How do I implement a "single instance"-like design?

Question

I'm writing an application which will run as a daemon. UIs will connect to it over TCP. Now, there is a class called UiTcpInterface which will handle all communication between the UI and this daemon.

Now, I'm faced with the problem of ensuring there is only one instance of UiTcpInterface. What would be the best way to do it? Currently, I've thought of two ways:

This is the classic singleton pattern: make the constructor private, and provide a static instance() method to the class UiTcpInterface
Implement all functionality as static members of UiTcpInterface. The main method will make sure that all initialization is done.

Which of these two should I follow? Can you please give me a pro-con list of the two methods?

Thanks :)

How many UI's will concurrently connect? Are you using threads? — slashmais, Sep 09 '09 at 08:44
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/86582/singleton-how-should-it-be-used — Martin York, Sep 09 '09 at 09:11
Hmm, multiple clients will connect. And I don't know whether I'll use threads or not. I'm using Qt, a lot of things that needed threads are handled by signals and slots — jrharshath, Sep 09 '09 at 09:14

score 4 · Accepted Answer · edited May 23 '17 at 10:32

4

This has been discussed many, many times.

Singleton - Why use classes?
Problems with Singleton Pattern
Why choose a static class over a singleton implementation?
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1304647/static-storage-vs-singleton-why-people-prefer-singleton-closed

edited May 23 '17 at 10:32

Community

1
1

answered Sep 09 '09 at 08:39

erelender

6,175
32
49

score 1 · Answer 2 · answered Sep 09 '09 at 08:54

1

Actually, none of the two is primary about single instance, but of global access. If you want single instance, make sure the code that manages the modules needing it will create only a single instance and pass it down.
If you want code to enforce it I would suggest an instance counter and an assert in the constructor that checks that it is the only instance.

answered Sep 09 '09 at 08:54

grimner

776
5
9

This API implements your idea - http://fcam.garage.maemo.org/download.html. Do you think so ? – tauseef_CuriousGuy Jan 24 '19 at 14:26

score 1 · Answer 3 · answered Sep 09 '09 at 09:24

1

I would prefer the singleton pattern. One argument is testability. For unit tests it's easier e.g. to return a mock object from instance(). Also, if you have e.g. different implementations or no longer a single object the changes are easier.

answered Sep 09 '09 at 09:24

ur.

2,890
1
18
21

score 0 · Answer 4 · answered Sep 09 '09 at 08:40

0

I'd choose the first way to implement it because it will be so much easier to change to non singleton if you change your mind later.

answered Sep 09 '09 at 08:40

leiz

3,984
2
23
17

score 0 · Answer 5 · answered Sep 09 '09 at 08:41

SingleTon is better,
You can always reset the object status, serialize the object (not sure if this works in c++). Alot of other benefits comes with singleton against a static class. I'd prefer using a static class methods to wrap a general functions (like Math Class)

How do I implement a "single instance"-like design?

5 Answers5