(1). when i use \Auth::user()->email
need not to specify
use Auth;
at top of the file
(2). when i use only Auth::user()->email
need to specify
use Auth;
at top of the file.
which one is best for performance
(1). \Auth or
(2) Auth
Thanks in advance
There is no difference, or at least any impact that you could observe.
use Auth;
Is better for file readers, sometimes when you need to refractor your code a look on use list make it faster to see what models are related to your controller.
Moreover you can set an alias to your included classes, like
use Illuminate\Http\Request as IlluminateRequest;
use Request as FacadeRequest;
Which comes in handy when dealing with specific cases.
Anyway, the short answer is that there is no difference that you can notice in terms of performance between both ways, and when you think twice then you can find more arguments for using a
use Auth;
solution.
My general rule is if I'm only going to use the class once in a file, then I'll usually just prepend the \ (like \Auth::user().
However, if I use it twice or more, then I'll import it (use Auth);
That said, either is fine.
Related
I read that facades are not good. I have no idea if that is correct. I also read that Laravel uses a lot of them. Further, I read you can turn them off in Lumen. "Turn off" may not be the right word.
Do you have to use Laravel with facades? If I do not use the facades, does this mean I should probably not have chosen Laravel in the first place?
You aren't forced to use facades.
Check documentation at https://laravel.com/docs/5.1/facades
Just use app helper to get what you need.
app('router');
app('config')
or you can use IoC. There are a lot of ways.
In fact you don't need to use facades in your app. If you look at Facades class reference for each facade you can find class in this table. So for example instead of DB facade you can inject Illuminate\Database\DatabaseManager and you can use its method.
Using facade you would use:
DB:beginTransaction();
and injecting class and assigning it to class property you can write:
$this->db->beginTransaction();
I have a Model in my Laravel app called Event. As I just discovered, this creates a conflict between my model and Illuminate\Support\Facades\Event, a built-in facade. The obvious solution here is to either change the name of my Model, which is not ideal because there is really no other name I could give my Model that makes any sense, or to rename the alias in app.php for Illuminate\Support\Facades\Event, which I'd like to avoid for fear of breaking anything that may rely on that alias in the future (I'm afraid I may forget).
It's been suggested that perhaps I could use namespaces, which I attempted as follows:
app/models/Event.php
namespace Models; #<-- I've also tried using "\Models" here
class Event extends \Eloquent{
app/database/seeds/DatabaseSeeder.php
Models\Event::create(); #<-- again, I've also used "\Models\Event"
All 4 combinations above have yielded a Class 'Models\Event' not found error when I run php artisan db:seed.
Perhaps I simply don't understand namespaces properly, but the more pressing issue is how to solve my problem. If it can be solved using namespaces as suggested, great, but I'm open to any other ideas as well.
I made this mistake early on as well, not necessarily understanding the role of namespace throughout the entire app.
The namespace should mark the business logic within the domain or responsibility of the app itself, so giving a namespace of Models isn't necessarily useful. Instead create a root namespace named after the app, your company, you, or whatever you like, then provide a Model sub-namespace.
For example:
namespace MyGreatApp\Models;
class Event extends \Eloquent{ }
Then you would reference this model under:
use MyGreatApp\Models\Event;
$event = new Event();
In the long run this is a cleaner and more organized approach. This does mean moving your models into a different folder, though. But there's nothing wrong with that. At least that way you know you have all your custom code in your MyGreatApp namespace. :)
I'm a beginner in joomla. I create own component and would like to use model from other component (exactly contentbuilder).
I find few different ways how to create model but my problem is that
class ContentbuilderModelEdit extends JModel
use JPATH_COMPONENT_ADMINISTRATOR in it. When i create model ContentbuilderModelEdit i get warnings in lines that using JPATH_COMPONENT_ADMINISTRATOR constant.
Is it possible to create model using that constant from other component?
Thanks for your answers
Alas no. The JPATH_COMPONENT and JPATH_COMPONENT_ADMINISTRATOR are defined constants, and cannot be changed.
Sometimes the developers do this instinctively (it's easy) without realizing the kind of limitation they're putting on other developers. You might consider contacting the developers and propose such a change; if they accept, you won; if they don't, write a sed script that performs the changes (replacing it with JPATH_SITE and JPATH_ADMINISTRATOR . '/components/com_contentbuilder', and apply it after each update.
Or, copy their model into your component and rename it if it supports it.
:)
To call a model from another component you need firstly to include the path of this model:
JModelLegacy::addIncludePath(JPATH_SITE . '/components/comp1/models', 'Comp1Model');
Secondly you have to create an instance of your model:
$model = JModelLegacy::getInstance('Model1', 'Comp1Model');
After that you should be able to use the methods of your model.
ref link
In a codeigniter project i have to do some set of stuff in one than one controller.
I code all that stuff in a function and now i need to call whenever necessary.
i think Writing this function in more than one controller is not good.
i have 2 options,
create a helper and write these function in that and include the helper in necessary controllers.
Since i have extended CI base controller (My_Controller) and most of my controllers are extended that controller, i can write this function to my base controller also.
I have confused which one is better, right way?
Which one will speed up the process?
Is the second way slows the site?
They are identical for all intents and purposes.
Using a helper allows you to make the code portable, so you can use it in other projects, or to be called from anywhere in the code base, in the case of a formatting function for example
If you were planning to put it in a controller, then MY_Controller is best bet
Just to help you on you endeavor what i do is: (this is just me)
If i need to use something in the views, i use a helper a custom one or built in.
If i want to do something on a controller that other controller will be using too and don't want it to mess up or crowd my controller i use a library (pretty much you can use a helper but i chose to use a library)
If i want to load lets say a method, to affect Globally or some of the controller i use the base controller. (you could also use helper or library)
The key is you are not restricted to one, choose the best that suits you, as the saying goes, there are many ways to skin a cat, but please don't skin a cat..
I'm making some changes to an old MFC application. The header "stdafx.h" includes another header "mfcextensions.h" which defines a class "CMemDC". In another header I need to include "afxtoolbar.h" so that I can use the class "CMFCToolBar". The problem is, "afxtoolbar.h" will eventually include "memdc.h" which defines a class "CmemDC". The result is that understandably get compile error 2011.
Now I do have control over our existing code which defines "CMemDC" but this is used in a lot of places so I would rather not change it too much.
What is the best strategy for over coming this? I'm guessing that I could somehow use namespaces, or the other alternative is to rename our existing class "CMemDC" but this is more avoiding the problem rather than solving it for good.
Cheers
Using namespaces is the proper route but you probably also want to look at why CMemDC is declared throughout the whole app. Unless you really need your CMemDC declared everywhere you might be able to get away with removing the include from the stdafx.h and just including in the cpp files that really need it.
C++ namespaces might help you. Put at least one of the CMemDC classes in a suitable namespace, and use their fully qualified names where you want to use each one.
You can avoid using the fully qualified names, and make the namespace usage global in the current scope with
using namespace yournamespacename;
However, this is less explicit (in terms of not being able to directly see which CMemDC are you using at one point in the code) and in case you use both classes in the same scope this won't work.
If you have 2 classes with the same name your best option is to use namespaces. Also you can rename your class as well. But all of that is in your post already. So you have answered question yourself. There is no magic which can help you because you have stuck with the usual problem of the name clashing and namespaces were introduced to resolve this kind of problems.