On 5/19/07, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some objects are going to be singletons, and we can declare that, but
> I don't see the need to "enforce" it. Who are we protecting ourselves
> from? If a DI framework wants public constructors, I don't think that
> is a problem at all.
don't see the need to enforce it? i don't understand that logic, if a
class is supposed to be a singleton then why would you not enforce it?
the whole point of a singleton is that it's supposed to allow for *only*
one instance, if you don't enforce that then someone can do the wrong
thing with your code.
Yes, I agree. Generally, it's a good thing to enforce singletons, but...
enforcing that is to protect potential Roller users who want to build on
the Roller code as a platform so that they do the right thing.
If a DI framework requires classes to have public constructors, even
those that are singletons -- you would completely rule out the usage
of that framework? I think that rules out both Spring IOC and Guice
and I'm not ready to rule out either.
There is some discussion of implementing singletons with straight
Java, Spring and Guice here:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GROOVY/Singleton+Pattern
- Dave
