Thread: Singleton Problem

I want to make a generic singleton class which I can create a is-a relationship with.

Looking around a bit I found something like this:

Code:

template <class T> Singleton{

    protected:

        Singleton();
        ~Singleton();

        static T* m_pInstance;
        ....
    public:

        static T* getInstance(){....}
};

Would something like this work if I had two different classes say Foo and Bar which inherit from Singleton.

Singleton<Foo>::getInstance()->FooFunc();
Singleton<Bar>::getInstance()->BarFunc();

I think it should work since there would be two versions of m_pInstance... the one for class Foo and one for class Bar...

Err.. it seems that you've mixed up meta programming and OOP pretty badly.
Foo and Bar classes can be used as parameters to instantiate a class, but that doesn't mean they inherit from the generic class.
When instantiating, you can have specializations for cases, but the generic code can also be used to do so automatically.

O_o

That sort of thing is fine when done correctly.

I can't magic away the fact that you didn't post the implementation, but I'd guess that what you've "found" is neither correct nor a singleton.

If you want to know for sure what's going on and can't tell for yourself you'll have to get over it and post the implementation.

That said, there is no reason for an object that is a singleton to have a "is-a" relationship with some singleton base class. That is an implementation detail and not relevant to a specific interface nor the nature of a singleton object.

And that said, don't use singletons unless there is a spectacularly good reason. "I don't want to use a global.", "I only need once instance.", and "It is a strict resource." are all bad reasons for a class to be a singleton.

*shrug*

I don't know who said this first, but it is an excellent bit of advice: "Only create one instance if you only need one instance."

Soma