Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: [Formal review] Singleton library

From: Pavel Antokolsky aka Zigmar (zigmar_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-07 07:20:23

On 5/7/05, Jason Hise <chaos_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> What if I were to move the implementation details that require being
> only defined once to source files, and by default have those source
> files included by the headers.  Then if some macro is specified, I could
> omit these inclusions and instead link to a separate dll that is a build
> of these files.  Would this solve the problem?

I think it would solve the problem on windows. Although it must be
stated clear enough in documentation, otherwise the user may run into
a very unpleasant problems when porting from *nix where it worked with
header-only implementation to windows - the code will compile and run,
but not behave as expected - he will get multiple instances of
singletons. Maybe even dll implementation should be even default on
Windows - till user have not configured it differently.
-- 
Best regards,
Zigmar