Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #37902
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-21 11:36 -0800 |
| References | <p1e2jv$1jmk$1@gioia.aioe.org> <p1e4i8$3rc$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de> <p1gb9a$t9s$1@dont-email.me> |
| Message-ID | <28fcb1d3-0fa4-48c0-a6f2-972e727cb874@googlegroups.com> (permalink) |
| Subject | Re: Guice vs plain singleton |
| From | lewbloch@gmail.com |
On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 5:00:45 AM UTC-8, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
> On 2017-12-20 17:53, Patrick Roemer wrote:
> > Responding to Victor Porton:
> >> What should I prefer for creating a singleton object with "heavy" (requiring
> >> much CPU time or like this) constructor:
> >>
> >> - Guice @Singleton injector
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >> - plain hand-made singleton like
> >>
> >> static Type instance; ... if(instance==null) ...
> >>
> >> ?
public enum Singletary
{
INSTANCE;
// constructor, methods, ...
}
This has been solved and published since, oh, 2008, when the second edition of _Effective Java_ came out.
--
Lew
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Guice vs plain singleton Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> - 2017-12-20 18:19 +0200
Re: Guice vs plain singleton Patrick Roemer <sangamon@netcologne.de> - 2017-12-20 17:53 +0100
Re: Guice vs plain singleton Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte.net> - 2017-12-21 13:59 +0100
Re: Guice vs plain singleton lewbloch@gmail.com - 2017-12-21 11:36 -0800
Re: Guice vs plain singleton Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-12-22 20:11 -0500
Re: Guice vs plain singleton Sebastian <nowhere@nirvana.org> - 2017-12-23 16:15 +0100
Re: Guice vs plain singleton lewbloch@gmail.com - 2017-12-23 09:54 -0800
Re: Guice vs plain singleton Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-12-23 19:27 -0500
csiph-web