Ok, so what's the point of making it impossible to instantiate more than one class? Yeah, I get it, you don't need more than one global service; so don't make more than one instance. My argument is that you never truly need to *stop* the instantiation of a class. The global wrapper would merely provide every benefit you can think of in a singleton, without the forceful and wasteful intrusion it has. On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Frank Mori Hess <frank.hess@nist.gov>wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 26 January 2010, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
Andrew Chinkoff wrote:
Perhaps some boost::global<T> utility would be better, but a singleton itself is bad practice, in my opinion. boost::global<T> would merely create a global access point to T:
typedef boost::global<int> global_Int; global_int.get() = 5; // getting the global int
Perhaps you're right. It is a matter of taste. But I like to write "Object::Instance().get()" rather than "global_object.get()".
One requires creating a new tailored object, the other adapts itself to any object un-intrusively.
So it's pretty obvious global<int>.get() is better, and not just a matter of taste.
One of the motivations for the singleton pattern is making it impossible to instantiate more than one instance of the class, which something which is unintrusive cannot accomplish. Maybe I'm missing something however, as I don't see the point of boost::global<T> at all?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAktfBtsACgkQ5vihyNWuA4UYBQCeKxymd1XF8vzv9bANsit8PVzY FfsAoLgya2s7VtUpbSKw+3oT/d5NiNFa =Uv2d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- GMan, Nick Gorski