Frank wrote:
> So we can say the static constructors are thread-safe, unless they end up
> calling static methods in other classes? And if they do this, the static
> methods need to be made thread-safe?
I think that pretty much covers it.
It's good practice to make your static methods thread-sa
Frank Hileman:
>I don't see how a function can be guaranteed to be executed only
>once, and be thread unsafe.
I am not saying that static constructors are not thread safe (I do not
know), but a not thread safe implementation of the above could be something
as simple as (psuedo code):
class Stati
I think the type contructors is thread safe.
How otherwise is the framework guarding this rule if not by locking some
internal object (not the being-initialised class ofcourse) in order to
guarantee that only one thread runs inside the type contructor?
stef
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 15:01:22 -0700,
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:50:24 -0700, Frank Hileman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"The static constructor for a class executes at most one time during a
>> >single program instantiation"
The more I think about it, the statement above does not imply thread-
safety, at least not to me. Can someone
Hello,
I got it from the latest MSDN library CD. I imagine that behavior is in the
current spec, worded differently.
Regards,
Frank
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 10:45 PM
Subject
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 08:19:46 -0700, Frank Hileman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why do you have all this locking code? A static constructor is already
>thread-safe. From C# spec:
>
>"The static constructor for a class executes at most one time during a
>single program instantiation"
I could not find
Frank wrote:
>Static methods provide no more encapsulation than instance methods. Static
>methods are less flexible because they cannot be virtual. I don't see any
>advantage.
But I think Ben's question issued choosing between establishing public
visisbility to the static field and providing a s
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter Meinl
Sent: Sunday, 9 June 2002 7:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Singleton pattern
This article discusses the singelton pattern and its Gof and .NET
implementation:
Exploring the Singleton Design Pattern
http://msdn.microsoft.com
This article discusses the singelton pattern and its Gof and .NET
implementation:
Exploring the Singleton Design Pattern
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-
us/dnbda/html/singletondespatt.asp
--
Peter Meinl
ISTEC GmbH
You can read messages from the Advanced DOTNET arch
: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Singleton pattern
Frank,
(Sorry, I'm way late with this reply... I took a few days off and
actually
enjoyed other things than coding and thinking about it... ;))
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 08:06:13 -0700, Frank Hileman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Regarding static var for sing
I don't approve of public fields either. My point was, the best way to
implement the singleton pattern is to use a static field, optionally with
a static constructor. This is automatically thread-safe, and the object
will not be constructed until the class is used. No need for locking, etc.
Here i
Holdermans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Samstag, 8. Juni 2002 17:50
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Singleton pattern
Frank,
(Sorry, I'm way late with this reply... I took a few days off and
actually
enjoyed other things than coding and thinking about it... ;))
On Thu,
Frank,
(Sorry, I'm way late with this reply... I took a few days off and actually
enjoyed other things than coding and thinking about it... ;))
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 08:06:13 -0700, Frank Hileman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Regarding static var for singleton: I found that static vars are not
>init
Joseph Bustos wrote:
> Do you know a vb.net to c# tool?
Anakrino. It's an "anything to C#" tool! :)
http://www.quality.nu/dotnetguy/other/freedevtools.aspx#cat5
Brad
--
Read my web log at http://www.quality.nu/dotnetguy/
You can read messages from the Advanced DOTNET archive, unsubscribe fro
nope, sorry.
-Original Message-
From: Joseph Bustos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 5:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Singleton pattern
Do you know a vb.net to c# tool?
-Original Message-
From: franklin gray [mailto:[EMAIL
Do you know a vb.net to c# tool?
-Original Message-
From: franklin gray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 1:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Singleton pattern
http://www.aspalliance.com/aldotnet/examples/translate.aspx
-Original
Regarding static var for singleton: I found that static vars are not
initialized until the first time you use the class. If you don't use the
class, they are never initialized. So your one argument against using a
static var is refuted. As another poster pointed out, your code is not
thread-safe.
Brian:
I ran this through the C# to Vb web tool and below is what I got (After I took out the
comments).
Questions:
1) What is _value?
2) How is it different from the bottom class? What functionality does it give me
that the bottom class doesn't?
3) What is volatile?
NotInheritable Pub
Of course the problem with this is that it it is not thread safe. You could
go with a hybrid:
public sealed class Singleton
{
private static Singleton TheSingleton = new Singleton();
public static Singleton Singleton
{
get { return sobjSingleton; }
}
private
Just to come up with a good reason to go for
public sealed class Singleton
{
private static Singleton sobjSingleton;
public static Singleton GetSingleton
{
if (sobjSingleton == null)
sobjSingleton = new Singleton();
return sobjSingleton;
}
privat
ture like ASP.NET.
-Mike
http://staff.develop.com/woodring
http://www.develop.com/devresources
- Original Message -
From: "Jonni Faiga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 7:07 AM
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Singleton pattern
Hi,
advanced .NET topics.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shawn Wildermuth
Sent: Monday, 3 June 2002 2:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Singleton pattern
I've been using static classes for singleton's. Is this a bad approach?
Are static constructor's unrelia
discussion of advanced .NET topics.
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Noam Arbel
> Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 12:39 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Singleton pattern
>
>
> I think it is usefull to understand when SuppressFinalize(
figure it
out so I am wondering if this is the problem (I don't think it is
though).
-Original Message-
From: Bill Conroy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 8:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Singleton pattern
This is Bill, and I'm quite
This is Bill, and I'm quite sure I'm right. Actually, I'm positive. And
Bajaj is correct also. It's all about the static and setting it means there
will be a root reference for as long as the AppDomain is "live", thus it
will not be GC'd.
SuppressFinalize only ensures that the Finalize method wil
- Original Message -
From: "Jonni Faiga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bills conclusion that SuppressFinalize is not required implies that
Samir Bajaj's statement regarding has Singleton code in
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/07/patterns/patterns.asp
is that "all you need to do in the
26 matches
Mail list logo
