Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 7/31 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • Singleton

    Imagine that you need some global logging system in your application.You need to be able log your messages to some file at any point of your application, but also you need to numerate your messages.How can you accomplish this? - SINGLETON

    Read the article

  • Singelton restricted to instance of dll

    - by codeySmurf
    If I create a singleton class in the context of a dll, the singleton class is instantiated once and used by all instances of the dll. I am using a dll as a plug-in for an application. Now the following thing came to my mind: If I use a singleton Class, it will be shared across multiple instances of the plug-in. However, this makes it difficult to manage the lifetime of the singleton class efficiently. The only way I could think of would be to use a reference count and to make the singleton delete its self when the reference count is 0. Does anyone have any better ideas on that? Is there any good way to restrict the singleton object to one instance of the dll? Language is c++

    Read the article

  • How to access 'private functions' in a singleton from another object inside it.

    - by Cedric Dugas
    I am currently trying to create a test suite for my javascript apps. My problem is that, it seems I cannot get access to init() from my utils object, as you can see below: I have my app that follow a singleton pattern: var appModal = function () { var utils = Object.create(moduleUtils); function init(caller, options ) { } }(); My test suite is in moduleUtils, this is a object literal converted to a prototype moduleUtils.debug = { addSlideTest : function(){ /* this function cannot fire init() from appModal */ }}

    Read the article

  • Settings object with singleton pattern

    - by axis
    I need to build an object that will have only one instance because this Object is dedicated to the storage of vital settings for my application and I would like to avoid a misuse of this type or a conflict at run-time. The most popular solution for this, according to the internet, is the Singleton pattern. But I would like to know about other ideas or solutions for this; also I would like to know if other solutions can be much more easy to grasp for an user of this hypothetical library. 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

  • Singleton class design in C#, are these two classes equivalent?

    - by Oskar
    I was reading up on singleton class design in C# on this great resource and decided to go with alternative 4: public sealed class Singleton1 { static readonly Singleton1 _instance = new Singleton1(); static Singleton1() { } Singleton1() { } public static Singleton1 Instance { get { return _instance; } } } Now I wonder if this can be rewritten using auto properties like this? public sealed class Singleton2 { static Singleton2() { Instance = new Singleton2(); } Singleton2() { } public static Singleton2 Instance { get; private set; } } If its only a matter of readability I definitely prefer the second version, but I want to get it right.

    Read the article

  • How to make a Scala Applet whose Applet class is a singleton?

    - by Jamie
    Hi, I don't know if a solution exists but it would be highly desirable. I'm making a Scala Applet, and I want the main Applet class to be a singleton so it can be accessed elsewhere in the applet, sort of like: object App extends Applet { def init { // do init here } } Instead I have to make the App class a normal instantiatable class otherwise it complains because the contructor is private. So the ugly hack I have is to go: object A { var pp: App = null } class App extends Applet { A.pp = this def init { // do init here } } I really hate this, and is one of the reasons I don't like making applets in Scala right now. Any better solution? It would be nice...

    Read the article

  • How does this Singleton Web Class persists session data, even though session is not updated in the p

    - by Micah Burnett
    Ok, I've got this singleton-like web class which uses session to maintain state. I initially thought I was going to have to manipulate the session variables on each "set" so that the new values were updated in the session. However I tried using it as-is, and somehow, it remembers state. For example, if run this code on one page: UserContext.Current.User.FirstName = "Micah"; And run this code in a different browser tab, FirstName is displayed correctly: Response.Write(UserContext.Current.User.FirstName); Can someone tell me (prove) how this data is getting persisted in the session? Here is the class: using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Web; public class UserContext { private UserContext() { } public static UserContext Current { get { if (System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Session["UserContext"] == null) { UserContext uc = new UserContext(); uc.User = new User(); System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Session["UserContext"] = uc; } return (UserContext)System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Session["UserContext"]; } } private string HospitalField; public string Hospital { get { return HospitalField; } set { HospitalField = value; ContractField = null; ModelType = null; } } private string ContractField; public string Contract { get { return ContractField; } set { ContractField = value; ModelType = string.Empty; } } private string ModelTypeField; public string ModelType { get { return ModelTypeField; } set { ModelTypeField = value; } } private User UserField; public User User { get { return UserField; } set { UserField = value; } } public void DoSomething() { } } public class User { public int UserId { get; set; } public string FirstName { get; set; } }

    Read the article

  • How to get java singleton object manager to return any type of object?

    - by Robert
    I'm writing an interactive fiction game in java from scratch. I'm currently storing all of my game object references in a hashmap in a singleton called ObjectManager. ObjectManager has a function called get which takes an integer ID and returns the appropriate reference. The problem is that it returns a BaseObject when I need to return subclasses of BaseObject with more functionality. So, what I've done so far is I've added a getEntity function which returns BaseEntity (which is a subclass of BaseObject). However, when I need the function to return to an object that is a subclass of BaseEntity that has added, required functionality, I will need to make another function. I know there is a better way, but I don't know what it is. I know very little of design patterns, and I'm not sure which one to use here. I tried passing 'class' as a parameter, but that didn't get me anywhere. public BaseObject get(int ID){ return (BaseObject)refMap.get(ID); } public BaseEntity getEntity(int ID){ return (BaseEntity)refMap.get(ID); } Thanks, java ninjas!

    Read the article

  • How does this Singleton-like web class persists session data, even though session is not updated in

    - by Micah Burnett
    Ok, I've got this singleton-like web class which uses session to maintain state. I initially thought I was going to have to manipulate the session variables on each "set" so that the new values were updated in the session. However I tried using it as-is, and somehow, it remembers state. For example, if run this code on one page: UserContext.Current.User.FirstName = "Micah"; And run this code in a different browser tab, FirstName is displayed correctly: Response.Write(UserContext.Current.User.FirstName); Can someone tell me (prove) how this data is getting persisted in the session? Here is the class: using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Web; public class UserContext { private UserContext() { } public static UserContext Current { get { if (System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Session["UserContext"] == null) { UserContext uc = new UserContext(); uc.User = new User(); System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Session["UserContext"] = uc; } return (UserContext)System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Session["UserContext"]; } } private string HospitalField; public string Hospital { get { return HospitalField; } set { HospitalField = value; ContractField = null; ModelType = null; } } private string ContractField; public string Contract { get { return ContractField; } set { ContractField = value; ModelType = string.Empty; } } private string ModelTypeField; public string ModelType { get { return ModelTypeField; } set { ModelTypeField = value; } } private User UserField; public User User { get { return UserField; } set { UserField = value; } } public void DoSomething() { } } public class User { public int UserId { get; set; } public string FirstName { get; set; } } I added this to a watch, and can see that the session variable is definitely being set somewhere: (UserContext)System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Session["UserContext"]; As soon as a setter is called the Session var is immediately updated: set { HospitalField = value; //<--- here ContractField = null; ModelType = null; }

    Read the article

  • How to create a manager class without global variables nor singletons?

    - by Omega
    I would like to implement some kind of manager class in my application. It will be in charge of loading textures, processing them, distributing them etc... At first, I wanted to make a global variable that simply contains an instance of my manager class. I found this question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4646577/global-variables-in-java. However, the users there seem to recommend to never use global variables. Fine then, I once heard about Singletons, so I though I could use that instead. I mean, creating just one instance of my manager class sounds good. However, I found this other question: When is Singleton appropriate?, which basically tells me that Singletons are, in most scenarios, some kind of anti-pattern. Now I am a bit lost - what other approach can I take to create my manager class, whose only requirement is to be accessible from anywhere?

    Read the article

  • Static Access To Multiple Instance Variable

    - by Qua
    I have a singleton instance that is referenced throughout the project which works like a charm. It saves me the trouble from having to pass around an instance of the object to every little class in the project. However, now I need to manage multiple instances of the previous setup, which means that the singleton pattern breaks since each instance would need it's own singleton instance. What options are there to still maintain static access to the singleton? To be more specific, we have our game engine and several components and plugins reference the engine through a static property. Now our server needs to host multiple game instances each having their own engine, which means that on the server side the singleton pattern breaks. I'm trying to avoid all the classes having the engine in the constructor.

    Read the article

  • Singleton code linker errors in vc 9.0. Runs fine in linux compiled with gcc

    - by user306560
    I have a simple logger that is implemented as a singleton. It works like i want when I compile and run it with g++ in linux but when I compile in Visual Studio 9.0 with vc++ I get the following errors. Is there a way to fix this? I don't mind changing the logger class around, but I would like to avoid changing how it is called. 1>Linking... 1>loggerTest.obj : error LNK2005: "public: static class Logger * __cdecl Logger::getInstance(void)" (?getInstance@Logger@@SAPAV1@XZ) already defined in Logger.obj 1>loggerTest.obj : error LNK2005: "public: void __thiscall Logger::log(class std::basic_string<char,struct std::char_traits<char>,class std::allocator<char> > const &)" (?log@Logger@@QAEXABV?$basic_string@DU?$char_traits@D@std@@V?$allocator@D@2@@std@@@Z) already defined in Logger.obj 1>loggerTest.obj : error LNK2005: "public: void __thiscall Logger::closeLog(void)" (?closeLog@Logger@@QAEXXZ) already defined in Logger.obj 1>loggerTest.obj : error LNK2005: "private: static class Logger * Logger::_instance" (?_instance@Logger@@0PAV1@A) already defined in Logger.obj 1>Logger.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "private: static class std::basic_string<char,struct std::char_traits<char>,class std::allocator<char> > Logger::_path" (?_path@Logger@@0V?$basic_string@DU?$char_traits@D@std@@V?$allocator@D@2@@std@@A) 1>loggerTest.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "private: static class std::basic_string<char,struct std::char_traits<char>,class std::allocator<char> > Logger::_path" (?_path@Logger@@0V?$basic_string@DU?$char_traits@D@std@@V?$allocator@D@2@@std@@A) 1>Logger.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "private: static class boost::mutex Logger::_mutex" (?_mutex@Logger@@0Vmutex@boost@@A) 1>loggerTest.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "private: static class boost::mutex Logger::_mutex" (?_mutex@Logger@@0Vmutex@boost@@A) 1>Logger.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "private: static class std::basic_ofstream<char,struct std::char_traits<char> > Logger::_log" (?_log@Logger@@0V?$basic_ofstream@DU?$char_traits@D@std@@@std@@A) 1>loggerTest.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "private: static class std::basic_ofstream<char,struct std::char_traits<char> > Logger::_log" (?_log@Logger@@0V?$basic_ofstream@DU?$char_traits@D@std@@@std@@A) The code, three files Logger.h Logger.cpp test.cpp #ifndef __LOGGER_CPP__ #define __LOGGER_CPP__ #include "Logger.h" Logger* Logger::_instance = 0; //string Logger::_path = "log"; //ofstream Logger::_log; //boost::mutex Logger::_mutex; Logger* Logger::getInstance(){ { boost::mutex::scoped_lock lock(_mutex); if(_instance == 0) { _instance = new Logger; _path = "log"; } } //mutex return _instance; } void Logger::log(const std::string& msg){ { boost::mutex::scoped_lock lock(_mutex); if(!_log.is_open()){ _log.open(_path.c_str()); } if(_log.is_open()){ _log << msg.c_str() << std::endl; } } } void Logger::closeLog(){ Logger::_log.close(); } #endif ` ... #ifndef __LOGGER_H__ #define __LOGGER_H__ #include <iostream> #include <string> #include <fstream> #include <boost/thread/mutex.hpp> #include <boost/thread.hpp> using namespace std; class Logger { public: static Logger* getInstance(); void log(const std::string& msg); void closeLog(); protected: Logger(){} private: static Logger* _instance; static string _path; static bool _logOpen; static ofstream _log; static boost::mutex _mutex; //check mutable }; #endif test.cpp ` #include <iostream> #include "Logger.cpp" using namespace std; int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { Logger* log = Logger::getInstance(); log->log("hello world\n"); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Static classes and/or singletons -- How many does it take to become a code smell?

    - by Earlz
    In my projects I use quite a lot of static classes. These are usually classes that naturally seem to fit into a single-instance type of thing. Many times I use static classes and recently I've started using some singletons. How many of these does it take to become a code smell? For instance, in my recent project which has a lot of static classes is an Authentication library for ASP.Net. I use a static class for a helper class that fixes ASP.Net error codes so it can be used like CustomErrorsFixer.Fix(Context); Or my authentication class itself is a static class //in global.asax's begin_application Authentication.SomeState="blah"; Authentication.SomeOption=true; //etc //in global.asax's begin_request Authentication.Authenticate(); When are static or singleton classes bad to use? Am I doing it wrong, or am I just in a project that by definition has very little per-instance state associated with it? The only per-instance state I have is stored in HttpContext.Current.Items like so: /// <summary> /// The current user logged in for the HTTP request. If there is not a user logged in, this will be null. /// </summary> public static UserData CurrentUser{ get{ return HttpContext.Current.Items["fscauth_currentuser"] as UserData; //use HttpContext.Current as a little place to persist static data for this request } private set{ HttpContext.Current.Items["fscauth_currentuser"]=value; } }

    Read the article

  • Patterns: Local Singleton vs. Global Singleton?

    - by Mike Rosenblum
    There is a pattern that I use from time to time, but I'm not quite sure what it is called. I was hoping that the SO community could help me out. The pattern is pretty simple, and consists of two parts: A singleton factory, which creates objects based on the arguments passed to the factory method. Objects created by the factory. So far this is just a standard "singleton" pattern or "factory pattern". The issue that I'm asking about, however, is that the singleton factory in this case maintains a set of references to every object that it ever creates, held within a dictionary. These references can sometimes be strong references and sometimes weak references, but it can always reference any object that it has ever created. When receiving a request for a "new" object, the factory first searches the dictionary to see if an object with the required arguments already exits. If it does, it returns that object, if not, it returns a new object and also stores a reference to the new object within the dictionary. This pattern prevents having duplicative objects representing the same underlying "thing". This is useful where the created objects are relatively expensive. It can also be useful where these objects perform event handling or messaging - having one object per item being represented can prevent multiple messages/events for a single underlying source. There are probably other reasons to use this pattern, but this is where I've found this useful. My question is: what to call this? In a sense, each object is a singleton, at least with respect to the data it contains. Each is unique. But there are multiple instances of this class, however, so it's not at all a true singleton. In my own personal terminology, I tend to call the factory method a "global singleton". I then call the created objects "local singletons". I sometimes also say that the created objects have "reference equality", meaning that if two variables reference the same data (the same underlying item) then the reference they each hold must be to the same exact object, hence "reference equality". But these are my own invented terms, and I am not sure that they are good ones. Is there standard terminology for this concept? And if not, could some naming suggestions be made? Thanks in advance...

    Read the article

  • Pooling (Singleton) Objects Against Connection Pools

    - by kolossus
    Given the following scenario A canned enterprise application that maintains its own connection pool A homegrown client application to the enterprise app. This app is built using Spring framework, with the DAO pattern While I may have a simplistic view of this, I think the following line of thinking is sound: Having a fixed pool of DAO objects, holding on to connection objects from the pool. Clearly, the pool should be capable of scaling up (or down depending on need) and the connection objects must outnumber the DAOs by a healthy margin. Good Instantiating brand new DAOs for every request to access the enterprise app; each DAO will attempt to grab a connection from the pool and release it when it's done. Bad Since these are service objects, there will be no (mutable) state held by the objects (reduced risk of concurrency issues) I also think that with #1, there should be little to no resource contention, while in #2, there'll almost always be a DAO waiting to be serviced. Is my thinking correct and what could go wrong?

    Read the article

  • abstract class extends abstract class in php?

    - by user151841
    I am working on a simple abstract database class. In my usage of this class, I'll want to have some instance be a singleton. I was thinking of having a abstract class that is not a singleton, and then extend it into another abstract class that is a singleton. Is this possible? Recommended?

    Read the article

  • Should we seal Singletons? Should we try to inherit from Singletons in the first place?

    - by devoured elysium
    Should a Singleton class be allowed to have children? Should we seal it? What are the pro's and con's? For being able to inherit from a Singleton class, we would have to make the constructor protected instead of private. Now, that will be fine in c#, but the protected word in java gives both child-classes and package-classes access to the constructor. Which means not only classes that inherit from our Singleton can access the constructor but other classes in the same package can do it. I'm a bit confused about all this facts. Maybe I am making a big fuss about nothing to worry about too much? Until now, I never had any necessity of trying to inherit from a Singleton, so maybe this is just an academic question! Thanks

    Read the article

  • How thread-safe is enum in java?

    - by portoalet
    Hi, How thread-safe is enum in java? I am implementing a Singleton using enum (as per Bloch's Effective Java), should I worry at all about thread safety for my singleton enum? Is there a way to prove or disprove that it is thread safe? // Enum singleton - the preferred approach public enum Elvis { INSTANCE; public void leaveTheBuilding() { ... } } Thanks

    Read the article

  • Boost singletons

    - by Ockonal
    Hi guys, at this page: http://torjo.com/tobias/index.html#boost_utility_singleton._usage I saw that boost has singleton class which gets second param: recreate instance if it's deleted (when we call the singleton). I can't find the implementation of this singleton in boost library. There is only singletons from serialization and pool. What's wrong?

    Read the article

  • Using StructureMap, how do you explicitly trigger the reinstantiation of a object with InstanceScope

    - by Mark Rogers
    I have an integration test harness where I want to teardown and then re-instantiate some of the singleton-scoped objects I've registered with StructureMap, after and before each test. This way I can simulate the actual run time environment, but not have the singleton's state being passed from one test to another. Maybe this isn't a great way to do an integration test, but I'm running out of alternative solutions (read open to any advice). So can an object with InstanceScope.Singleton, be re-instantiated? What's the best way to do re-instantiate a singleton-scoped object with StructureMap?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >