Further reference:
DownloadManager : BaseMangager
{
}
Problem is that the concept of "manager" should be allowed to work with many
different providers. Like another provider might be an "audit provider", or
a "calculate charge per request" provider.
Our architecture is the stage above, and I thi
Yes, thanks.
But is it a singleton.
internal abstract class BaseManager where I: IEntityProvider
{
private static I _provider = default(I);
private static object _syncLock = new object();
protected static I Provider
{
if (_provider == null)
Hi,
We are trying to use the CLR Profiler.
We used the procedure given at the lnk
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms979205.aspx
It always shows the below Dialog with test" Waiting for Application to
start common language runtime.
Thanks
Sreeram
===
Ron see previous comments in your other post about gaurentees in ECMA
335 about cctor execution. It fits wonderfully with the sigleton
pattern as the type initializer is only run once and will be before
any method is called (on a reference type).
On 7/9/07, Ron Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe you are referring to the simpler version of ..
// .NET Singleton
sealed class Singleton
{
private Singleton() {}
public static readonly Singleton Instance = new Singleton();
}
This is ok providing you dont care if beforefieldinit is set. This
will cause the JIT to load the stati
I just read this... http://www.yoda.arachsys.com/csharp/singleton.html
Third version
Wow, that looks like double check lock and he says its bad.
This sucks. I thought that was a pattern.
Ron
-Original Message-
From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
That was the first pattern I learned from but I read Brad Abrams on
Concurrency management and I believe he has a simpler pattern code-wise:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/05/08/Concurrency/
I posted earlier on this and all signs point to yes. It's an interesting
topic.
Ron
-Origi
Hi guys,
Which singleton implementation do you normally use? I've been using number
five from http://www.yoda.arachsys.com/csharp/singleton.html but reading
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms954629.aspx I'm understanding
that a simpler implementation works just the same?
Cheers,
Miika
=
Thanks for that...I'll re-read it again.
Ron
-Original Message-
From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. Merrill
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 10:47 PM
To: ADVANCED-DOTNET@DISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] static variable, static p
Thanks for all the info, good stuff. Interesting too, double-check lock in
C# and all, CLI reference.
Ron
-Original Message-
From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Young
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 10:57 PM
To: ADVANCED-DOTNET@DISCUSS.DEVELOP
Static constructors are gaurenteed in ECMA 335 to only be run once
even in the case of multiple threads accessing the class for the first
time concurrently.
I quote from the spec.
10.5.3.1 Type initialization guarantees
The CLI shall provide the following guarantees regarding type
initialization
I'm not questioning the accuracy of your statement, but I don't see a
connection between "static constructors can only be called once" and "static
constructors have an implicit lock." You seem to be saying that Ron Young's
code will work but is doing more work than is necessary because of the
Yes, it's thread-safe. Static constructors have an implicit lock (they
can only be called once, so other threads must be locked out until the
constructor is complete, should it currently be running).
You've essentially implemented a singleton...
-- Peter
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 18:00:19 -0500, Ron Y
Say I have this class, I'm copying/pasting from Visual Studio:
class StaticObject_VariableHolder
{
private static object _sharedVariable;
private static object _syncRoot = new object();
private StaticObject_VariableHolder()
{
}
p
14 matches
Mail list logo
