You are doing it again... Could you please drop your shitty attitude or stop posting here at all? You are spreading bad karma here. And you do that in at least one other thread. If you are forced to use Java, change project/job or live with it. Don't take it out on the list. If you try to be funny, you are not. So stop trying.
Seriously... At least use you real name. On 4 Maj, 23:23, mm w <[email protected]> wrote: > > No prefix "m" is necessary, although for some reason many > > people do that, and underscores are not conventional. Use > > camel case, as 'mInstance' (if you must use the wart), or just > > 'instance'. > > I do disagree > > m_instance means private, just a c++ old fart convention anyway I > never use public vars indeed rarely I prefer having inlined setter > or/and getter especially if I need synchronization > or a copy instead of holding a weak pointer or holding a shared pointer ref. > > > Really? Catching 'Throwable'? That is not very wise. > > we are toasted if it's happening let's crash later 8-) > > > Also, doing that initialization in a static initializer, it is redundant to > > check > > I do like redundant code it makes it obvious > > > final > > yep I don't like this redondant word it makes my code ugly 8-) > > just digging into java crap, since a couple of week (I am forced) I > just implement the thinnest layer I can, I not intend spending my life > coding in java, too ugly, too slow, too assisted, hate garbage > collection and JIT ( at least if you use it only on reasonable set of > instructions... ) > > > > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Lew <[email protected]> wrote: > > Kristopher Micinski wrote: > > >> 0xcafefeed wrote: > >> > public class TheClass extends Guigui > >> > { > >> > ... > >> > /*#! Singleton */ > >> > static > >> > { > >> > if (m_instance == null) { > > > Please follow the Java naming conventions. > > > No prefix "m" is necessary, although for some reason many > > people do that, and underscores are not conventional. Use > > camel case, as 'mInstance' (if you must use the wart), or just > > 'instance'. > > >> > try { > >> > m_instance = new TheClass(); > >> > } > >> > catch (Throwable e) { > > > Really? Catching 'Throwable'? That is not very wise. > > >> > throw new > >> > RuntimeException(e.getMessage()); > > > What if it already was a runtime exception? > > > What if it was an 'Error' or top-level 'Throwable'? You have downgraded the > > error to a runtime exception. > > > Why do you initialize the runtime exception with the message and not the > > 'Throwable' itself? > > >> > } > >> > } > >> > } > >> > ... > >> > } > > >> > started java [sic] since two weeks > > >> Impressive! Except that..., that doesn't really have to do with the > >> issue that is being discussed here. > > > Also, doing that initialization in a static initializer, it is redundant to > > check > > if the variable is null. It's effectively the same as a one-line > > initializer: > > > Except that with the one-liner you can make the variable 'final' and > > avoid threading issues. > > > private static final Singleton instance = new Singleton(); > > > What do folks think that lazy initialization will buy them? > > > -- > > Lew > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Android Developers" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected] > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
