When to use a trait? Never.
Well, a trait could be considered to have a few benefits:
Benefits
- If you want to reuse some code between multiple classes, using a trait is an alternative for extending the class. In that case the trait may be the better option because it doesn't become part of the type hierarchy, i.e. a class that uses a trait isn't "an instance of that trait".
- A trait can save you some manual copy/paste-ing by offering compile-time copy/paste-ing instead.
Downsides
On the other hand, there are several problems with traits. For instance:
- When a trait adds one or more public methods to a class, you'll often experience the need to define those methods as an interface that the class will automatically implement by using the trait. That's impossible. A trait can't implement an interface. So you have to use the trait and implement the interface explicitly if you want to achieve this.
- Traits have no "private" methods and properties of their own. I often like to hide some things from the class where the trait is used, but it's impossible to make things "trait-private". Anything defined as private in the trait will still be accessible by the class where the trait is used. Which makes it impossible for a trait to encapsulate anything.
Better alternatives
Anyway, in practice, I always find better alternatives for using a trait. As an example, here are some alternatives:
- If the trait has service responsibilities, it's better to turn it into an actual service instead, which can and should be injected as a constructor argument into the service that requires this service. This is known as composing behavior, instead of inheriting behavior. This approach can also be used when you want to get rid of parent classes.
- If the trait adds some behavior to an entity that is the same for another entity, it often makes sense to introduce a value object and use it instead.
- Another option when you have the same behavior in different parts of the model, is to just copy the code. This will keep the design of each object flexible enough, so each can evolve in its own direction. When we want to change the logic, we won't have to worry about other places that reuse the same logic.
A counter-example
Even though most situation don't really need a trait, and there are better alternatives, there is one situation that I keep using a trait for. This is the code for that trait, and if you ever attended one of my workshops, you'll know it already:
trait EventRecording
{
/**
* @var list<object>
*/
private array $events = [];
private function recordThat(object $event): void
{
$this->events[] = $event;
}
/**
* @return list<object>
*/
public function releaseEvents(): array
{
$events = $this->events;
$this->events = [];
return $events;
}
}
I use this trait in entities, because there I always want to do the same thing: record any number of events, then after saving the modified state of the entity, release those events in order to dispatch them.
One concern might be that releaseEvents()
is a public method. But it doesn't have to be on any interface. We don't need an Entity
interface, or a RecordsEvents
interface, unless we want to create some reusable code that can save an entity and dispatch its recorded events.
Another concern is that this trait suffers from the lack of "trait-private". As an example, instead of using $this->recordThat(...)
, an entity that uses this trait could also just do $this->events[] = ...
.
We could fix this issue by extracting the code into an object, (adding even more evidence to the statement that there's always an alternative for using a trait):
final class EventRecording
{
/**
* @var list<object>
*/
private array $events = [];
public function recordThat(object $event): void
{
// ...
}
/**
* @return list<object>
*/
public function releaseEvents(): array
{
// ...
}
}
We then need to assign an instance of this new class to a private property of the entity:
final class SomeEntity
{
// Can we do this already? I forgot
private EventRecording $eventRecording = new EventRecording();
/**
* @return list<object>
*/
public function releaseEvents(): array
{
return $this->eventRecording->releaseEvents();
}
// ...
}
Every entity would still need that public method releaseEvents()
, and that additional private property, which we copy/paste into each new entity class. We could again introduce a trait for that:
trait ReleaseEvents
{
private EventRecording $eventRecording = new EventRecording();
/**
* @return list<object>
*/
public function releaseEvents(): array
{
return $this->eventRecording->releaseEvents();
}
}
At this point I feel like the extracted EventRecording
class doesn't do too much anyway, and may be a considered a Lazy class (code smell). We might just as well use the original trait, accept the design concerns, and be done. Fine.
Request for Traits
Based on my experience with traits (having seen examples of them in projects, frameworks, and libraries), I don't know of any good case for using traits, so my rule is to never use them. But, you probably have some good examples of traits that make sense, and only make sense as a trait. So here is my Request for Traits. Please share your examples by posting a comment!
This post is getting old but I still want to commente on it.
I have a website that uses a set of classes to display the pages and respond to requests from the client.
Each page has its own class.
They are all the same except for some initialization.
I use a trait to add all of the variables and functions that are common among the classes.
This reduces the class file size a bunch and I can add or modify anything in the singletrait file.
Traits can really clean things up...
Ed
Another example I'm currently working on is a couple of traits to help projects to deal with the PHP 8.2 dynamic properties deprecation. It's at this moment very much WIP, but the intention is to provide:
- a ForbidDynamicProperties trait which can be dropped into any (parent) class to completely forbid the use of dynamic properties with that class.
- a DeprecateDynamicProperties trait which can be dropped into any (parent) class to backport the deprecation of dynamic properties and make it independent of the PHP version used. This will allow projects to deprecate support for dynamic properties for all supported PHP versions and allow for forbidding them in a next major.
- and possibly some more.
This project is inspired by the large amount of WTFs I found when looking into magic method implementations vs dynamic properties and is discussed in more detail in this livestream recording.
I suspect interest in the project will grow once more people start looking into the impact of the dynamic properties deprecation.
Generally speaking, there is nothing wrong with traits as long as they are used selectively and for the right reasons.
Smile,
Juliette
Cool, thanks for submitting these real-world traits. It seems to me like these are very good use cases.
Example: https://3v4l.org/gDrME
Logically there's the problem that we are still composing behaviourand not types... but can it be useful as a use-case other than for tests?
Thx for All.
Regards
Stefano
I generally don't use Trait either, with the only exception that I used Trait only to avoid boiler code for dependency injection.
I know that constructor injection is preferable, but I used this trait for its listability and simplicity. However, with the availability of Constructor property promotion in PHP 8.1, I no longer use these "DI" traits.
Here would be my rules of thumb:
Otherwise just include the functionality in your own original class.
We use them essentially to make reusable phpunit assertions, found it is a good solution, maybe there is a better one 🧐
Indeed, based on your comment and the replies on Twitter it seems that a very common use case for traits is in
TestCase
classes, to share assertions and helper functions without changing the class hierarchy. One rule I'd introduce here is that a trait should not rely on facilities provided by the class that uses it, since you coulduse
a trait in classes that are notTestCase
and it would no longer work. So it should be self-contained and only rely on properties and methods it owns/declares. Regarding assertions, one way to do that is to switch fromself::assertEquals()
toPHPUnit\Framework\Assert::assertEquals()
, etc.Some of these pages need the same behavior (eg. have a link) For this we create a behavior interface, and a trait to use alongside to (partly) satisfy the interface.
This way we can intrduce some common functionality which only makes sense on components, without extending the same class, and avoiding a massive God object on the base component.
We have some rules though:- no functions that already exist on the component, to ensure thought through opt-in, and avoid unwanted side effects - no __construct or other magic methods- every parameter prefixed by the behavior name (link_...)- every method contains the behavior name (getLinkTitle)
This works for us in part because of the legacy code. Would rather not use this.
As for the rest, because traits are copy pasted to the class instead of reused, technically it's still code duplication 😉
Doeke
That certainly makes sense. I think traits are mostly useful in either "brownfield" situations, to ease maintenance of otherwise hard-to-maintain code, but also in places where integration with third-party code doesn't allow for other/better alternatives.
Since
EventRecording::recordThat
is private, how can we use it?Sorry, that should've been "public"; already fixed it!