db-torque-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <...@intermeta.de>
Subject Re: Torque 4.0 plan
Date Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:24:22 GMT
"Joe Carter" <joe.carter@excite.com> writes:

>Personally I'd just have the singleton and ditch the static wrapper
>completely,
>however I recognise that having the wrapper would keep is closer to what
>exists already, so I'm not overly concerned. A method to get the singleton
>would make sense to match the set and would allow you to get an extended
>version
>of the back-end should that be available.

If you think about a singleton, please separate the singleton class
and the implementation class (don't have the static getInstance()
method and a possible private C'tor in the implementation). If you
separate these, it is possible for projects using e.g. Spring to
manage the classes through the framework.

Even better, google for 'evil singleton' and read the first few links...

	Best regards
		Henning

-- 
Henning P. Schmiedehausen  -- hps@intermeta.de | J2EE, Linux,
91054 Buckenhof, Germany   -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person
Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine guy

          "Save the cheerleader. Save the world."

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: torque-dev-help@db.apache.org


Mime
View raw message