From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-19 17:38:47
"Paul A Bristow" <pbristow_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> >-----Original Message-----
>>[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Marcus Lindblom
>>Sent: 18 January 2008 12:47
>>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
>>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
>>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
> 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, personally, have no fundamental objections to the singleton per se, but
the sumbitted desing contains major flaws IMO and promoting it, by allowing
it in, we would make a mistake. Following bad desing is as bad as
reimplementing the same idea every time. In fact later is might be better,
casue at least you have a chance to do it right.
Boost still have some respect in a community. Following the design ideas
promoted by this submission, people will start implementing
syncronized_vector, thread_specific_factory etc. I'd prefer to avoid this.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk