Your implementation seems to be a fairly standard implementation of double checked locking, and thus is likely vulnerable to the issues outlined in C++ and the Perils of Double-Checked Locking<http://www.aristeia.com/Papers/DDJ_Jul_Aug_2004_revised.pdf> . On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 7:44 PM, GMan <gmannickg@gmail.com> wrote:
This suffers from the same problems as your last singleton. (Probably should have kept it in that discussion, by the way.). Also, instead of forcing people to have threaded or not, make it a policy.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Andrew Chinkoff <achinkoff@gmail.com
wrote:
I propose thread safe singleton pattern implementation (see http://www.research.ibm.com/designpatterns/pubs/ph-jun96.txt).
I have attached "singleton.hpp" to this letter.
Below is the test program:
#include <stdio.h> #include <singleton.hpp>
class A : public boost::Singleton<A> { // // Only Singleton class can create and delete us! // SINGLETON_IS_MY_FRIEND; public: void foo(){ printf("foo!\n"); } A(){ printf("A()\n"); } ~A(){ printf("~A()\n"); } };
void main() { // It is not compiled: //A a = A::Instance(); // That is exactly as it should be used: A::Instance().foo(); }
Test program outputs: A() foo! ~A()
My question: Does Boost community think that boost::Singleton is convenient (or successful) solution?
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- GMan, Nick Gorski _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost