Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #37906
| From | Sebastian <nowhere@nirvana.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: Guice vs plain singleton |
| Date | 2017-12-23 16:15 +0100 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <p1lrv0$26c$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink) |
| References | <p1e2jv$1jmk$1@gioia.aioe.org> <p1e4i8$3rc$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de> <p1gb9a$t9s$1@dont-email.me> <28fcb1d3-0fa4-48c0-a6f2-972e727cb874@googlegroups.com> <p1kafp$10rq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
Am 23.12.2017 um 02:11 schrieb Arne Vajhøj:
> On 12/21/2017 2:36 PM, lewbloch@gmail.com wrote:
>> 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.
>
> It is certainly the most smart way from a Java technology point of view.
> Significant less code than the alternatives.
>
> But even with all due respect to the other Bloch then I do not
> consider it good code.
>
> It is using some very Java specific characteristics of an enumeration
> to provide some functionality that is not related to being an
> enumeration.
>
> Arne
I agree with Arne. Here's a Stackoverflow answer discussing some of the
drawbacks of this approach:
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/179392
-- Sebastian
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