The SR pattern, a simple approach to resource handling

re: The SR pattern, a simple approach to resource handling

David Kean — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:37:00 GMT

Why do you use the singleton pattern, why not just make ResourceManager a static member of the class?

Whidbey Creates your

TrackBack — Wed, 11 Feb 2004 03:55:00 GMT

Whidbey Creates your

TrackBack — Wed, 11 Feb 2004 03:52:00 GMT

Resources

TrackBack — Fri, 26 Dec 2003 11:28:00 GMT

Resources

TrackBack — Fri, 26 Dec 2003 11:27:00 GMT

re: The SR pattern, a simple approach to resource handling

VIctor Garcia Aprea — Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:45:00 GMT

Thanks for commenting!

You're right and thats already fixed in the ... ooops I'm not supposed to talk about this yet. The refectoring you mention plus CBrumme's suggestions are already implemented in ... ooops here I go again.

I already wrote a post detailing how SR is implemented in the whidbey bits and the changes made. Because of NDA's I can't publish it until after the PDC I believe.

O M G!

Sebastien Lambla — Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:02:00 GMT

Oh my god...
lock (typeof(SR))

this is EVIL EVIL EVIL EVIL.

The code should be refactored to provide

private static object SyncRoot = new object();

and lock(SyncRoot)

The blogosphere has been vocal enough about how locking on a type is a bad thing, and on how microsoft documentation providing examples of locking Type objects was a bad thing.

re: The SR pattern, a simple approach to resource handling

Victor Garcia Aprea — Mon, 13 Oct 2003 05:43:00 GMT

Updated now to reflect CBrumme's advices plus some code,

Thanks!

re: The SR pattern, a simple approach to resource handling

Daniel Cazzulino — Mon, 13 Oct 2003 03:40:00 GMT

I'm afraid the double-check locking may not be a silver bullet, as Chris Brumme explained in his wonderful weblog at http://blogs.gotdotnet.com/cbrumme/permalink.aspx/480d3a6d-1aa8-4694-96db-c69f01d7ff2b
It's a long one (as all his posts, but highly recommended reading as usual), so do a search for "double-locking".