Search Results

Search found 45436 results on 1818 pages for 'singleton class'.

Page 3/1818 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • Call from a singleton class to a function which in turn calls that class's method

    - by dare2be
    Hello, I am still looking for a way to phrase it properly (I'm not a native speaker...). So I have this class SQL which implements the singleton pattern (for obvious reasons) and I also have this function, checkUsr(), which queries the database using one of SQL's methods. Everything works fine as long as I don't call checkUsr() from within the SQL class. When I do so, the scripts just exits and a blank page is displayed - no errors are returned, no exception is thrown... What's happening? And how do I work around this problem? EDIT: class SQL { public static function singleton() { static $instance; if(!isset($instance)) $instance = new SQL; return $instance; } public function tryLoginAuthor( $login, $sha1 ) { (...) } } function checkUsr() { if (!isset($_SESSION['login']) || !isset($_SESSION['sha1'])) throw new Exception('Not logged in', 1); $SQL = SQL::singleton(); $res = $SQL->tryLoginAuthor($_SESSION['login'], $_SESSION['sha1']); if (!isset($res[0])) throw new Exception('Not logged in', 1); }

    Read the article

  • Abstract class + Inheritance vs Interface

    - by RealityDysfunction
    Hello fellow programmers, I am reading a book on C# and the author is comparing Abstract classes and Interfaces. He claims that if you have the following "abstract class:" abstract class CloneableType { public abstract object Clone(); } Then you cannot do this: public class MiniVan : Car, CloneableType {} This, I understand. However he claims that because of this inability to do multiple inheritance that you should use an interface for CloneableType, like so: public interface ICloneable { object Clone(); } My question is, isn't this somewhat misleading, because you can create an abstract class which is "above" class Car with the method Clone, then have Car inherit that class and then Minivan will inherit Car with all these methods, CloneAble class - Car class - Minivan Class. What do you think? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Why should I declare a class as an abstract class?

    - by Pied Piper
    I know the syntax, rules applied to abstract class and I want know usage of an abstract class Abstract class can not be instantiated directly but can be extended by other class What is the advantage of doing so? How it is different from an Interface? I know that one class can implement multiple interfaces but can only extend one abstract class. Is that only difference between an interface and an abstract class? I am aware about usage of an Interface. I have learned that from Event delegation model of AWT in Java. In which situations I should declare class as an abstract class? What is benefits of that?

    Read the article

  • Python: query a class's parent-class after multiple derivations ("super()" does not work)

    - by henry
    Hi, I have built a class-system that uses multiple derivations of a baseclass (object-class1-class2-class3): class class1(object): def __init__(self): print "class1.__init__()" object.__init__(self) class class2(class1): def __init__(self): print "class2.__init__()" class1.__init__(self) class class3(class2): def __init__(self): print "class3.__init__()" class2.__init__(self) x = class3() It works as expected and prints: class3.__init__() class2.__init__() class1.__init__() Now I would like to replace the 3 lines object.__init__(self) ... class1.__init__(self) ... class2.__init__(self) with something like this: currentParentClass().__init__() ... currentParentClass().__init__() ... currentParentClass().__init__() So basically, i want to create a class-system where i don't have to type "classXYZ.doSomething()". As mentioned above, I want to get the "current class's parent-class". Replacing the three lines with: super(type(self), self).__init__() does NOT work (it always returns the parent-class of the current instance - class2) and will result in an endless loop printing: class3.__init__() class2.__init__() class2.__init__() class2.__init__() class2.__init__() ... So is there a function that can give me the current class's parent-class? Thank you for your help! Henry -------------------- Edit: @Lennart ok maybe i got you wrong but at the moment i think i didn't describe the problem clearly enough.So this example might explain it better: lets create another child-class class class4(class3): pass now what happens if we derive an instance from class4? y = class4() i think it clearly executes: super(class3, self).__init__() which we can translate to this: class2.__init__(y) this is definitly not the goal(that would be class3.__init__(y)) Now making lots of parent-class-function-calls - i do not want to re-implement all of my functions with different base-class-names in my super()-calls.

    Read the article

  • How to use derived class shared variables in shared methods of base class

    - by KoolKabin
    Hi guys, I am trying to add shared members in derived classes and use that values in base classes... I have base class DBLayer public shared function GetDetail(byval UIN as integer) dim StrSql = string.format("select * from {0} where uin = {1}", tablename, uin) .... end function end class my derived class class User inherits dblayer public shared tabledname as string = "users" end class class item inherits dblayer public shared tabledname as string = "item" end class class category inherits dblayer public shared tabledname as string = "category" end class currently there is error using the tablename variable of derived class in base class but i want to use it... coz i dun know other techniques... if other solutions are better then u can post it or u can say how can i make it work? confused...

    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

  • How can I implement an abstract singleton class in Java?

    - by Simon
    Here is my sample abstract singleton class: public abstract class A { protected static A instance; public static A getInstance() { return instance; } //...rest of my abstract methods... } And here is the concrete implementation: public class B extends A { private B() { } static { instance = new B(); } //...implementations of my abstract methods... } Unfortunately I can't get the static code in class B to execute, so the instance variable never gets set. I have tried this: Class c = B.class; A.getInstance() - returns null; and this ClassLoader.getSystemClassLoader().loadClass("B"); A.getInstance() - return null; Running both these in the eclipse debugger the static code never gets executed. The only way I could find to get the static code executed is to change the accessibility on B's constructor to public, and to call it. I'm using sun-java6-jre on Ubuntu 32bit to run these tests.

    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

  • Manager/Container class vs static class methods

    - by Ben
    Suppose I a have a Widget class that is part of a framework used independently by many applications. I create Widget instances in many situations and their lifetimes vary. In addition to Widget's instance specified methods, I would like to be able to perform the follow class wide operations: Find a single Widget instance based on a unique id Iterate over the list of all Widgets Remove a widget from the set of all widgets In order support these operations, I have been considering two approaches: Container class - Create some container or manager class, WidgetContainer, which holds a list of all Widget instances, support iteration and provides methods for Widget addition, removal and lookup. For example in C#: public class WidgetContainer : IEnumerable<Widget { public void AddWidget(Widget); public Widget GetWidget(WidgetId id); public void RemoveWidget(WidgetId id); } Static class methods - Add static class methods to Widget. For example: public class Widget { public Widget(WidgetId id); public static Widget GetWidget(WidgetId id); public static void RemoveWidget(WidgetId id); public static IEnumerable<Widget AllWidgets(); } Using a container class has the added problem of how to access the container class. Make it a singleton?..yuck! Create some World object that provides access to all such container classes? I have seen many frameworks that use the container class approach, so what is the general consensus?

    Read the article

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