db-torque-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Joe Carter" <joe.car...@excite.com>
Subject Re: Torque 4.0 plan
Date Fri, 01 Dec 2006 09:11:23 GMT
On 30/11/06, Henning P. Schmiedehausen <hps@intermeta.de> wrote:
> "Joe Carter" <joe.carter@excite.com> writes:
> >Personally I'd just have the singleton (snip...)
> 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
> I completely agree. Allowing plug-in frameworks to work would be the
Giving me _any_ way to extend was my main concern.
I was just a bit wary of asking for too much :-)



  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message