Re: [boost] [review] General comment on boost::singleton

From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-18 09:10:15

>-----Original Message-----
>From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
>[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Marcus Lindblom
>Sent: 18 January 2008 12:47
>To: boost_at_[hidden]
>Subject: [boost] [review] General comment on boost::singleton
>I think the singleton lib is good as a boost addition, because having
>many different singleton implementations suck. I also think that boost
>should encourage good code style.
>
>Therefore, I vote for an implementation that both separates 
>the concepts
>provided (i.e. safe construction, uniqueness, global access & locking).
>The lib should also provide some kind of unifying scheme, so that the
>"classic-singleton" can be achieved by applying everything.
>
>Also, I think some good motivational documentation on why the classic
>singleton is not a scalable idea would be appropriate, so that we could
>get users to think about the orthogonal concepts and whether 
>they really
>do need all concepts in one go. (Many of us have found out that we only
>need a subset, after much pain....)

Like Marcus, I've also looked briefly at the docs and followed some of the discussion.

I sense that singletons do have uses, despite some intemperate 'fundamentalist religious' objections.  And I think a Boost singleton
must be a Good Idea, even if not to everyones taste - they don't have to use it.

I accept that there are at least two concepts which are presented together, but I can see why - using singletons means you probably
also want value initialisation.

So I conclude Marcus's suggestion has merit.

I sense it would be a Bad Idea to throw the whole proposal out.

Paul

---
Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
[phone] & SMS, Mobile [phone] & SMS
pbristow_at_[hidden]