Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #7125
| From | Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: Singleton Pattern |
| Date | 2011-08-15 07:56 -0700 |
| Organization | http://groups.google.com |
| Message-ID | <d490d89a-2e63-4099-9629-c275f2cf9847@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com> (permalink) |
| References | <3be6e6cf-fa32-4503-9457-b0a1caef8f29@w11g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> <vt-dnf5wc8CJkdrTnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@posted.palinacquisition> <j2b8q2$6pq$1@dont-email.me> |
Ian wrote: > Peter Duniho wrote: >> I'd never even heard of the "single-element enum type" variation of >> singleton initialization. That one in particular sounds like a >> completely over-engineered approach. >> > I wouldn't say over-engineered - it's about as verbose as a final field > declaration. ISTR one of the actual advantages is safety in the > presence of serialization, although Bloch mentions others . . . > I'd say it's the right tool for the job of creating instance-controlled > data safely. > [FX: Ducks!] Actually, pretty much any attempt to lazy initialize is over-engineering. Just declare a final member in most cases - why be lazy? It's a false optimization. Final fields, especially immutable ones, make a lot of useful guarantees, and you don't have the field in the first place unless it's going to be used at some point anyway. Just freaking initialize it! (I know, the enum pattern for final fields is not about lazy instantiation, although you do get that for free from it. I have no issue with that pattern and use it myself.) -- Lew
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Singleton Pattern "vbhavsar@gmail.com" <vbhavsar@gmail.com> - 2011-08-13 13:56 -0700
Re: Singleton Pattern markspace <-@.> - 2011-08-13 14:41 -0700
Re: Singleton Pattern Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-08-13 14:48 -0700
Re: Singleton Pattern Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-08-13 16:43 -0700
Re: Singleton Pattern Ian <m4r35n357@gmail.com> - 2011-08-15 15:00 +0100
Re: Singleton Pattern Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-15 07:56 -0700
Re: Singleton Pattern Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-08-15 22:07 -0700
Re: Singleton Pattern Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-08-16 00:09 -0700
Re: Singleton Pattern Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-08-16 06:15 -0700
Re: Singleton Pattern Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-08-16 06:57 -0700
Re: Singleton Pattern Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-08-16 09:25 -0700
Re: Singleton Pattern Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-08-16 18:10 -0700
Re: Singleton Pattern Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-08-13 20:56 -0400
Re: Singleton Pattern Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-13 21:12 -0700
Re: Singleton Pattern Rajeev <rajeev.nospam@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 06:37 -0700
csiph-web