Isn't a class with all static members/methods a kind of singleton design pattern? Is there any disadvantage in particular of having such classes? A detailed explanation would help.
相关问题
- Sorting 3 numbers without branching [closed]
- How to compile C++ code in GDB?
- suppress a singleton constructor in java with powe
- Why does const allow implicit conversion of refere
- thread_local variables initialization
相关文章
- Class layout in C++: Why are members sometimes ord
- How to mock methods return object with deleted cop
- Which is the best way to multiply a large and spar
- C++ default constructor does not initialize pointe
- Selecting only the first few characters in a strin
- What exactly do pointers store? (C++)
- Converting glm::lookat matrix to quaternion and ba
- What is the correct way to declare and use a FILE
Robert C. Martin wrote an article some times ago about the differences between the mono state pattern and the singleton pattern.
For a singleton all constructors have to be private, so that you can access only through a function. But you're pretty close to it.
Consider a family of Logging classes. They all implement "LogMessage(message, file, line_number). Some send messages to stderr, some send email to a set of developers, some increment the count of the particular message in a message-frequency table, some route to /dev/null. At runtime, the program checks its argument vector, registry, or environment variables for which Logging technique to use and instantiates the Logging Singleton with an object from a suitable class, possibly loading an end-user-supplied DLL to do so. That functionality is tough to duplicate with a pure static Singleton.
This kind of class is known as a monostate - it is somewhat different from a singleton.
Why use a monostate rather than a singleton? In their original paper on the pattern, Bell & Crawford suggest three reasonns (paraphrased by me):
I must admit, I don't find any of these particularly compelling. On the other hand, the monostate is definitely no worse than the singleton.
Class - not pattern. When we talk about classes we can say class implements pattern.
Static functions - is not member functions, they are similar on global functions. Maybe you don't need any class?
Quote from wikipedia:
By this definition your implementation is not singleton implementation - you don't use common idea One (or several in extended definition) instance of class.
But sometimes (not always) usage of class with all static functions and singleton pattern - not have meaningful difference.