I mean the idea of defining the singleton type struct my_singleton : boost::singleton<my_singleton> { ... void DoSmth()const; ... }; And the more important now, the possibility to access it: my_singleton::instance->DoSmth(); I found it extremely useful to be able to overload the operator -> for accessing the singleton members and may be doing smth. meaningful before and after accessing the member, e.g. monitoring. I was going to write a review, but somehow missed it... IMO I would like to have this lib in Boost (would give my YES vote). Controlling the multi-threaded creation handling via BOOST_HAS_THREADS can be nice by default, but should also be possible to finetune it without redefining macros or including singleton headers before this macro was defined. So I would prefer smth. like this: #ifdef BOOST_HAS_TREADS # define BOOST_SINGLETON_DEFAULT_LOCKING_POLICY boost::singleton_default_locking #else # define BOOST_SINGLETON_DEFAULT_LOCKING_POLICY boost::singleton_no_locking #endif namespace boost { template<class Derived, class LockingPolicy=BOOST_SINGLETON_DEFAULT_LOCKING_POLICY> struct singleton { ... }; } After all I can write: struct my_singleton : boost::singleton<my_singleton> {}; Or if I really want to control locking policy: struct my_singleton : boost::singleton<my_singleton, no_locking> {}; I would not like using "macro interface" to control the locking policy of the singleton. As well as it is not always so that if my app has threads I need lockable singleton. I agree that might be needed for shared_ptr to make safe locks, since it might be used in some "local" thread somewhere in the app, but if I for sure know that my singlegon will be instantiated in main() before any threads will start running and that it will be a read-only singleton, I don't need locking. Many thanks, Ovanes On Jan 29, 2008 3:14 PM, John Torjo <john.groups@torjo.com> wrote:
Ovanes Markarian wrote:
These are very sad news. I started to use it in my current project and am highly satisfied with it for my current needs. I hope that the interface (accessing the singleton) would remain the same.
Do you mean just the function name, or more?
Best, John
-- http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert ... call me only if you want things done right
_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users