I shared this with Scott Kyle and he made the code a lot more sexier based off of the this._init_ idea. Damn why didn't I think of that ;-) http://gist.github.com/100694
2009/5/10 Fábio Costa <fabiomco...@gmail.com> > A static class is totaly usefull when you have a widget that will always > have one instance and is linked to a object. > > Fábio Miranda Costa > Engenheiro de Computação > http://meiocodigo.com > > > On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:00 PM, nwhite <changereal...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> @christoph I agree the benefits of having a Singleton pattern in >> javascript are extremely limited. When developers are first introduced to OO >> paradigms they typically fall in love with Singletons for all the wrong >> reasons. With that said I do think there are a few use cases where it could >> prove advantageous. The registry pattern comes to mind, under this use case >> still being able to write your code 'new Registry' provides for more >> explicit code and helps with debugging, this is strictly a style and >> seperation issue. Another place where I see a use is in a Lazy Load >> Delegation model where the delegators have no awareness of each other. In >> this case the Dispatcher is only initalized when needed and after such >> initiation is avaliable for all other delegators. >> >> I would argue with your rational that we don't have Singletons or Statics >> in javascript. The implementation may not look identical to other languages >> but I never read anywhere that it had to be implemented a specific way, it >> just had to follow a particular pattern. If we are going to nit pick that >> said features don't belong in Javascript which for the most part I do agree >> with you, I also question the need for private/protected methods in classes. >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Christoph Pojer < >> christoph.po...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Remember that we don't have Singletons nor do we have "static classes" >>> in a prototype-based language. So this is basically a mix of all of >>> those approaches. I just don't see the use of a real Singleton pattern >>> in JavaScript anyway. You either have a simple Object ( var MyObject = >>> {} ) or an instance of a Class (with the new new Class way) - there >>> clearly is no need for a real singleton pattern :) >>> >>> On May 10, 9:56 pm, Fábio Costa <fabiomco...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > This looks like a static class more than the singleton pattern. >>> > >>> > Fábio Miranda Costa >>> > Engenheiro de Computaçãohttp://meiocodigo.com >>> > >>> > On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Christoph Pojer >>> > <christoph.po...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > As JavaScript doesn't really have the concept of a Singleton I think >>> > > the easiest way to use it is just to do something like var >>> MySingleton >>> > > = new new Class({ ... }). This creates a class and directly one >>> single >>> > > instance of it. Of course, you can't subclass it or use the new >>> > > operator with it again, but thats not the point here :) >>> > >>> > > On May 7, 5:16 pm, Paul Spencer <pagam...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > > > anyone successfully tried nwhite's singleton mutator [1] with the >>> > > > latest mootools? I'd love to use it but it doesn't seem to be >>> working >>> > > > for me using the example provided ... I tried to follow the code to >>> > > > see if I could figure out what is going wrong, but its beyond me in >>> my >>> > > > present uncaffeinated state of mind :( >>> > >>> > > > Cheers >>> > >>> > > > Paul >>> > >>> > > > [1] >>> http://www.nwhite.net/2008/10/10/mootools-singleton-class-mutator/ >>> > >>> > >>> >> >> >
