Implement Singleton Using or Not Using dynamic object.

[Steven Woody]

hi,

my friend ask me the following question. even thogth i prefer the
solution 3, but i owe an explanation.


-------------------------------

I create three versions for singletone pattern below, plz compare them
with advantage and disadvantage:

1.

MyApp.hpp
class MyApp
{
public:
static MyApp& getInstance() { return appInstance; }

private:
MyApp() {;}

private:
static MyApp appInstance;
};

MyApp.cpp

MyApp MyApp::appInsta nce;

2.

MyApp.hpp
class MyApp
{
public:
static MyApp* getInstance() { return &appInstance ; }

private:
MyApp() {;}

private:
static MyApp appInstance;
};

MyApp.cpp

MyApp MyApp::appInsta nce;
3.

MyApp.hpp
class MyApp
{
public:
static MyApp* getInstance();

private:
MyApp() {;}

private:
static MyApp* appInstance;
};

MyApp.cpp

MyApp MyApp::appInsta nce==NULL;

MyApp::MyApp()
{
}

MyApp* MyApp::getInsta nce()
{
if (appInstance == NULL)
appInstance = new MyApp();

return appInstance;
}
---------------------------------------

[Axter]

Re: Implement Singleton Using or Not Using dynamic object.

Steven Woody wrote:[color=blue]
> hi,
>
> my friend ask me the following question. even thogth i prefer the
> solution 3, but i owe an explanation.
>
>
> -------------------------------
>
> I create three versions for singletone pattern below, plz compare them
> with advantage and disadvantage:
>
> 1.
>
> MyApp.hpp
> class MyApp
> {
> public:
> static MyApp& getInstance() { return appInstance; }
>
> private:
> MyApp() {;}
>
> private:
> static MyApp appInstance;
> };
>
> MyApp.cpp
>
> MyApp MyApp::appInsta nce;
>
> 2.
>
> MyApp.hpp
> class MyApp
> {
> public:
> static MyApp* getInstance() { return &appInstance ; }
>
> private:
> MyApp() {;}
>
> private:
> static MyApp appInstance;
> };
>
> MyApp.cpp
>
> MyApp MyApp::appInsta nce;
> 3.
>
> MyApp.hpp
> class MyApp
> {
> public:
> static MyApp* getInstance();
>
> private:
> MyApp() {;}
>
> private:
> static MyApp* appInstance;
> };
>
> MyApp.cpp
>
> MyApp MyApp::appInsta nce==NULL;
>
> MyApp::MyApp()
> {
> }
>
> MyApp* MyApp::getInsta nce()
> {
> if (appInstance == NULL)
> appInstance = new MyApp();
>
> return appInstance;
> }
> ---------------------------------------[/color]

If you're singleton needs to be access from multiple translation units
before calling main(), then I recommend a reference return type of
option 3.
It's safer to return a reference then to return a pointer, because it's
easier to accidently delete a return pointer.

//MyApp.hpp
class MyApp
{
public:
static MyApp& getInstance();
private:
MyApp() {}
static MyApp* appInstance;
};

//MyApp.cpp
MyApp MyApp::appInsta nce==NULL;

MyApp& MyApp::getInsta nce()
{
if (appInstance == NULL)
appInstance = new MyApp();

return *appInstance;
}

[Jay Nabonne]

Re: Implement Singleton Using or Not Using dynamic object.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:41:46 -0800, Steven Woody wrote:
[color=blue]
> hi,
>
> my friend ask me the following question. even thogth i prefer the
> solution 3, but i owe an explanation.
>
>
> -------------------------------
>
> I create three versions for singletone pattern below, plz compare them
> with advantage and disadvantage:
>[/color]
<snip>

4.

MyApp.hpp

class MyApp
{
public:
static MyApp& getInstance()
{
static MyApp appInstance;
return appInstance;
}

private:
MyApp() {;}
};

Doesn't get constructed until you call it the first time (so you don't
have to worry about initialization order), and it will be destructed
automatically when the program exits.

- Jay