From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-16 06:47:18
Anthony Williams wrote:
> Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> thanks for your review.
> You're welcome.
>> Anthony Williams wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Any design that's picked carelessly is poor or just at best a fluke.
> Can't argue with that!
>> Having a framework internally use some Singletons can greatly simplify
>> its use.
> Possibly, but I don't think they're needed even then. If they're an
> implementation detail of the framework, you don't need to make things a
> singleton in order to ensure there is only one instance --- just create one.
What's so different between "using a Singleton" and "just creating one"?
In fact, "just creating one" should be exactly what this library is all
>> Exposing a singleton to a user provides more flexibility than
>> exposing a static interface (and can also improve performance).
> I don't see how. You can easily rewrite a static interface to use a singleton
> internally. Having a framework provide the user with a (reference-counted)
> pointer to an interface suitably hides all the details.
Yes, rewriting the code that uses the interface to use a non-static one
seems less trivial of a task, however.
>> A "tendency towards overuse" is not a good reason to reject a library,
>> as it won't stop overuse and encourages more half-baked solutions that
>> are written in a hurry.
> It is better to educate people in better ways of doing things (and provide
> tools to make those things easy) than enable them to easily do something
> that's generally a bad idea.
Without promoting Singletons people will use globals. And they will use
more globals than they would use Singletons (especially in C++ because
without we can't be sure initialization code is run if we're inside a
dynamic library, so we probably end up using POD typed globals).
>>>> * 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
>>> one-instance constraint.
>> What is the point in managing construction order without static context?
> Sometimes there are uses for globals. In those cases, it is important to
> manage the construction and destruction order, independent of how many
> instances of any given class there may be.
OK. With a Singleton, the type serves as the key to access the global
which I personally find quite elegant.
A singleton can easily hold several instances of any other class, if a
container is put into it.
Further you can use multiple-inheritance to instantiate many singletons
with a common subobject at compile time.
So what are the alternatives (concrete interface proposals, please)?
>> What is the point of having more than one instance of a class that lives
>> in static context -- and how would it be captured syntacticly?
> I can imagine a use for having lots of instances of boost::mutex at global
> scope --- each mutex protects a different thing. You don't need to capture the
> syntactic idea "there may be more than one of this class" --- that is the base
> level assumption.
Interestingly, you show us that in this very case the things you try to
protect should be 'mutexed_singleton'S to avoid namespace pollution and
to add clarity ;-).
>>> thread_specific_singleton is overly complex for what should just amount to a
>>> simple use of thread_specific_ptr.
>> It uses 'thread_specific_ptr' and has additional responsibilities.
>> Could you be more specific, please?
> thread_specific_ptr on its own provides for one instance of an object per
> thread. I disagree that a class should impose that there is one and only one
> instance per thread (and no globals) --- this is a decision for the user of a
> class, not for the class itself. As I understand from the docs, the additional
> responsibility is the destruction order management. I agree this is a useful
> facility to provide, and think it is independent of the singleton nature of
> the classes, so should be separated into its own class.
The responsibilities of a Singleton. Citing another post (sorry for the
redundancy -- I think I'll add a brushed-up version of this list to the
>>> I've written code that used singletons (and regretted it later), and used
>>> code that other people have written containing singletons.
>> So you should like this library: The design chosen allows you to easily
>> substitute Singletons with Smart Pointers.
> I disagree. If people know something is a singleton, then they don't bother
> keep the reference around, as they can get it again later. Changing code that
> does that to code that can use a passed in instance requires adding parameters
> and/or storing references. You can't just change uses of a singleton to use a
> smart pointer instead without thought to *how* it's being used.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk