> > > OO programs should be made up of objects passing
> > > messages to other objects, not calling global functions.
> >
> >I would argue a Singleton is no better in this respect.
> >
> >The fact that they're instantiated into an object,
> >don't make Singletons any less "global" than static
> >methods.
>
> Yes, it does. You can code a singleton and change the code without
> changing the interface. You cannot do that with static
> methods. Static
> must remain static, the singleton can change, depending on
> how you code it.
I understand and appreciate the benefits of Singleton
objects over static methods. Let's rephrase my comment
to what I should've said in the first place :)
"The USE of the Singleton class is still no less
global than using static methods."
Foo.getInstance().bar();
// vs.
Foo.bar();
Huge difference...
-TPP
-----------------------------------------
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s). Any review, use, retention, distribution or disclosure by
others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to
receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all
copies of this message. Also, email is susceptible to data corruption, interception,
tampering, unauthorized amendment and viruses. We only send and receive emails on the
basis that we are not liable for any such corruption, interception, tampering,
amendment or viruses or any consequence thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
