What's wrong with this code?

home
c#
view story

20 Kicks

Kick It

Drop Kick

Kicked

What's wrong with this code?(ekampf.com)

submitted by ekampf(3195) 4 years, 7 months ago

First post in a series of "What's wrong with this code" snippets...

5 comments |category: C# |Views: 2
Tweet

tags: EranKampf Whatswrongwiththiscode C# .Net another

Everyones tags:

Your Tags:

Please login or signup.

Add a live kick counter to your blog >> liveImage

You can even customize the image by choosing your own colors, and then clicking the button below to update the preview and the html code:

"Kick It" text
"Kick It" background
kick count text
kick count background
border

Simply copy and paste this HTML into your blog post.

Users who kicked this story:

w3stfa11(645) -

AnnaBay21(0) -

Harleyy(0) -

offwhite(975)

More who kicked this story...

Comments:

posted by senfo(881) 4 years, 6 months ago 0

Here is an example of a singleton. No locks necessary. I would have posted in your blog, but I kept getting an error.

http://senfo.blogspot.com/2007/07/singleton-design-patter-in-c.html

posted by tortus(25) 4 years, 6 months ago 0

That's not a good example.

A property should be used for the accessor, not a method. That's what properties are for.

As it stands, it does need locks to avoid race conditions should multiple threads be accessing the same singleton at once. That implementation can lead to multiple instances of the singleton being created.

posted by offwhite(975) 4 years, 6 months ago 0

My code would use a private method to instantiate the singleton with an attribute which handles the locking. It would look like...

// requires using System.Runtime.CompilerServices
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.Synchronized)]
private void InstantiateSingleton()
{
if (_singleton != null)
{
_singleton = new Singleton();
}
}

The attribute handles the locking for you and then the property access is much simpler.

public static Singleton Instance
{
get
{
if (_instance == null)
{
InstantiateSingleton();
}
return _instance;
}
}

The code is then also self-documenting with the descriptive method name.

posted by offwhite(975) 4 years, 6 months ago 0

That != should be ==

posted by ekampf(3195) 4 years, 6 months ago 0

Hi,
Thanks for the comments, check out the summary at http://www.ekampf.com/blog/2007/07/15/WhatsWrongWithThisCode1Discussion.aspx

Regards,
Eran

Most Active Users

What's this?