Looking for a pattern

[Bilz]

Hello,

I am looking for a good pattern. I have a rather large software app
that makes use of a service manager for its many services...
configuration, colors, data lookup, units, etc. Up until now the
service manager has been a singleton and anyone who wants access to a
service just asks the singleton.

Now we have a new requirement... run multiple instances of the
software in the same application space with different configurations.
<sarcasm>shocki ng</sarcasm>

So, now I need to think about a good design pattern to help me here.
I can only come up with two awkward options:

1. Pass a service manager key to every constructor of every class that
needs access to the service manager. The class can go to a singleton
to ask for the instance of the service manager by key. This is
awkward and I don't like it.

2. Create an interface for getting a service, and have every object in
the object tree implement the interface. Pass a "parent" object
reference to the "child" and implement the interfaces so they climb
the tree all the way to the root node to get an instance of the
service manager stored in the root node. This is better, but still
awkward.

Is there a better design pattern out there to do what I need? I am
using .NET C#, though it shouldn't matter too much (unless .NET
already has a service I can leverage).

Thanks,
Brian

[Roedy Green]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:30:23 -0000, Bilz <Br**********@g mail.com>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

>Now we have a new requirement... run multiple instances of the
software in the same application space with different configurations.
<sarcasm>shock ing</sarcasm>

You need some sort of factory to create your service provider. Perhaps
it can cache them, and reuse an existing provider if its set of
configurations have already been used before.

You create a key class that contains the various distinguishing
initialisation parameters, then a hashCode that xors the various
fields. Then use this key class to create index into your HashMap
cache of pre-built providers.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com

[Bilz]

On Oct 31, 4:32 pm, Roedy Green <see_webs...@mi ndprod.com.inva lid>
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:30:23 -0000, Bilz <BrianGeni...@g mail.com>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

Now we have a new requirement... run multiple instances of the
software in the same application space with different configurations.
<sarcasm>shocki ng</sarcasm>

You need some sort of factory to create your service provider. Perhaps
it can cache them, and reuse an existing provider if its set of
configurations have already been used before.

You create a key class that contains the various distinguishing
initialisation parameters, then a hashCode that xors the various
fields. Then use this key class to create index into your HashMap
cache of pre-built providers.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossaryhttp://mindprod.com

Ok, that is fine... but how does all of the classes get the key? Do
you pass them in to every constructor, and keep track of the key all
the way down the object graph? This is what I am trying to avoid...
though I can't think of a way how.

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Bilz wrote:

Hello,

I am looking for a good pattern. I have a rather large software app
that makes use of a service manager for its many services...
configuration, colors, data lookup, units, etc. Up until now the
service manager has been a singleton and anyone who wants access to a
service just asks the singleton.

Now we have a new requirement... run multiple instances of the
software in the same application space with different configurations.
<sarcasm>shocki ng</sarcasm>

So, now I need to think about a good design pattern to help me here.
I can only come up with two awkward options:

1. Pass a service manager key to every constructor of every class that
needs access to the service manager. The class can go to a singleton
to ask for the instance of the service manager by key. This is
awkward and I don't like it.

2. Create an interface for getting a service, and have every object in
the object tree implement the interface. Pass a "parent" object
reference to the "child" and implement the interfaces so they climb
the tree all the way to the root node to get an instance of the
service manager stored in the root node. This is better, but still
awkward.

Is there a better design pattern out there to do what I need? I am
using .NET C#, though it shouldn't matter too much (unless .NET
already has a service I can leverage).

I would prefer solution #1 over #2. Much more flexible.

As a long time solution that seems obvious.

For a dirty hack: if the two instances of the software are actually
running in different threads, then you could register each thread to
a given instance of the software and have the singleton create
based on thread.

Arne

[Ed Kirwan]

Bilz wrote:

Hello,

I am looking for a good pattern. I have a rather large software app
that makes use of a service manager for its many services...
configuration, colors, data lookup, units, etc. Up until now the
service manager has been a singleton and anyone who wants access to a
service just asks the singleton.

Now we have a new requirement... run multiple instances of the
software in the same application space with different configurations.
<sarcasm>shocki ng</sarcasm>

So, now I need to think about a good design pattern to help me here.
I can only come up with two awkward options:

1. Pass a service manager key to every constructor of every class that
needs access to the service manager. The class can go to a singleton
to ask for the instance of the service manager by key. This is
awkward and I don't like it.

FWIW, that's what I used:
http://www.edmundkirwan.com/servlet/...47.html#doPost

In that method, an access is createed each time the user clicks a button on
a web page, and that access is passed to every object in the system that
needs it.

There is no magic solution.

Yes, it feels awkward.

Yes, it feels as though there, "Should," be a better solution.

There isn't.

--
..ed

www.EdmundKirwan.com - Home of the mathematical laws of encapsulation.

[Daniel T.]

Bilz <Br**********@g mail.comwrote:

I am looking for a good pattern. I have a rather large software app
that makes use of a service manager for its many services...
configuration, colors, data lookup, units, etc. Up until now the
service manager has been a singleton and anyone who wants access to a
service just asks the singleton.

Now we have a new requirement... run multiple instances of the
software in the same application space with different configurations.
<sarcasm>shocki ng</sarcasm>

So, now I need to think about a good design pattern to help me here.
I can only come up with two awkward options:

1. Pass a service manager key to every constructor of every class that
needs access to the service manager. The class can go to a singleton
to ask for the instance of the service manager by key. This is
awkward and I don't like it.

2. Create an interface for getting a service, and have every object in
the object tree implement the interface. Pass a "parent" object
reference to the "child" and implement the interfaces so they climb
the tree all the way to the root node to get an instance of the
service manager stored in the root node. This is better, but still
awkward.

Just out of curiosity, which method would you have chosen if someone had
told you up front "no globals"? (After all, a singleton is just a global
with a pretty wrapper.)

[Diego]

On Nov 1, 11:17 am, "Daniel T." <danie...@earth link.netwrote:

Bilz <BrianGeni...@g mail.comwrote:

I am looking for a good pattern. I have a rather large software app
that makes use of a service manager for its many services...
configuration, colors, data lookup, units, etc. Up until now the
service manager has been a singleton and anyone who wants access to a
service just asks the singleton.

Now we have a new requirement... run multiple instances of the
software in the same application space with different configurations.
<sarcasm>shocki ng</sarcasm>

So, now I need to think about a good design pattern to help me here.
I can only come up with two awkward options:

1. Pass a service manager key to every constructor of every class that
needs access to the service manager. The class can go to a singleton
to ask for the instance of the service manager by key. This is
awkward and I don't like it.

2. Create an interface for getting a service, and have every object in
the object tree implement the interface. Pass a "parent" object
reference to the "child" and implement the interfaces so they climb
the tree all the way to the root node to get an instance of the
service manager stored in the root node. This is better, but still
awkward.

Just out of curiosity, which method would you have chosen if someone had
told you up front "no globals"? (After all, a singleton is just a global
with a pretty wrapper.)

if singletons are globals, then "no globals" is a mere illusion :-(

[Peter Duniho]

On 2007-11-01 09:29:57 -0700, Diego <jo********@gma il.comsaid:

>Just out of curiosity, which method would you have chosen if someone had
told you up front "no globals"? (After all, a singleton is just a global
with a pretty wrapper.)

if singletons are globals, then "no globals" is a mere illusion :-(

There's no official definition of a "global", so it's more a matter of
semantics than of illusion.

In the strictest sense, a singleton or other static member is not a
global at all. In a relaxed sense, any static member of any top-level
class is a global, and in an even more relaxed sense any static member
of any class is a global.

Personally, I prefer the strictest definition of "global": an
identifier that is accessible globally, without any decoration at all.
This correlates reasonably well to the usual use of the word "global"
in programming languages.

If you would consider a local static variable in a C++ function to be a
"global", then I'd agree that singletons and other static things in C#
would be "globals" as well. Otherwise, I'd say it's a bit of a stretch
to claim that.

Pete

[Lew]

Diego wrote:

if singletons are globals, then "no globals" is a mere illusion :-(

I don't know what that means. Static variables, singletons - both are globals
in some sense.

The singleton pattern isn't the magic bullet that so many people think.

--
Lew

[Daniel T.]

Peter Duniho <Np*********@Nn OwSlPiAnMk.comw rote:

Diego <jo********@gma il.comsaid:

Daniel T. wrote:

Just out of curiosity, which method would you have chosen if
someone had told you up front "no globals"? (After all, a
singleton is just a global with a pretty wrapper.)

if singletons are globals, then "no globals" is a mere illusion
:-(

There's no official definition of a "global", so it's more a matter
of semantics than of illusion.

The whole point of a singleton is to "Ensure a class only has one
instance, <i>and provide a global point of access to it.</i>" (GoF pg.
127 emphasis added.) Global access, means global IMO.

And the question still stands to the OP, if you had known from the
outset of the new feature, how would you have implemented it?