Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.posted.palinacquisition!news.posted.palinacquisition.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 18:43:16 -0500
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 16:43:15 -0700
From: Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Singleton Pattern
References: <3be6e6cf-fa32-4503-9457-b0a1caef8f29@w11g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <3be6e6cf-fa32-4503-9457-b0a1caef8f29@w11g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <vt-dnf5wc8CJkdrTnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@posted.palinacquisition>
Lines: 47
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 50.46.118.188
X-Trace: sv3-uw0F2Y0qBXe2OCZaM2ynneCvUlaUd+Fuz4h4ja3DICtTFJoM9Lcxsf26FcO4Vcsw+UahjY7pSza6ti2!nRf1CY7z0PSTo895Z5fWyhjyFIFkNssGfq1FXwk+TC2KirMUOIxE6Ry/bEn9E5KYoL26h32DvJSM!y3cln8y8/EItg8kwYPEgsUVdAxi3DLV33VxVJcHOYS4=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@iinet.com
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@iinet.com
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2884
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:7094

On 8/13/11 1:56 PM, vbhavsar@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]
> public class Singleton {
>
> 	private static Singleton _instance;
> 	private Singleton(){}
>
> 	private synchronized static void createInstance(){
> 		_instance = new Singleton();
> 	}
>
> 	public static Singleton getInstance(){
> 		if (_instance == null){
> 			createInstance();
> 		}
> 		return _instance;
> 	}
> }
>
>
> The synchronized createInstance() method would eliminate the need to
> do double-checked locking and the synchronization would happen only
> when multiple threads call getInstance() before _instance has been
> instantiated.
>
> Anyone see any issues with this?

It depends on what's legal.

For some kinds of singletons, it is not harmful to initialize the 
instance multiple times.  There's neither a performance nor interference 
issue.  For those kinds of singletons, your proposal is fine.

But for others, one of the reasons the class is a singleton in the first 
place is that something bad will happen if more than one instance is 
even created, never mind used.  In those cases, the code you posted is 
broken.

Frankly, there is rarely any need to be any more "clever" than to just 
create the singleton instance in the static field initializer.  Let the 
JVM deal with the threading issues automatically and leave it at that.

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.

Pete