Re: [boost] [singleton] Design questions

From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-18 14:24:45

Peter Dimov <pdimov <at> pdimov.com> writes:

> 
> What is the reason to prefer the current instance/lease formulation instead 
> of
> 
>     typedef ... instance_type;
>     instance_type instance(); // automatically serves as a lease
> 
> ?

Exactly. No reason what so ever IMO. Author argues that his design allows 
automatic locking of class method invocation. But IMO this iswrong in a first 
place and if necessary can be achived with layered design.

 
> (Also, why mutexed_singleton? Mutexed is not a word; synchronized_singleton 
> maybe?)

singleton<syncronized<T> >

Gennadiy