Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.php
Subject: Re: out of sheer curiosity...
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:09:15 +0200
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <9uj7psF94nU1@mid.uni-berlin.de>
References: <jksrmr$rgq$1@dont-email.me> <17777949.TfjZNtg3zH@PointedEars.de> <jl0boo$461$1@dont-email.me> <9tij5fFmi8U1@mid.uni-berlin.de> <jl1bei$ckh$1@dont-email.me> <jl1ehv$86a$1@news.albasani.net> <4f74567c$0$6887$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> <jl1omm$hdm$1@dont-email.me> <4f746ff9$0$6918$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> <jl2fl0$v97$1@dont-email.me> <9uebvuFt0pU1@mid.uni-berlin.de> <jlsv4m$e1o$1@dont-email.me> <9ueidtFagfU1@mid.uni-berlin.de> <jlta8n$8pi$1@dont-email.me> <9ufofaFvj5U1@mid.uni-berlin.de> <jlukj7$t9t$1@dont-email.me> <jlunmd$qp5$1@news.albasani.net> <jlv19f$9ts$1@dont-email.me> <jlv8cg$2j7$1@news.albasani.net> <jlvb2i$6t4$1@dont-email.me> <jlvis4$og6$1@news.albasani.net> <jlvugq$qm4$1@dont-email.me> <jm12sj$9ap$1@news.albasani.net> <jm181r$pqn$1@dont-email.me> <jm1mbg$iho$1@news.albasani.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de xJsHj1g13TAcdoultxVCfQIBQRbnzQQ8wxpxXoUUDo9FVe/Fk=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; de; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 Thunderbird/3.1.20
In-Reply-To: <jm1mbg$iho$1@news.albasani.net>
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.php:5430

Am 10.04.2012 18:15, schrieb Thomas Mlynarczyk:
> Jerry Stuckle schrieb:
> 
>> If you are considering __wakeup() to be a constructor, then __sleep(), being
>> exactly the opposite, would be a destructor. (why do you think they are called
>> "sleep" and "wakeup" if the designers didn't consider them to be opposites?).
> 
> They are opposites with respect to the process of serialization and may be thought of
> as "to-do-before" and "to-do-after". And __sleep() is not the exact opposite of
> __wakeup() -- the object is still awake after __sleep() has been called and will
> continue to "work". 

Good point, the object is still awake, that's why you get a destruct call at the end
of script.

> And look what the PHP manual has to say (emphasis mine):
> 
> <http://de2.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.magic.php#object.wakeup>:
> "Conversely, unserialize() checks for the presence of a function with the magic name
> __wakeup(). If present, this function can *reconstruct* any resources that the object
> may have."
> 
> (So __wakeup() is meant to "reconstruct" something, thus clearly acting as a
> constructor.)
> 
> <http://de2.php.net/manual/en/class.serializable.php>
> "Classes that implement this interface no longer support __sleep() and __wakeup().
> The method serialize is called whenever an instance needs to be serialized. This does
> not invoke __destruct() or has any other side effect unless programmed inside the
> method. When the data is unserialized the class is known and the appropriate
> unserialize() method is called as a *constructor* instead of calling __construct()."
> 

And note the Note:

It is not possible for __sleep() to return names of private properties in parent
classes. (...) Instead you may use the Serializable interface.

But it is more work.

/Str.