SpellChecker sc = new SpellChecker(); // dependency
TextEditor textEditor = new TextEditor(sc);

Now the client creating the TextEditor class has control over which SpellChecker implementation to use because we're injecting the dependency into the TextEditor signature.

Prefer composition over inheritance

Prefer composition over inheritance as it is more malleable / easy to modify later, but do not use a compose-always approach. With composition, it's easy to change behavior on the fly with Dependency Injection / Setters. Inheritance is more rigid as most languages do not allow you to derive from more than one type. So the goose is more or less cooked once you derive from TypeA.

My acid test for the above is:

Does TypeB want to expose the complete interface (all public methods no less) of TypeA such that TypeB can be used where TypeA is expected? Indicates Inheritance.
- e.g. A Cessna biplane will expose the complete interface of an airplane, if not more. So that makes it fit to derive from Airplane.
Does TypeB want only some/part of the behavior exposed by TypeA? Indicates need for Composition.
- e.g. A Bird may need only the fly behavior of an Airplane. In this case, it makes sense to extract it out as an interface / class / both and make it a member of both classes.

Update: Just came back to my answer and it seems now that it is incomplete without a specific mention of Barbara Liskov's Liskov Substitution Principle as a test for 'Should I be inheriting from this type?'