: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 12:26 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: about singletons (ot)
So you mean that the original author (mike jackson) was saying that he
used synchronized code blocks to apply a finer level of detail in
specifying what is synchronized and what isn't, as opposed to just
PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Erik Price [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 12:26 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: about singletons (ot)
So you mean that the original author (mike jackson) was saying that he
used synchronized code blocks to apply
snip/
Basically yes. Much less code than you normally would think needs to be
declared synchronized. Maybe someone can post a link to a good guide to
thread synchronization - personally I only can recommend the O'Reilly Java
Thread book but that's personal taste(!)
snip/
How about Concurrent
through the implementation of the class,
but that is additional coding)
-Original Message-
From: Felipe Schnack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:56 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: about singletons (ot)
Normally we do that implementing a class
January 2003 21:56
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: about singletons (ot)
These days I was thinking
It's not so uncommon to have uses for singleton classes in our
everyday lives. Normally we do that implementing a class that have its
constructor as private, so no one can instantiate
Mike Jackson wrote:
The difference is that if you use a singleton there's one instance. If
everything
is static then you only have one copy. Usually when you use a singleton
it's to
control access to some resource, the intent is that you use the singleton
and some
synchronized calls (note I
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: about singletons (ot)
Mike Jackson wrote:
The difference is that if you use a singleton there's one instance. If
everything
is static then you only have one copy. Usually when you use a singleton
it's to
control access
the method
call, not the execution speed of the method body ... )?
Cheers
Tobi
From: Erik Price [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tomcat Users List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: about singletons (ot)
Mike Jackson wrote:
The difference is that if you use a singleton
]
To: Tomcat Users List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: about singletons (ot)
Mike Jackson wrote:
The difference is that if you use a singleton there's one instance. If
everything
is static then you only have one copy. Usually when you use
: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: about singletons (ot)
So you mean that the original author (mike jackson) was saying that he
used synchronized code blocks to apply a finer level of detail in
specifying what is synchronized and what isn't, as opposed to just
declaring
These days I was thinking
It's not so uncommon to have uses for singleton classes in our
everyday lives. Normally we do that implementing a class that have its
constructor as private, so no one can instantiate it, and a
getInstance() method or something like it. We wouldn't have the same
kind
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 22:56, Felipe Schnack wrote:
These days I was thinking
It's not so uncommon to have uses for singleton classes in our
everyday lives. Normally we do that implementing a class that have its
constructor as private, so no one can instantiate it, and a
getInstance()
Did someone say Booch utility?
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-04-1999/jw-04-toolbox.html
see page 2. Actually, this entire set of articles on threading is excellent.
Felipe Schnack wrote:
These days I was thinking
It's not so uncommon to have uses for singleton classes in our
: Felipe Schnack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 1:56 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: about singletons (ot)
These days I was thinking
It's not so uncommon to have uses for singleton classes in our
everyday lives. Normally we do that implementing a class that have
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 1:56 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: about singletons (ot)
These days I was thinking
It's not so uncommon to have uses for singleton classes in our
everyday lives. Normally we do that implementing a class that have its
, January 28, 2003 4:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: about singletons (ot)
I would agree.
We had a static class and we thought it would work great...it turned out
that we ended up rewriting much of it to use the getInstance() type of
interface - it is just so much more flexible
16 matches
Mail list logo
