Should I create protected constructor for my singleton classes?
Posted
by
Vijay Shanker
on Stack Overflow
See other posts from Stack Overflow
or by Vijay Shanker
Published on 2010-12-08T00:49:28Z
Indexed on
2013/11/06
9:54 UTC
Read the original article
Hit count: 232
By design, in Singleton
pattern the constructor should be marked private and provide a creational method retuning the private static member of the same type instance. I have created my singleton classes like this only.
public class SingletonPattern {// singleton class
private static SingletonPattern pattern = new SingletonPattern();
private SingletonPattern() {
}
public static SingletonPattern getInstance() {
return pattern;
}
}
Now, I have got to extend a singleton class to add new behaviors. But the private constructor is not letting be define the child class. I was thinking to change the default constructor to protected constructor for the singleton base class.
What can be problems, if I define my constructors to be protected
?
Looking for expert views....
© Stack Overflow or respective owner