Why isn't getFacadeAccessor() method abstract?
1
In Laravel's illuminate/support/Facades/Facade.php file there's a following method:
/**
* Get the registered name of the component.
*
* @return string
*
* @throws RuntimeException
*/
protected static function getFacadeAccessor()
{
throw new RuntimeException('Facade does not implement getFacadeAccessor method.');
}
Is there any potential of doing that instead of just defining an abstract method, like below?
abstract protected static function getFacadeAccessor();
Why did they possibly want to reinvent the wheel?
php laravel laravel-facade
asked Sep 3 '17 at 17:07
Robo RobokRobo Robok
4,62353257
|
show 1 more comment
1
In Laravel's illuminate/support/Facades/Facade.php file there's a following method:
/**
* Get the registered name of the component.
*
* @return string
*
* @throws RuntimeException
*/
protected static function getFacadeAccessor()
{
throw new RuntimeException('Facade does not implement getFacadeAccessor method.');
}
Is there any potential of doing that instead of just defining an abstract method, like below?
abstract protected static function getFacadeAccessor();
Why did they possibly want to reinvent the wheel?
php laravel laravel-facade
asked Sep 3 '17 at 17:07
Robo RobokRobo Robok
4,62353257
abstractmethods require implementation in child classes. Implementation ofgetFacadeAccessoris likely optional, which meansabstractwould be the wrong keyword to use.
– Bytewave
Sep 3 '17 at 17:16
Dis you read entire topic?
– Robo Robok
Sep 3 '17 at 18:35
Yes. If you extend anabstractclass, you must provide implementations for allabstractmethods in that class. However, I'm assuming that providing an implementation forgetFacadeAccessoris optional, so using anabstractmethod would make anyone defining a Facade provide some implementation forgetFacadeAccessoreven if they don't want/need to. So, leaving this implementation instead means programmers aren't required to define the method themselves when making a Facade.
– Bytewave
Sep 3 '17 at 18:40
You didn't read the topic then. Take a look at the snippet. How is implementation of that method optional, if it throws the exception telling you to implement it? xD
– Robo Robok
Sep 3 '17 at 18:42
1
Because you don't understand I mean. It's optional in the sense that I don't have to write a class that then provides an implementation for it. If it wereabstract, I'd have to provide one, even if I don't want to. I'd probably end up writing an implementation like you see above, but in my child class. So Laravel just handles that for you, and leaves it up to you if you actually want to provide an implementation instead.
– Bytewave
Sep 3 '17 at 18:47
|
show 1 more comment
1
1
1
In Laravel's illuminate/support/Facades/Facade.php file there's a following method:
/**
* Get the registered name of the component.
*
* @return string
*
* @throws RuntimeException
*/
protected static function getFacadeAccessor()
{
throw new RuntimeException('Facade does not implement getFacadeAccessor method.');
}
Is there any potential of doing that instead of just defining an abstract method, like below?
abstract protected static function getFacadeAccessor();
Why did they possibly want to reinvent the wheel?
php laravel laravel-facade
asked Sep 3 '17 at 17:07
Robo RobokRobo Robok
4,62353257
In Laravel's illuminate/support/Facades/Facade.php file there's a following method:
/**
* Get the registered name of the component.
*
* @return string
*
* @throws RuntimeException
*/
protected static function getFacadeAccessor()
{
throw new RuntimeException('Facade does not implement getFacadeAccessor method.');
}
Is there any potential of doing that instead of just defining an abstract method, like below?
abstract protected static function getFacadeAccessor();
Why did they possibly want to reinvent the wheel?
php laravel laravel-facade
php laravel laravel-facade
asked Sep 3 '17 at 17:07
Robo RobokRobo Robok
4,62353257
asked Sep 3 '17 at 17:07
Robo RobokRobo Robok
4,62353257
asked Sep 3 '17 at 17:07
Robo RobokRobo Robok
4,62353257
asked Sep 3 '17 at 17:07
Robo RobokRobo Robok
4,62353257
asked Sep 3 '17 at 17:07
Robo RobokRobo Robok
4,62353257
4,62353257
abstractmethods require implementation in child classes. Implementation ofgetFacadeAccessoris likely optional, which meansabstractwould be the wrong keyword to use.
– Bytewave
Sep 3 '17 at 17:16
Dis you read entire topic?
– Robo Robok
Sep 3 '17 at 18:35
Yes. If you extend anabstractclass, you must provide implementations for allabstractmethods in that class. However, I'm assuming that providing an implementation forgetFacadeAccessoris optional, so using anabstractmethod would make anyone defining a Facade provide some implementation forgetFacadeAccessoreven if they don't want/need to. So, leaving this implementation instead means programmers aren't required to define the method themselves when making a Facade.
– Bytewave
Sep 3 '17 at 18:40
You didn't read the topic then. Take a look at the snippet. How is implementation of that method optional, if it throws the exception telling you to implement it? xD
– Robo Robok
Sep 3 '17 at 18:42
1
Because you don't understand I mean. It's optional in the sense that I don't have to write a class that then provides an implementation for it. If it wereabstract, I'd have to provide one, even if I don't want to. I'd probably end up writing an implementation like you see above, but in my child class. So Laravel just handles that for you, and leaves it up to you if you actually want to provide an implementation instead.
– Bytewave
Sep 3 '17 at 18:47
|
show 1 more comment
abstractmethods require implementation in child classes. Implementation ofgetFacadeAccessoris likely optional, which meansabstractwould be the wrong keyword to use.
– Bytewave
Sep 3 '17 at 17:16
Dis you read entire topic?
– Robo Robok
Sep 3 '17 at 18:35
Yes. If you extend anabstractclass, you must provide implementations for allabstractmethods in that class. However, I'm assuming that providing an implementation forgetFacadeAccessoris optional, so using anabstractmethod would make anyone defining a Facade provide some implementation forgetFacadeAccessoreven if they don't want/need to. So, leaving this implementation instead means programmers aren't required to define the method themselves when making a Facade.
– Bytewave
Sep 3 '17 at 18:40
You didn't read the topic then. Take a look at the snippet. How is implementation of that method optional, if it throws the exception telling you to implement it? xD
– Robo Robok
Sep 3 '17 at 18:42
1
Because you don't understand I mean. It's optional in the sense that I don't have to write a class that then provides an implementation for it. If it wereabstract, I'd have to provide one, even if I don't want to. I'd probably end up writing an implementation like you see above, but in my child class. So Laravel just handles that for you, and leaves it up to you if you actually want to provide an implementation instead.
– Bytewave
Sep 3 '17 at 18:47
abstract methods require implementation in child classes. Implementation of getFacadeAccessor is likely optional, which means abstract would be the wrong keyword to use.– Bytewave
Sep 3 '17 at 17:16
abstract methods require implementation in child classes. Implementation of getFacadeAccessor is likely optional, which means abstract would be the wrong keyword to use.– Bytewave
Sep 3 '17 at 17:16
Dis you read entire topic?
– Robo Robok
Sep 3 '17 at 18:35
Dis you read entire topic?
– Robo Robok
Sep 3 '17 at 18:35
Yes. If you extend an
abstract class, you must provide implementations for all abstract methods in that class. However, I'm assuming that providing an implementation for getFacadeAccessor is optional, so using an abstract method would make anyone defining a Facade provide some implementation for getFacadeAccessor even if they don't want/need to. So, leaving this implementation instead means programmers aren't required to define the method themselves when making a Facade.– Bytewave
Sep 3 '17 at 18:40
Yes. If you extend an
abstract class, you must provide implementations for all abstract methods in that class. However, I'm assuming that providing an implementation for getFacadeAccessor is optional, so using an abstract method would make anyone defining a Facade provide some implementation for getFacadeAccessor even if they don't want/need to. So, leaving this implementation instead means programmers aren't required to define the method themselves when making a Facade.– Bytewave
Sep 3 '17 at 18:40
You didn't read the topic then. Take a look at the snippet. How is implementation of that method optional, if it throws the exception telling you to implement it? xD
– Robo Robok
Sep 3 '17 at 18:42
You didn't read the topic then. Take a look at the snippet. How is implementation of that method optional, if it throws the exception telling you to implement it? xD
– Robo Robok
Sep 3 '17 at 18:42
1
1
Because you don't understand I mean. It's optional in the sense that I don't have to write a class that then provides an implementation for it. If it were
abstract, I'd have to provide one, even if I don't want to. I'd probably end up writing an implementation like you see above, but in my child class. So Laravel just handles that for you, and leaves it up to you if you actually want to provide an implementation instead.– Bytewave
Sep 3 '17 at 18:47
Because you don't understand I mean. It's optional in the sense that I don't have to write a class that then provides an implementation for it. If it were
abstract, I'd have to provide one, even if I don't want to. I'd probably end up writing an implementation like you see above, but in my child class. So Laravel just handles that for you, and leaves it up to you if you actually want to provide an implementation instead.– Bytewave
Sep 3 '17 at 18:47
|
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
0
I found the following reason here:
This method is designed to be overridden when extending the Facade class to return a string, the key which the service represented by the facade is bound within the container. By default, it throws an exception if not implemented. This gives a more informative message to those creating custom facades than if the framework were to instead use an abstract method.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 19:36
HatzegopteryxHatzegopteryx
32946
Nice find! It's rather stupid though. Laravel is not for dummies, I'm pretty sure most developers would find a regular solution more clear than this quirky idea.
– Robo Robok
Nov 23 '18 at 23:48
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f46025922%2fwhy-isnt-getfacadeaccessor-method-abstract%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
0
I found the following reason here:
This method is designed to be overridden when extending the Facade class to return a string, the key which the service represented by the facade is bound within the container. By default, it throws an exception if not implemented. This gives a more informative message to those creating custom facades than if the framework were to instead use an abstract method.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 19:36
HatzegopteryxHatzegopteryx
32946
Nice find! It's rather stupid though. Laravel is not for dummies, I'm pretty sure most developers would find a regular solution more clear than this quirky idea.
– Robo Robok
Nov 23 '18 at 23:48
add a comment |
0
I found the following reason here:
This method is designed to be overridden when extending the Facade class to return a string, the key which the service represented by the facade is bound within the container. By default, it throws an exception if not implemented. This gives a more informative message to those creating custom facades than if the framework were to instead use an abstract method.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 19:36
HatzegopteryxHatzegopteryx
32946
Nice find! It's rather stupid though. Laravel is not for dummies, I'm pretty sure most developers would find a regular solution more clear than this quirky idea.
– Robo Robok
Nov 23 '18 at 23:48
add a comment |
0
0
0
I found the following reason here:
This method is designed to be overridden when extending the Facade class to return a string, the key which the service represented by the facade is bound within the container. By default, it throws an exception if not implemented. This gives a more informative message to those creating custom facades than if the framework were to instead use an abstract method.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 19:36
HatzegopteryxHatzegopteryx
32946
I found the following reason here:
This method is designed to be overridden when extending the Facade class to return a string, the key which the service represented by the facade is bound within the container. By default, it throws an exception if not implemented. This gives a more informative message to those creating custom facades than if the framework were to instead use an abstract method.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 19:36
HatzegopteryxHatzegopteryx
32946
answered Nov 23 '18 at 19:36
HatzegopteryxHatzegopteryx
32946
answered Nov 23 '18 at 19:36
HatzegopteryxHatzegopteryx
32946
answered Nov 23 '18 at 19:36
HatzegopteryxHatzegopteryx
32946
32946
Nice find! It's rather stupid though. Laravel is not for dummies, I'm pretty sure most developers would find a regular solution more clear than this quirky idea.
– Robo Robok
Nov 23 '18 at 23:48
add a comment |
Nice find! It's rather stupid though. Laravel is not for dummies, I'm pretty sure most developers would find a regular solution more clear than this quirky idea.
– Robo Robok
Nov 23 '18 at 23:48
Nice find! It's rather stupid though. Laravel is not for dummies, I'm pretty sure most developers would find a regular solution more clear than this quirky idea.
– Robo Robok
Nov 23 '18 at 23:48
Nice find! It's rather stupid though. Laravel is not for dummies, I'm pretty sure most developers would find a regular solution more clear than this quirky idea.
– Robo Robok
Nov 23 '18 at 23:48
add a comment |
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f46025922%2fwhy-isnt-getfacadeaccessor-method-abstract%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
abstractmethods require implementation in child classes. Implementation ofgetFacadeAccessoris likely optional, which meansabstractwould be the wrong keyword to use.– Bytewave
Sep 3 '17 at 17:16
Dis you read entire topic?
– Robo Robok
Sep 3 '17 at 18:35
Yes. If you extend an
abstractclass, you must provide implementations for allabstractmethods in that class. However, I'm assuming that providing an implementation forgetFacadeAccessoris optional, so using anabstractmethod would make anyone defining a Facade provide some implementation forgetFacadeAccessoreven if they don't want/need to. So, leaving this implementation instead means programmers aren't required to define the method themselves when making a Facade.– Bytewave
Sep 3 '17 at 18:40
You didn't read the topic then. Take a look at the snippet. How is implementation of that method optional, if it throws the exception telling you to implement it? xD
– Robo Robok
Sep 3 '17 at 18:42
1
Because you don't understand I mean. It's optional in the sense that I don't have to write a class that then provides an implementation for it. If it were
abstract, I'd have to provide one, even if I don't want to. I'd probably end up writing an implementation like you see above, but in my child class. So Laravel just handles that for you, and leaves it up to you if you actually want to provide an implementation instead.– Bytewave
Sep 3 '17 at 18:47