• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Proper way to create a singleton without @synchronized ?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Proper way to create a singleton without @synchronized ?


  • Subject: Re: Proper way to create a singleton without @synchronized ?
  • From: Quincey Morris <email@hidden>
  • Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 14:08:24 -0700

On Apr 17, 2011, at 13:46, WT wrote:

> At the end of the day, the most honest answer I can give is that I wanted to explore dispatch_once() and thought that doing so in the context of implementing singletons would be a good learning experience.
>
> This thread and links to some blogs on the issue have given me much to think about. I may yet come to change my habit of seeing singletons where they don't need to be seen, because of this discussion.

I reiterate that it's a singleton if there's only one of them. It's still a singleton if you could create a second one but don't. :)

The subtext of a number of the responses in this thread is something important that's not actually about singletons. It's very easy, as a developer, to mislead yourself that something in your implementation is necessary, whereas it turns out to be irrelevant.

For example, when I starting writing Cocoa applications, I used to studiously check that the return values from (say) creating collections -- [NSArray array], [NSSet set], etc -- were not nil. It wasn't until something about this came up in an unrelated thread on this list that I learned that checking these particular return values is a waste of time:

-- It's not clear that these methods *ever* return nil.

-- Probably the only way they can fail is if there's no memory available for allocation, and they may well throw an exception in that case.

-- If there's no memory available, your application is likely in such deep trouble that checking the return value is the least of your problems.

-- If you do detect a nil return, your application is likely in such deep trouble that there's no recovery path possible.

There's no doubt that it's *correct* to check for a nil return after attempting to create any new object, but in some cases it's a complete waste of time and keystrokes.

"Then don't do that."


_______________________________________________

Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)

Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com

Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:

This email sent to email@hidden

References: 
 >Proper way to create a singleton without @synchronized ? (From: WT <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Proper way to create a singleton without @synchronized ? (From: Kyle Sluder <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Proper way to create a singleton without @synchronized ? (From: WT <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Proper way to create a singleton without @synchronized ? (From: Dave DeLong <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Proper way to create a singleton without @synchronized ? (From: WT <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Proper way to create a singleton without @synchronized ? (From: Joanna Carter <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Proper way to create a singleton without @synchronized ? (From: WT <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Proper way to create a singleton without @synchronized ? (From: Quincey Morris <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Proper way to create a singleton without @synchronized ? (From: WT <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: NSString "midstring()"
  • Next by Date: Re: NSString "midstring()"
  • Previous by thread: Re: Proper way to create a singleton without @synchronized ?
  • Next by thread: Re: Proper way to create a singleton without @synchronized ?
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread