On Wednesday, October 2, 2002, at 09:48 PM, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, william ross wrote:
>
>> I did have it set up that way at one point. it worked quite nicely as
>> long as I made the singleton in a subclass of the main Factory (which
>> might be shared by several applications with different
>> configurations).
>> i gave up on it in the end because it seemed a bit overheated, but if
>> you approve, i shall reconsider.
>
> I'm not quite following you. Overheated?
sorry. i just meant that it seemed like a lot of engineering - much of
which was a little beyond me, though I've caught up a bit since - for
what seemed like such a simple requirement.
but i've just been doing as you suggested, and it does work rather
nicely. thanks.
>> so, rehearsing: all it should take is a Factory::Subclass->new(config
>> blah) in the startup script and a Factory::Subclass->instance() in the
>> handler? it does sound good if you put it like that.
(dimwit: both calls should be to instance(). oops)
>> incidentally I made the singleton like this (yes, more poop):
>>
>> use base qw (Class::DBI::Factory Class::Singleton);
>> ...
>> sub _new_instance { shift->new(@_) }
>>
>> but it felt rather naughty to subclass the private _new_instance. if
>> anyone knows a better way, I'd be very glad to hear it.
>
> Check out Class::Singleton.
er, that's what I said. guess it must be ok :)
will
