Search Results

Search found 774 results on 31 pages for 'm singleton'.

Page 2/31 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • C# Using singleton instead of a global static instance

    - by Farstucker
    I ran into a problem today and a friend recommended I use a global static instance or more elegantly a singleton pattern. I spent a few hours reading about singletons but a few things still escape me. Background: What Im trying to accomplish is creating an instance of an API and use this one instance in all my classes (as opposed to making a new connection, etc). There seems to be about 100 ways of creating a singleton but with some help from yoda I found some thread safe examples. ..so given the following code: public sealed class Singleton { public static Singleton Instance { get; private set; } static Singleton() { Instance = new Singleton(); } } How/Where would you instantiate the this new class and how should it be called from a separate class? Thanks for your help.

    Read the article

  • C++ Singleton design pattern

    - by Artem Barger
    Recently I've bumped into a realization/implementation of the Singleton design pattern for C++. It has looked like this (I have adopted it from the real life example): // a lot of methods are omitted here class Singleton { public: static Singleton* getInstance( ); ~Singleton( ); private: Singleton( ); static Singleton* instance; }; From this declaration I can deduce that the instance field is initiated on the heap. That means there is a memory allocation. What is completely unclear for me is when exactly the memory is going to be deallocated? Or is there a bug and memory leak? It seems like there is a problem in the implementation. My main question is, how do I implement it in the right way?

    Read the article

  • Singleton Roles in Moose

    - by mjn12
    I am attempting to write a singleton role using Perl and Moose. I understand a MooseX::Singleton module is available but there is always resistance when requiring another CPAN module for our project. After trying this and having a little trouble I would like to understand WHY my method is not working. The singleton role I have written is as follows: package Singleton; use Moose::Role; my $_singleInstance; around 'new' => sub { my $orig = shift; my $class = shift; if (not defined $_singleInstance ){ $_singleInstance = $class->$orig(@_); } return $_singleInstance; }; sub getInstance { return __PACKAGE__->new(); } 1; This appears to work find when only one class uses the singleton role. However when two classes (ClassA and ClassB for example) both consume the Singleton role it appears as they are both referring to a shared $_singleInstance variable. If I call ClassA-getInstance it returns a reference to a ClassA object. If I call ClassB-getInstance sometime later in the same script it returns a reference to an object of type ClassA (even though I clearly called the getInstance method for ClassB). If I dont use a role and actually copy and paste the code from the Singleton role into ClassA and ClassB it appears to work fine. Whats going on here?

    Read the article

  • Using Dispose on a Singleton to Cleanup Resources

    - by ImperialLion
    The question I have might be more to do with semantics than with the actual use of IDisposable. I am working on implementing a singleton class that is in charge of managing a database instance that is created during the execution of the application. When the application closes this database should be deleted. Right now I have this delete being handled by a Cleanup() method of the singleton that the application calls when it is closing. As I was writing the documentation for Cleanup() it struck me that I was describing what a Dispose() method should be used for i.e. cleaning up resources. I had originally not implemented IDisposable because it seemed out of place in my singleton, because I didn't want anything to dispose the singleton itself. There isn't currently, but in the future might be a reason that this Cleanup() might be called but the singleton should will need to still exist. I think I can include GC.SuppressFinalize(this); in the Dispose method to make this feasible. My question therefore is multi-parted: 1) Is implementing IDisposable on a singleton fundamentally a bad idea? 2) Am I just mixing semantics here by having a Cleanup() instead of a Dispose() and since I'm disposing resources I really should use a dispose? 3) Will implementing 'Dispose()' with GC.SuppressFinalize(this); make it so my singleton is not actually destroyed in the case I want it to live after a call to clean-up the database.

    Read the article

  • What is the difference between all-static-methods and applying a singleton pattern?

    - by shahensha
    I am making a database to store information about the users of my website (I am using stuts2 and hence Java EE technology). For the database I'll be making a DBManager. Should I apply singleton pattern here or rather make all it's methods static? I will be using this DBManager for basic things like adding, deleting and updating User profiles. Along with it, I'll use for all other querying purposes, for instance to find out whether a username already exists and to get all users for administrative purposes and stuff like that. My questions What is the benefit of singleton pattern? Which thing is most apt here? All static methods or a singleton pattern? Please compare both of them. regards shahensha P.S. The database is bigger than this. Here I am talking only about the tables which I'll be using for storing User Information.

    Read the article

  • Singleton object in IIS Web Garden

    - by Anwar Chandra
    I have a lot of Singleton implementation in asp.net application and want to move my application to IIS Web Garden environment for some performance reasons. CMIIW, moving to IIS Web Garden with n worker process, there will be one singleton object created in each worker process, which make it not a single object anymore because n 1. can I make all those singleton objects, singleton again in IIS Web Garden?

    Read the article

  • Singleton again, but with multi-thread and Objective-C

    - by Tonny Xu
    I know Singleton pattern has been discussed so much. But because I'm not fully understand the memory management mechanism in Objective-C, so when I combined Singleton implementation with multithreading, I got a big error and cost me a whole day to resolve it. I had a singleton object, let's call it ObjectX. I declared an object inside ObjectX that will detach a new thread, let's call that object objectWillSpawnNewThread, when I called [[ObjectX sharedInstance].objectWillSpawnNewThread startNewThread]; The new thread could not be executed correctly, and finally I found out that I should not declare the object objectWillSpawnNewThread inside the singleton class. Here are my questions: How does Objective-C allocate static object in the memory? Where does Objective-C allocate them(Main thread stack or somewhere else)? Why would it be failed if we spawn a new thread inside the singleton object? I had searched the Objective-C language [ObjC.pdf] and Objective-C memory management document, maybe I missed something, but I currently I could not find any helpful information.

    Read the article

  • what is the exact difference between PHP static class and singleton class

    - by Saif Bechan
    I have always used a Singleton class for a registry object in PHP. As all Singleton classes I think the main method looks like this: class registry { public static function singleton() { if( !isset( self::$instance ) ) { self::$instance = new registry(); } return self::$instance; } public function doSomething() { echo 'something'; } } So whenever I need something of the registry class I use a function like this: registry::singleton()->doSomethine(); Now I do not understand what the difference is between creating just a normal static function. Will it create a new object if I just use a normal static class. class registry { public static function doSomething() { echo 'something'; } } Now I can just use: registry::doSomethine(); Can someone explain to me what the function is of the singleton class. I really do not understand this.

    Read the article

  • Boost singleton and undefined reference

    - by Ockonal
    Hello, I globally use singleton pattern in my project. To make it easier - boost::singleton. Current project uses Ogre3d library for rendering. Here is some class: class GraphicSystem : public singleton<GraphicSystem> { private: Ogre::RenderWindow *mWindow; public: Ogre::RenderWindow *getWindow() const { return mWindow; } }; In GraphicSystem constructor I fill the mWindow value: mWindow = mRoot->createRenderWindow(...); I cheked it, everything makes normally. So, now I have to use handler for the window in input system (to get window handle). Somewhere else in another class: Ogre::RenderWindow *temp = GraphicSystem::get_mutable_instance().getWindow(); GraphicSystem::get_mutable_instance().getWindow()->getCustomAttribute("WINDOW", &mWindowHandle); temp is 0x00, and there is segfault at last line (getting custon attribute). I can't understand, why does singleton returns undefined pointer for the window. All another singleton-based classes work well.

    Read the article

  • javascript singleton question

    - by Shawn
    I just read a few threads on the discussion of singleton design in javascript. I'm 100% new to the Design Pattern stuff but as I see since a Singleton by definition won't have the need to be instantiated, conceptually if it's not to be instantiated, in my opinion it doesn't have to be treated like conventional objects which are created from a blueprint(classes). So my wonder is why not just think of a singleton just as something statically available that is wrapped in some sort of scope and that should be all. From the threads I saw, most of them make a singleton though traditional javascript new function(){} followed by making a pseudo constructor. Well I just think an object literal is enough enough: var singleton = { dothis: function(){}, dothat: function(){} } right? Or anybody got better insights? [update] : Again my point is why don't people just use a simpler way to make singletons in javascript as I showed in the second snippet, if there's an absolute reason please tell me. I'm usually afraid of this kind of situation that I simplify things to much :D

    Read the article

  • Boost singleton trouble

    - by Ockonal
    Hi guys, I have some class which uses boost singleton. It calls some function from own c++ library. This library is written in make file as dependence. Now I have another singleton class and it should call first singleton class. After this code I got linkers error about undefined references for functions which are used in first singleton. When I remove calling first singleton class from second the errors remove. Maybe there is something wrong?

    Read the article

  • How do I write a J2EE/EJB Singleton?

    - by Bears will eat you
    A day ago my application was one EAR, containing one WAR, one EJB JAR, and a couple of utility JAR files. I had a POJO singleton class in one of those utility files, it worked, and all was well with the world: EAR |--- WAR |--- EJB JAR |--- Util 1 JAR |--- Util 2 JAR |--- etc. Then I created a second WAR and found out (the hard way) that each WAR has its own ClassLoader, so each WAR sees a different singleton, and things break down from there. This is not so good. EAR |--- WAR 1 |--- WAR 2 |--- EJB JAR |--- Util 1 JAR |--- Util 2 JAR |--- etc. So, I'm looking for a way to create a Java singleton object that will work across WARs (across ClassLoaders?). The @Singleton EJB annotation seemed pretty promising until I found that JBoss 5.1 doesn't seem to support that annotation (which was added as part of EJB 3.1). Did I miss something - can I use @Singleton with JBoss 5.1? Upgrading to JBoss AS 6 is not an option right now. Alternately, I'd be just as happy to not have to use EJB to implement my singleton. What else can I do to solve this problem? Basically, I need a semi-application-wide* hook into a whole bunch of other objects, like various cached data, and app config info. As a last resort, I've already considered merging my two WARs into one, but that would be pretty hellish. *Meaning: available basically anywhere above a certain layer; for now, mostly in my WARs - the View and Controller (in a loose sense).

    Read the article

  • Jboss 6 Cluster Singleton Clustered

    - by DanC
    I am trying to set up a Jboss 6 in a clustered environment, and use it to host clustered stateful singleton EJBs. So far we succesfully installed a Singleton EJB within the cluster, where different entrypoints to our application (through a website deployed on each node) point to a single environment on which the EJB is hosted (thus mantaining the state of static variables). We achieved this using the following configuration: Bean interface: @Remote public interface IUniverse { ... } Bean implementation: @Clustered @Stateful public class Universe implements IUniverse { private static Vector<String> messages = new Vector<String>(); ... } jboss-beans.xml configuration: <deployment xmlns="urn:jboss:bean-deployer:2.0"> <!-- This bean is an example of a clustered singleton --> <bean name="Universe" class="Universe"> </bean> <bean name="UniverseController" class="org.jboss.ha.singleton.HASingletonController"> <property name="HAPartition"><inject bean="HAPartition"/></property> <property name="target"><inject bean="Universe"/></property> <property name="targetStartMethod">startSingleton</property> <property name="targetStopMethod">stopSingleton</property> </bean> </deployment> The main problem for this implementation is that, after the master node (the one that contains the state of the singleton EJB) shuts down gracefuly, the Singleton's state is lost and reset to default. Please note that everything was constructed following the JBoss 5 Clustering documents, as no JBoss 6 documents were found on this subject. Any information on how to solve this problem or where to find JBoss 6 documention on clustering is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Singleton pattern in web applications

    - by ryudice
    I'm using a singleton pattern for the datacontext in my web application so that I dont have to instantiate it every time, however I'm not sure how web applications work, does IIS open a thread for every user connected? if so, what would happend if my singleton is not thread safe? Also, is it OK to use a singleton pattern for the datacontext? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Examples of IOC/DI over Singleton

    - by Amitd
    Hi, Just started learning/reading about DI and IOC frameworks. Also I read many articles on SO and internet that say that one should prefer DI/IOC over singleton. Can anyone give/link examples of exactly how DI/IOC eliminates/solves the various issues regarding the Singleton pattern? (hopefully code and explanation for better understanding) Also given a system has already implemented Singleton pattern, how to refactor/implement DI/IOC for the same? (any examples for the same?) (Language/Framework no bars..C# would be helpful) Thanks

    Read the article

  • Thread safe lazy contruction of a singleton in C++

    - by pauldoo
    Is there a way to implement a singleton object in C++ that is: Lazily constructed in a thread safe manner (two threads might simultaneously be the first user of the singleton - it should still only be constructed once). Doesn't rely on static variables being constructed beforehand (so the singleton object is itself safe to use during the construction of static variables). (I don't know my C++ well enough, but is it the case that integral and constant static variables are initialized before any code is executed (ie, even before static constructors are executed - their values may already be "initialized" in the program image)? If so - perhaps this can be exploited to implement a singleton mutex - which can in turn be used to guard the creation of the real singleton..) Excellent, it seems that I have a couple of good answers now (shame I can't mark 2 or 3 as being the answer). There appears to be two broad solutions: Use static initialisation (as opposed to dynamic initialisation) of a POD static varible, and implementing my own mutex with that using the builtin atomic instructions. This was the type of solution I was hinting at in my question, and I believe I knew already. Use some other library function like pthread_once or boost::call_once. These I certainly didn't know about - and am very grateful for the answers posted.

    Read the article

  • Singleton Pattern for C#

    - by cam
    I need to store a bunch of variables that need to be accessed globally and I'm wondering if a singleton pattern would be applicable. From the examples I've seen, a singleton pattern is just a static class that can't be inherited. But the examples I've seen are overly complex for my needs. What would be the very simplest singleton class? Couldn't I just make a static, sealed class with some variables inside?

    Read the article

  • How to create a true singleton in java?

    - by rjoshi
    I am facing a problem with my singleton when used across multiple class loaders. E.g Singleton accessed by multiple EJBs. Is there any way to create a singleton which has only one instance across all class loader? I am looking for pure java solution either using custom class loader or some other way.

    Read the article

  • Javascript 'class' and singleton problems

    - by Kucebe
    I have a singleton object that use another object (not singleton), to require some info to server: var singleton = (function(){ /*_private properties*/ var myRequestManager = new RequestManager(params, //callbacks function(){ previewRender(response); }, function(){ previewError(); } ); /*_public methods*/ return{ /*make a request*/ previewRequest: function(request){ myRequestManager.require(request); //err:myRequestManager.require is not a func }, previewRender: function(response){ //do something }, previewError: function(){ //manage error } }; }()); This is the 'class' that make the request to the server function RequestManager(params, success, error){ //create an ajax manager this.param = params; this._success = success; //callbacks this._error = error; } RequestManager.prototype = { require: function(text){ //make an ajax request }, otherFunc: function(){ //do other things } } The problem is that i can't call myRequestManager.require from inside singleton object. Firebug consolle says: "myRequestManager.require is not a function", but i don't understand where the problem is. Is there a better solution for implement this situation?

    Read the article

  • How to instantiate a Singleton multiple times?

    - by Sebi
    I need a singleton in my code. I implemented it in Java and it works well. The reason I did it, is to ensure that in a mulitple environment, there is only one instance of this class. But now I want to test my Singleton object locally with a Unit test. For this reason I need to simulate another instance of this Singleton (the object that would be from another device). So is there a possiblity to instantiate a Singleton a second time for testing purpose or do I have to mock it? I'm not sure, but I think it could be possible by using a different class loader?

    Read the article

  • What are the downsides of implementing a singleton with Java's enum?

    - by irreputable
    Traditionally, a singleton is usually implemented as public class Foo1 { private static final Foo1 INSTANCE = new Foo1(); public static Foo1 getInstance(){ return INSTANCE; } private Foo1(){} public void doo(){ ... } } With Java's enum, we can implement a singleton as public enum Foo2 { INSTANCE; public void doo(){ ... } } As awesome as the 2nd version is, are there any downsides to it? (I gave it some thoughts and I'll answer my own question; hopefully you have better answers)

    Read the article

  • should singleton be life-time available or should it be destroyable?

    - by Manoj R
    Should the singleton be designed so that it can be created and destroyed at any time in program or should it be created so that it is available in life-time of program. Which one is best practice? What are the advantages and disadvantages of both? EDIT :- As per the link shared by Mat, the singleton should be static. But then what are the disadvantages of making it destroyable? One advantage is it memory can be saved when it is not useful.

    Read the article

  • iPhone noob - setting NSMutableDictionary entry inside Singleton?

    - by codemonkey
    Yet another iPhone/Objective-C noob question. I'm using a singleton to store app state information. I'm including the singleton in a Utilities class that holds it (and eventually other stuff). This utilities class is in turn included and used from various view controllers, etc. The utilities class is set up like this: // Utilities.h #import <Foundation/Foundation.h> @interface Utilities : NSObject { } + (id)GetAppState; - (id)GetAppDelegate; @end // Utilities.m #import "Utilities.h" #import "CHAPPAppDelegate.h" #import "AppState.h" @implementation Utilities CHAPPAppDelegate* GetAppDelegate() { return (CHAPPAppDelegate *)[UIApplication sharedApplication].delegate; } AppState* GetAppState() { return [GetAppDelegate() appState]; } @end ... and the AppState singleton looks like this: // AppState.h #import <Foundation/Foundation.h> @interface AppState : NSObject { NSMutableDictionary *challenge; NSString *challengeID; } @property (nonatomic, retain) NSMutableDictionary *challenge; @property (nonatomic, retain) NSString *challengeID; + (id)appState; @end // AppState.m #import "AppState.h" static AppState *neoAppState = nil; @implementation AppState @synthesize challengeID; @synthesize challenge; # pragma mark Singleton methods + (id)appState { @synchronized(self) { if (neoAppState == nil) [[self alloc] init]; } return neoAppState; } + (id)allocWithZone:(NSZone *)zone { @synchronized(self) { if (neoAppState == nil) { neoAppState = [super allocWithZone:zone]; return neoAppState; } } return nil; } - (id)copyWithZone:(NSZone *)zone { return self; } - (id)retain { return self; } - (unsigned)retainCount { return UINT_MAX; //denotes an object that cannot be released } - (void)release { // never release } - (id)init { if (self = [super init]) { challengeID = [[NSString alloc] initWithString:@"0"]; challenge = [NSMutableDictionary dictionary]; } return self; } - (void)dealloc { // should never be called, but just here for clarity [super dealloc]; } @end ... then, from a view controller I'm able to set the singleton's "challengeID" property like this: [GetAppState() setValue:@"wassup" forKey:@"challengeID"]; ... but when I try to set one of the "challenge" dictionary entry values like this: [[GetAppState() challenge] setObject:@"wassup" forKey:@"wassup"]; ... it fails giving me an "unrecognized selector sent..." error. I'm probably doing something really obviously dumb? Any insights/suggestions will be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Is Structuremap singleton thread safe?

    - by Ben
    Hi, Currently I have the following class: public class PluginManager { private static bool s_initialized; private static object s_lock = new object(); public static void Initialize() { if (!s_initialized) { lock (s_lock) { if (!s_initialized) { // initialize s_initialized = true; } } } } } The important thing here is that Initialize() should only be executed once whilst the application is running. I thought that I would refactor this into a singleton class since this would be more thread safe?: public sealed class PluginService { static PluginService() { } private static PluginService _instance = new PluginService(); public static PluginService Instance { get { return _instance; } } private bool s_initialized; public void Initialize() { if (!s_initialized) { // initialize s_initialized = true; } } } Question one, is it still necessary to have the lock here (I have removed it) since we will only ever be working on the same instance? Finally, I want to use DI and structure map to initialize my servcices so I have refactored as below: public interface IPluginService { void Initialize(); } public class NewPluginService : IPluginService { private bool s_initialized; public void Initialize() { if (!s_initialized) { // initialize s_initialized = true; } } } And in my registry: ForRequestedType<IPluginService>() .TheDefaultIsConcreteType<NewPluginService>().AsSingletons(); This works as expected (singleton returning true in the following code): var instance1 = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IPluginService>(); var instance2 = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IPluginService>(); bool singleton = (instance1 == instance2); So my next question, is the structure map solution as thread safe as the singleton class (second example). The only downside is that this would still allow NewPluginService to be instantiated directly (if not using structure map). Many thanks, Ben

    Read the article

  • Thread implemented as a Singleton

    - by rocknroll
    Hi all, I have a commercial application made with C,C++/Qt on Linux platform. The app collects data from different sensors and displays them on GUI. Each of the protocol for interfacing with sensors is implemented using singleton pattern and threads from Qt QThreads class. All the protocols except one work fine. Each protocol's run function for thread has following structure: void <ProtocolClassName>::run() { while(!mStop) //check whether screen is closed or not { mutex.lock() while(!waitcondition.wait(&mutex,5)) { if(mStop) return; } //Code for receiving and processing incoming data mutex.unlock(); } //end while } Hierarchy of GUI. 1.Login screen. 2. Screen of action. When a user logs in from login screen, we enter the action screen where all data is displayed and all the thread's for different sensors start. They wait on mStop variable in idle time and when data arrives they jump to receiving and processing data. Incoming data for the problem protocol is 117 bytes. In the main GUI threads there are timers which when timeout, grab the running instance of protocol using <ProtocolName>::instance() function Check the update variable of singleton class if its true and display the data. When the data display is done they reset the update variable in singleton class to false. The problematic protocol has the update time of 1 sec, which is also the frame rate of protocol. When I comment out the display function it runs fine. But when display is activated the application hangs consistently after 6-7 hours. I have asked this question on many forums but haven't received any worthwhile suggestions. I Hope that here I will get some help. Also, I have read a lot of literature on Singleton, multithreading, and found that people always discourage the use of singletons especially in C++. But in my application I can think of no other design for implementation. Thanks in advance A Hapless programmer

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >