Re: ATL Singletons or Running Object Table ?

I don't think I'll need that universal delegator[1] since by design, no
instance of B will outlive A, and no client of A will outlive A either.

Brian Muth wrote:


I'll reply both you Brian and Alexander here. First of all, thanks a lot
for your insight. I didn't mean to look like a stubborn person. I'm not
trying to solve my problem using singletons no matter what. I'm just
trying to understand the pros and cons of them, and the scenarios in where
its use may or may not be appropiate.

Having read Alexander's reply and yours, and having read this:
http://www.idevresource.com/com/library/articles/singleton.asp

it's quite clear to me now which kind of approaches are simply no-nos. I
still think that an out of process singleton is not that bad. However,
when mixed with COM rules regarding object lifetimes and so on, it has
many pitfalls that one should be aware of.

I guess that I'll explore a bit more the approach Alexander suggests
(placing A in the ROT).
I don't think I'll need that universal delegator[1] since by design, no
instance of B will outlive A, and no client of A will outlive A either.

So, thank you both for your help.

Regards,
Ignacio Burgue?o

[1] BTW, I found it here:
http://www.develop.com/technology/resourcedetail.aspx?id=76121ebc-beab-42a9-a891-869c4be57771