singleton pattern - design question

[adina]

Hello,
I'm building an application, in which I have a ConfigManager class to hold all the important info about the application.
I need only one instance of ConfigManager class to be available throughout the application, from anywhere inside the application. From what I have read, the singleton pattern seems to match my problem
However, I built the ConfigManager with a constructor with parameters.

Until now, I've tried using global variables. One instance of ConfigManager class declared as global and used throughout th app. It works, but I am not very confortable with this. That's why I need a second opinion.

Thanks,

Adina

[sicarie]

Hello,
I'm building an application, in which I have a ConfigManager class to hold all the important info about the application.
I need only one instance of ConfigManager class to be available throughout the application, from anywhere inside the application. From what I have read, the singleton pattern seems to match my problem
However, I built the ConfigManager with a constructor with parameters.

Until now, I've tried using global variables. One instance of ConfigManager class declared as global and used throughout th app. It works, but I am not very confortable with this. That's why I need a second opinion.

Thanks,

Adina

Have you tried to create the singleton, and then (creating and) using setVariable() methods?

[Steven22]

Hello,
I'm building an application, in which I have a ConfigManager class to hold all the important info about the application.
I need only one instance of ConfigManager class to be available throughout the application, from anywhere inside the application. From what I have read, the singleton pattern seems to match my problem
However, I built the ConfigManager with a constructor with parameters.

Until now, I've tried using global variables. One instance of ConfigManager class declared as global and used throughout th app. It works, but I am not very confortable with this. That's why I need a second opinion.

Thanks,

Adina

As far as I know you can create singleton's with parameterized constructors but the problem is who will assign the parameters? If you can make that decision then it will be possible. Try lookin in http://ehsanbraindump.blogspot.com it has some good content on singletons.

[Girish Kanakagiri]

Hello,
I'm building an application, in which I have a ConfigManager class to hold all the important info about the application.
I need only one instance of ConfigManager class to be available throughout the application, from anywhere inside the application. From what I have read, the singleton pattern seems to match my problem
However, I built the ConfigManager with a constructor with parameters.

Until now, I've tried using global variables. One instance of ConfigManager class declared as global and used throughout th app. It works, but I am not very confortable with this. That's why I need a second opinion.

Thanks,

Adina

I think you can make design of your class this way

code removed per posting guidelines Hope this solves your problem. Cheer up !!!

[AdrianH]

A singleton pattern is simple to do if you do it right. It can be disastrous if done wrong.

class A {
  A(/* parameters */) {
    /* init code */
  }
 
  ~A() {
    /* destruction code */
  }
 
  A(A const&);
 
public:
   A& instance() {
    static A singleton(/* parameters */);
    // or if no parameters use
    static A singleton;
    return singleton;
  }
};
 

NOTE:

• I’ve made the constructor and destructor private. This keeps others from trying to create a new instance.
  
• I’ve also made the copy constructor private and without a body. This will keep you from inadvertently copying the object.
  
• I’ve also made a singleton object as a static member in a class member function. This is very important as if you do not, it is possible that the initialisation fiasco will come in to play. See these articles for more information.
  
  Since it is declared as part of the class, it will be destroyed when the application terminates as it has rights to access the destructor

If you perform any operations on the instance, it is up to you to make it thread safe if you are working in a multi-threaded environment.


Adrian

[AdrianH]

I think you can make design of your class this way

code removed per posting guidelines Hope this solves your problem. Cheer up !!!

Hmm, I'm not sure who deleted your code. I don't think it violated the guidelines in this case.

Perhaps an example would have been better.


Adrian

[Girish Kanakagiri]

Hmm, I'm not sure who deleted your code. I don't think it violated the guidelines in this case.

Perhaps an example would have been better.


Adrian

Who deleted the example code with comments. Perhapps you would not
have If you know the pain of Design Issues. Amount of time I spent and
posting done by the OP becomes mere waste, which should not be the motto.

Thanks,
Girish Kanakagiri

[Girish Kanakagiri]

Hello,
I'm building an application, in which I have a ConfigManager class to hold all the important info about the application.
I need only one instance of ConfigManager class to be available throughout the application, from anywhere inside the application. From what I have read, the singleton pattern seems to match my problem
However, I built the ConfigManager with a constructor with parameters.

Until now, I've tried using global variables. One instance of ConfigManager class declared as global and used throughout th app. It works, but I am not very confortable with this. That's why I need a second opinion.

Thanks,

Adina

This time I hope nobody deletes it. Find the example piece of code
created by me and get the complete benefit out of it.
Let me know if you still have problem.

Class Designing -----

class ConfigManager
{
 private:
      ConfigManager(type parameter);
     // some more functions and data members
 
 public:
     static ConfigManager* inst_;
     static ConfigManager* crt_inst(type parameter);
    // some more data members and functions
};
 
ConfigManager::ConfigManager(type parameter)
{
  // Fill up the body
}
 
ConfigManager* ConfigManager::inst_ = 0;
 
ConfigManager* crt_inst(type parameter)
{
  if(inst_ == 0)
  {
    inst_ = new ConfigManager(parameter); // parameter 
 
is same which is passed to crt_inst
  }
  return inst_;
}

Implementation part ------

ConfigManager *cptr;
cptr = ConfigManager :: crt_inst(parameter); 
 
/* pass the parameter which is required for the constructor, but 
 
remember only first time passed parameter will be 
 
retained since instance of the class will be only one */
 
// Now cptr points to instance of ConfigManager class, make use of it
 

Regards,
Girish Kanakagiri

[AdrianH]

Girish Kanakagiri,

The Moderator who snipped out your code appologises. I talked to him/her. The reason was because you were posting a lot of code that was against the Posting Guidelines, and got a little carried away when seeing your name and posting more code. Please read or reread them. The link is in the first thread in the forum.

Also, the code you posted here is only partially correct. Please see the link that I posted in message 5.

Further, by doing this using a pointer and allocation on the heap method, the applicaiton will not recover necessarly all of the resources at termination, though the OS will under most cases (at least with open files and allocated memory) and is why I used the method I described.

Thanks for posting.


Adrian

[Girish Kanakagiri]

Girish Kanakagiri,

The Moderator who snipped out your code appologises. I talked to him/her. The reason was because you were posting a lot of code that was against the Posting Guidelines, and got a little carried away when seeing your name and posting more code. Please read or reread them. The link is in the first thread in the forum.

Also, the code you posted here is only partially correct. Please see the link that I posted in message 5.

Further, by doing this using a pointer and allocation on the heap method, the applicaiton will not recover necessarly all of the resources at termination, though the OS will under most cases (at least with open files and allocated memory) and is why I used the method I described.

Thanks for posting.


Adrian

Thanks for updating me about the posting Guide lines.

My Idea of allocating it on heap is mainly for the scope constraint.
Wanted to retain in heap till the end of the application and also
I can redirect to same memory location when second time onwards, call is
made to the Crt_Instance method.

Terminations, I left it for OS when the application is exhausted.
Thinking that it self is the requirement as given by OP.

[AdrianH]

Thanks for updating me about the posting Guide lines.

Yeah, somehow people just gloss over that one. ;)

My Idea of allocating it on heap is mainly for the scope constraint.
Wanted to retain in heap till the end of the application and also
I can redirect to same memory location when second time onwards, call is
made to the Crt_Instance method.

What scope constraint are you referring to? A static variable, whether it is a class or function scoped variable has a life span of the applicatoin.

The only problem with class scoped is that there is an initialisation ordering problem that occurs. You bypassed that problem using a pointer and initialising it on first use, which is how functoin static variables work. They too are only initialised on first use.

Terminations, I left it for OS when the application is exhausted.
Thinking that it self is the requirement as given by OP.

Possible, but cleanup can be a good idea too if you are connecting to things that are outside of the OS, otherwise they may have to time the connection out which may or may not occur on the app you are connecting to.

In my example lines 14-17 can be replace with:

  static A* pSingleton = new A(/* parameters */);
  return *pSingleton;
 

to acheive the same result. But then like yours, it would be cleaned up by the OS not the application.


Adrian

[weaknessforcats]

The singleton requires only one instance plus a global point of reference. Focus on reference. That does not mean a global variable! You never use global variables in professional C++.

Consider this:

class SysParms
{         
    protected:
        SysParms();       //Only a SysParms member or subclass can call this
 
    public:
                   virtual ~SysParms();
           //The "official" access point. 
                   static SysParms* Instance(const std::string& name);
 
};
 

This means your singleton must derive from SysParms and note that the default constructor of SysParms is protected. That means you can't create a SysParms object.

You call the global point of reference to create your singleton. That is the Instance() function:

SysParms* SysParms::Instance()
{
    //"Lazy" initialization. Singleton not created until it's needed
    if (!instance)
    {
        instance = new SysParms;
    }
    return instance;
}
 

The instance is located in an anonymous namespace which makes it inacessible outside the file with the namespace. Usually the file with the namespace contains the code for the Instance() function.

namespace
{
    SysParms* instance = 0;        //Address of the singleton
 
}
 

So, the singleton is not created until it is needed by someone calling the Instance() method.

From here singletons get a little more involved.

You can create a registry of singletons (like and STL map) and store the "this" pointers in the registry. Now you can access the singletons by a key.

Refer to the book Design Patterns by Eric Fromm, et al, Addision-Wesley 1994 for more info.

I can provide an example using a registry if you are interested.

[AdrianH]

The singleton requires only one instance plus a global point of reference. Focus on reference. That does not mean a global variable! You never use global variables in professional C++.

Consider this:

class SysParms
{         
    protected:
        SysParms();       //Only a SysParms member or subclass can call this
 
    public:
                   virtual ~SysParms();
           //The "official" access point. 
                   static SysParms* Instance(const std::string& name);
 
};
 

This means your singleton must derive from SysParms and note that the default constructor of SysParms is protected. That means you can't create a SysParms object.

You call the global point of reference to create your singleton. That is the Instance() function:

SysParms* SysParms::Instance()
{
    //"Lazy" initialization. Singleton not created until it's needed
    if (!instance)
    {
        instance = new SysParms;
    }
    return instance;
}
 

The instance is located in an anonymous namespace which makes it inacessible outside the file with the namespace. Usually the file with the namespace contains the code for the Instance() function.

namespace
{
    SysParms* instance = 0;        //Address of the singleton
 
}
 

So, the singleton is not created until it is needed by someone calling the Instance() method.

From here singletons get a little more involved.

You can create a registry of singletons (like and STL map) and store the "this" pointers in the registry. Now you can access the singletons by a key.

Refer to the book Design Patterns by Eric Fromm, et al, Addision-Wesley 1994 for more info.

I can provide an example using a registry if you are interested.

Except for the singleton registry, see upthread for everything you just stated. ;)

I would also not use a public destructor. Bad idea. This means that anyone can destroy the object.

Adrian

[weaknessforcats]

I would also not use a public destructor. Bad idea. This means that anyone can destroy the object.

oops.

The destructor shouldbe protected.

[AdrianH]

oops.

The destructor shouldbe protected.

What is going to be inheriting it that is going to delete it?

EDIT: Then of course if you do inherit from it, you are two singletons based on the same base, the base and the inheritor. I'm not sure if that is all that useful. It would have to use protected or private inheritance that's for sure.


Adrian