Search Results

Search found 50693 results on 2028 pages for 'application singleton'.

Page 3/2028 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • local web application vs desktop application speed?

    - by Josh
    Which one would be faster - a local web app gui made with something like qooxdoo or a desktop app? How much speed difference would there be expected? I would prefer creating a web app which could in the future be shared than creating a desktop gui which is specialized on certain gui toolkits.

    Read the article

  • Can the Singleton be replaced by Factory?

    - by lostiniceland
    Hello Everyone There are already quite some posts about the Singleton-Pattern around, but I would like to start another one on this topic since I would like to know if the Factory-Pattern would be the right approach to remove this "anti-pattern". In the past I used the singleton quite a lot, also did my fellow collegues since it is so easy to use. For example, the Eclipse IDE or better its workbench-model makes heavy usage of singletons as well. It was due to some posts about E4 (the next big Eclipse version) that made me start to rethink the singleton. The bottom line was that due to this singletons the dependecies in Eclipse 3.x are tightly coupled. Lets assume I want to get rid of all singletons completely and instead use factories. My thoughts were as follows: hide complexity less coupling I have control over how many instances are created (just store the reference I a private field of the factory) mock the factory for testing (with Dependency Injection) when it is behind an interface In some cases the factories can make more than one singleton obsolete (depending on business logic/component composition) Does this make sense? If not, please give good reasons for why you think so. An alternative solution is also appreciated. Thanks Marc

    Read the article

  • Trouble implementing Singleton pattern in Tomcat web application due to Class Loader

    - by jwegan
    I'm trying to implement a Singleton in Tomcat 6.24 on Linux with x86_64 OpenJDK 1.6. My application is just a bunch of JSPs and some static content and the JSPs make calls to my Java code. Currently the web.xml just looks like this: <web-app xmlns="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/web-app_2_5.xsd" version="2.5"> <description> App Name </description> <display-name>App Name</display-name> <!-- The Usual Welcome File List --> <welcome-file-list> <welcome-file>pages/index.jsp</welcome-file> </welcome-file-list> </web-app> Before when I was trying to load my Singleton it was getting instantiated twice since the class was getting loaded by two different class loaders (I'm not sure why) and each loader would create an instance of the singleton which is not acceptable for my application. I finally figured out if I exported my code as a jar and put it in $CATALINA_HOME/lib then there was only one instance, but this is not an elegant solution. I've been googling for hours, but I haven't come up with anything yet. I'm wondering if there is some other solution. Currently I'm not precompling my JSPs, could this be part of the problem? Could I write a servlet to ensure the singleton is created? If so how do I do that?

    Read the article

  • Singleton issue causing a buffer overrun

    - by Rudiger
    Hi everyone, Ive created a singleton to store 2 arrays: @interface Globals : NSObject { NSMutableArray *items; NSMutableArray *extras; } + (Globals *)sharedInstance; @property (nonatomic, assign) NSMutableArray *items; @property (nonatomic, assign) NSMutableArray *extras; @end @implementation Globals @synthesize items, extras; + (Globals *)sharedInstance { static Globals *myInstance = nil; @synchronized(self) { if(!myInstance) { myInstance = [[Globals alloc] init]; } } return myInstance; } -(void)dealloc { [items release]; [extras release]; [super dealloc]; } @end When I set the Arrays in the singleton from the App delegate and then output them to NSLog it displays what is expected. But when I call it from a view controller further into the App it displays the first entry fine, some of the second entry and then garbage which is i assume a buffer overrun, sometimes it also crashes. I set the singleton array in the appDelegate like so: Globals *sharedInstance = [Globals sharedInstance]; [sharedInstance setItems:items]; and retrieve it: [[[sharedInstance items] objectAtIndex:indexPath.row] objectForKey:@"name"]; cell.description.text = [[[sharedInstance items] objectAtIndex:indexPath.row] objectForKey:@"description"]; Name works fine in both cells if there is 2, description works in the first case, never in the second case. Is it because the arrays in my singleton aren't static? If so why is it outputting the first entry fine? Cheers for any help.

    Read the article

  • Singleton pattern in C++

    - by skydoor
    I have a question about the singleton pattern. I saw two cases concerning the static member in the singleton class. First it is an object, like this class CMySingleton { public: static CMySingleton& Instance() { static CMySingleton singleton; return singleton; } // Other non-static member functions private: CMySingleton() {} // Private constructor ~CMySingleton() {} CMySingleton(const CMySingleton&); // Prevent copy-construction CMySingleton& operator=(const CMySingleton&); // Prevent assignment }; One is an pointer, like this class GlobalClass { int m_value; static GlobalClass *s_instance; GlobalClass(int v = 0) { m_value = v; } public: int get_value() { return m_value; } void set_value(int v) { m_value = v; } static GlobalClass *instance() { if (!s_instance) s_instance = new GlobalClass; return s_instance; } }; What's the difference between the two cases? Which one is correct?

    Read the article

  • DAO/Webservice Consumption in Web Application

    - by Gavin
    I am currently working on converting a "legacy" web-based (Coldfusion) application from single data source (MSSQL database) to multi-tier OOP. In my current system there is a read/write database with all the usual stuff and additional "read-only" databases that are exported daily/hourly from an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system by SSIS jobs with business product/item and manufacturing/SCM planning data. The reason I have the opportunity and need to convert to multi-tier OOP is a newer more modern ERP system is being implemented business wide that will be a complete replacement. This newer ERP system offers several interfaces for third party applications like mine, from direct SQL access to either a dotNet web-service or a SOAP-like web-service. I have found several suitable frameworks I would be happy to use (Coldspring, FW/1) but I am not sure what design patterns apply to my data access object/component and how to manage the connection/session tokens, with this background, my question has the following three parts: Firstly I have concerns with moving from the relative safety of a SSIS job that protects me from downtime and speed of the ERP system to directly connecting with one of the web services which I note seem significantly slower than I expected (simple/small requests often take up to a whole second). Are there any design patterns I can investigate/use to cache/protect my data tier? It is my understanding data access objects (the component that connects directly with the web services and convert them into the data types I can then work with in my Domain Objects) should be singletons (and will act as an Adapter/Facade), am I correct? As part of the data access object I have to setup a connection by username/password (I could set up multiple users and/or connect multiple times with this) which responds with a session token that needs to be provided on every subsequent request. Do I do this once and share it across the whole application, do I setup a new "connection" for every user of my application and keep the token in their session scope (might quickly hit licensing limits), do I set the "connection" up per page request, or is there a design pattern I am missing that can manage multiple "connections" where a requests/access uses the first free "connection"? It is worth noting if the ERP system dies I will need to reset/invalidate all the connections and start from scratch, and depending on which web-service I use might need manually close the "connection/session"

    Read the article

  • [PHP] Singleton class and using inheritance

    - by Saif Bechan
    I have am working on a web application that makes use of helper classes. These classes hold functions to various operation such as form handling. Sometimes I need these classes at more than one spot in my application, The way I do it now is to make a new Object. I can't pass the variable, this will be too much work. I was wondering of using singleton classes for this. This way I am sure only one instance is running at a time. My question however is when I use this pattern, should I make a singleton class for all the objects, this would b a lot of code replication. Could I instead make a super class of superHelper, which is a singleton class, and then let every helper extend it. Would this sort of set up work, or is there another alternative? And if it works, does someone have any suggestions on how to code such a superHelper class. Thank you guys

    Read the article

  • Managing string resources in a Java application - singleton?

    - by Joe Attardi
    I seek a solution to the age-old problem of managing string resources. My current implementation seems to work well, but it depends on using singletons, and I know how often singletons can be maligned. The resource manager class has a singleton instance that handles lookups in the ResourceBundle, and you use it like so: MessageResources mr = MessageResources.getMessageResources(); // returns singleton instance ... JLabel helloLabel = new JLabel(mr.getString("label.hello")); Is this an appropriate use of a singleton? Is there some better, more universally used approach that I'm not aware of? I understand that this is probably a bit subjective, but any feedback I can get would be appreciated. I'd rather find out early on that I'm doing it wrong than later on in the process. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Java singleton VO class implementing serializable, having default values using getter methods

    - by user309281
    Hi All I have a J2SE application having user threads running in a separate JVM outside JBOSS server. During startup, J2SE invokes a EJB inside jboss, by passing a new object(singleton) of simple JAVA VO class having getter/setter methods. {The VO class is a singleton and implements serialiable(as mandated by EJB)}. EJB receives the object, reads all db configuration and uses the setter methods of new object to set all the values. It then returns back this updated object back to J2SE in the same remote call. After J2SE receives the object(singleton/serializable), if i invoke getter methods, I could see only default values set during object creation before EJB call, and not the values set by the EJB. Kindly throw some light on, why the received object from EJB does not see any updated values and how to rectify this. I believe it got to do with object initialization during deserialization. And i tried overriding readResolve() in the VO class, but of no help. With Regards, Krishna

    Read the article

  • iPhone: Using a Singleton with Tabview Controller and Navigation Controller

    - by malleswar
    Hi Friends, I have developed a small iPhone application by using singleton that I use to navigate through the views. Here is a sample method from my singleton class. + (void) loadMenuController:(NSMutableArray *)menuItems{ MenuViewController *menuViewControler = [[MenuViewController alloc] initWithNibName:@"MenuViewController" bundle:nil]; [menuViewControler setMenuItems:menuItems]; RootViewController *root = ( P2MAppDelegate *appDelegate = (P2MAppDelegate*) [[UIApplication sharedApplication] delegate]; UINavigationController *navController = [appDelegate navigationController]; [navController pushViewController:menuViewControler animated:YES]; [menuViewControler release]; } Now my requirement has changed to require a tab view controller . I could change my application delegate to a tabview controller but I still need to navigate inside each tab. I am unable get a clue how to navigate from my singleton class. Please guide me. Please let me know if my query is not clear. Thanks in advance. Regards, Malleswar

    Read the article

  • C#: How to kill a singleton window

    - by Anonymous Coward
    Hi Everyone I'm working on a WPF application which should be utilizable with two monitors. In the main window is a button which detaches a part of the content in a second window wich can then be used on the other minitor. That second window I implemented as a singleton. That works quite good except that the second window doesn't get destoryed on application shutdown which means that the app keeps running in the background. Regarding that problem I'd like to know if a singleton is the right way to do this and if not what would be the right way. If it is, how do I get rid of the instance and why can't I access the singleton instance from app.xaml.cs? Thanks for your help.

    Read the article

  • How to test Guice Singleton?

    - by 01
    Guice Singletons are weird for me First I thought that IService ser = Guice.createInjector().getInstance(IService.class); System.out.println("ser=" + ser); ser = Guice.createInjector().getInstance(IService.class); System.out.println("ser=" + ser); will work as singleton, but it returns ser=Service2@1975b59 ser=Service2@1f934ad its ok, it doesnt have to be easy. Injector injector = Guice.createInjector(); IService ser = injector.getInstance(IService.class); System.out.println("ser=" + ser); ser = injector.getInstance(IService.class); System.out.println("ser=" + ser); works as singleton ser=Service2@1975b59 ser=Service2@1975b59 So i need to have static field with Injector(Singleton for Singletons) how do i pass to it Module for testing?

    Read the article

  • Class design question (Disposable and singleton behavior)

    - by user137348
    The Repository class has singleton behavior and the _db implements the disposable pattern. As excepted the _db object gets disposed after the first call and because of the singleton behavior any other call of _db will crash. [ServiceBehavior(InstanceContextMode=InstanceContextMode.Single)] public class Repository : IRepository { private readonly DataBase _db; public Repository(DataBase db) { _db = db; } public int GetCount() { using(_db) { return _db.Menus.Count(); } } public Item GetItem(int id) { using(_db) { return _db.Menus.FirstOrDefault(x=>x.Id == id); } } } My question is, is there any way to design this class to work properly without removing the singleton behavior? The Repositoryclass will be serving big amount of requests.

    Read the article

  • Way of knowing who called a singleton - objective C

    - by Cyril
    Hello, I am designing a game with several levels. I have a CCLayer defined as a singleton (called MasterScene) where I handle the pause page, transition page, player's score banner,... all the things common to all levels. So in each level, when the user pushes the pause button, a call is made to the singleton to display the CClayer corresponding to the pause page. My problem is that I want to know who called the singleton (which level) t. Is there a way of doing that ? Thanks

    Read the article

  • PHP - static DB class vs DB singleton object

    - by Marco Demaio
    I don't want to create a discussion about singleton better than static or better than global, etc. I read dozens of questions about it on SO, but I couldn't come up with an answer to this SPECIFIC question, so I hope someone could now illuminate me buy answering this question with one (or more) real simple EXAMPLES, and not theoretical discussions. In my app I have the typical DB class needed to perform tasks on DB without having to write everywhere in code mysql_connect/mysql_select_db/mysql... (moreover in future I might decide to use another type of DB engine in place of mySQL so obviously I need a class of abstration). I could write the class either as a static class: class DB { private static $connection = FALSE; //connection to be opened //DB connection values private static $server = NULL; private static $usr = NULL; private static $psw = NULL; private static $name = NULL; public static function init($db_server, $db_usr, $db_psw, $db_name) { //simply stores connections values, withour opening connection } public static function query($query_string) { //performs query over alerady opened connection, if not open, it opens connection 1st } ... } or as a Singletonm class: class DBSingleton { private $inst = NULL; private $connection = FALSE; //connection to be opened //DB connection values private $server = NULL; private $usr = NULL; private $psw = NULL; private $name = NULL; public static function getInstance($db_server, $db_usr, $db_psw, $db_name) { //simply stores connections values, withour opening connection if($inst === NULL) $this->inst = new DBSingleton(); return $this->inst; } private __construct()... public function query($query_string) { //performs query over already opened connection, if connection is not open, it opens connection 1st } ... } Then after in my app if I wanto to query the DB i could do //Performing query using static DB object DB:init(HOST, USR, PSW, DB_NAME); DB::query("SELECT..."); //Performing query using DB singleton $temp = DBSingleton::getInstance(HOST, USR, PSW, DB_NAME); $temp->query("SELECT..."); My simple brain sees Singleton has got the only advantage to avoid declaring as 'static' each method of the class. I'm sure some of you could give me an EXAMPLE of real advantage of singleton in this specific case. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • linq2sql: singleton or using, best practices

    - by zerkms
    what is the preferred practice when linq2sql using (in asp.net mvc applications): to create "singleton" for DataContext like: partial class db { static db _db = new db(global::data.Properties.Settings.Default.nanocrmConnectionString, new AttributeMappingSource()); public static db GetInstance() { return _db; } } or to retrieve new instance when it needed within using: using (db _db = new db()) { ... } the usage of using brings some limitations on code. so I prefer to use singleton one. is it weird practice?

    Read the article

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