@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/
> >
> >
>
