From: Anthony Williams (anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-15 06:21:16
John Torjo <john.groups <at> torjo.com> writes:
> Today starts the formal Fast-Track review of the Boost.Utility/Singleton
> library. This is a very useful utility, so I'm expecting lots of reviews ;)
> * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
I don't think this is at all useful. People should not be encouraged to use
singletons, as there is already a tendency towards overuse. In most
circumstances, singletons are a poor design choice, so there is little
requirement for their use.
> * What is your evaluation of the design?
> * What is your evaluation of the implementation?
The design mixes several independent issues --- ensuring there is only one
instance of a class and avoiding initialization order problems with on-demand
initialization for starters.
A simple wrapper class that allows for on-demand initialization, would be
useful. Conflating that with "there shall be at most one instance" is not.
Again, allowing for a preferred destruction sequence of objects with such
on-demand initialization might also be useful, but does not belong with the
thread_specific_singleton is overly complex for what should just amount to a
simple use of thread_specific_ptr.
> * Did you try to use the library? With what compiler?
> Did you have any problems?
No, I haven't tried to use it.
> * How much effort did you put into your evaluation?
I've read through the code and documentation carefully.
> * Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
Yes. I've written code that used singletons (and regretted it later), and used
code that other people have written containing singletons.
> * Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk