I have a horrible feeling I've been using a pattern for years...
-
I use this when the instances are going to be resource heavy - maybe have a couple of images in them - and / or I want one example of each instance through the whole system. So I have a private constructor, a static Dictionary containing all created instances, and a static method which fetches the instance:
private static Dictionary all = new Dictionary();
private MyClass(string name, List data )
{
...
all.Add(name, this);
}
public static MyClass Get(string name, List data)
{
if (all.ContainsKey(name)) return all[name];
return new MyClass(name, data);
}And it works really well. But ... is that a pattern? I hope not, I might have to stop using it ... :~
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
I use this when the instances are going to be resource heavy - maybe have a couple of images in them - and / or I want one example of each instance through the whole system. So I have a private constructor, a static Dictionary containing all created instances, and a static method which fetches the instance:
private static Dictionary all = new Dictionary();
private MyClass(string name, List data )
{
...
all.Add(name, this);
}
public static MyClass Get(string name, List data)
{
if (all.ContainsKey(name)) return all[name];
return new MyClass(name, data);
}And it works really well. But ... is that a pattern? I hope not, I might have to stop using it ... :~
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
It's a derivative of the singleton pattern, but you allow one instance per ID.
Wout
-
I use this when the instances are going to be resource heavy - maybe have a couple of images in them - and / or I want one example of each instance through the whole system. So I have a private constructor, a static Dictionary containing all created instances, and a static method which fetches the instance:
private static Dictionary all = new Dictionary();
private MyClass(string name, List data )
{
...
all.Add(name, this);
}
public static MyClass Get(string name, List data)
{
if (all.ContainsKey(name)) return all[name];
return new MyClass(name, data);
}And it works really well. But ... is that a pattern? I hope not, I might have to stop using it ... :~
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
Reminds me of a singleton meets the concept of a self-referential thread pool, but then again naming patterns isn't exactly my strong suit. As far as to whether or not to stop using it, personally I'd have at least two classes that worked in tandem... a MyClassContainer (or pool or whatever) and a MyClass. Only for the sake of clarity and no other reason. But then again patterns aren't exactly my strong suit, so if it's an industry standard pattern then I'd be ok with it as is. Kinda curious what some of the peeps will say in reply to this.
Jeremy Falcon
-
I use this when the instances are going to be resource heavy - maybe have a couple of images in them - and / or I want one example of each instance through the whole system. So I have a private constructor, a static Dictionary containing all created instances, and a static method which fetches the instance:
private static Dictionary all = new Dictionary();
private MyClass(string name, List data )
{
...
all.Add(name, this);
}
public static MyClass Get(string name, List data)
{
if (all.ContainsKey(name)) return all[name];
return new MyClass(name, data);
}And it works really well. But ... is that a pattern? I hope not, I might have to stop using it ... :~
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
It's called the OriginalPattern
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
It's called the OriginalPattern
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
You had me going for a split second there.
Jeremy Falcon
-
You had me going for a split second there.
Jeremy Falcon
I admit I googled ... mostly Beer companies, which may be appropriate.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
It's called the OriginalPattern
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
:laugh: That's actually a pretty good name for it, considering!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
I use this when the instances are going to be resource heavy - maybe have a couple of images in them - and / or I want one example of each instance through the whole system. So I have a private constructor, a static Dictionary containing all created instances, and a static method which fetches the instance:
private static Dictionary all = new Dictionary();
private MyClass(string name, List data )
{
...
all.Add(name, this);
}
public static MyClass Get(string name, List data)
{
if (all.ContainsKey(name)) return all[name];
return new MyClass(name, data);
}And it works really well. But ... is that a pattern? I hope not, I might have to stop using it ... :~
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
PIEBALD rolls a three and reaches for his GOF book... The closest I see is Proxy, but that's more about deferred instantiation. As mentioned by others, it's also close to Singleton, yet possibly Singleton done right. (The standard Singleton Pattern is filth.) Maybe this could be called the Library Pattern. Anyway, I do that a lot too. Most recently as a store for RegEx instances which I use frequently.
-
I use this when the instances are going to be resource heavy - maybe have a couple of images in them - and / or I want one example of each instance through the whole system. So I have a private constructor, a static Dictionary containing all created instances, and a static method which fetches the instance:
private static Dictionary all = new Dictionary();
private MyClass(string name, List data )
{
...
all.Add(name, this);
}
public static MyClass Get(string name, List data)
{
if (all.ContainsKey(name)) return all[name];
return new MyClass(name, data);
}And it works really well. But ... is that a pattern? I hope not, I might have to stop using it ... :~
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
I use this when the instances are going to be resource heavy - maybe have a couple of images in them - and / or I want one example of each instance through the whole system. So I have a private constructor, a static Dictionary containing all created instances, and a static method which fetches the instance:
private static Dictionary all = new Dictionary();
private MyClass(string name, List data )
{
...
all.Add(name, this);
}
public static MyClass Get(string name, List data)
{
if (all.ContainsKey(name)) return all[name];
return new MyClass(name, data);
}And it works really well. But ... is that a pattern? I hope not, I might have to stop using it ... :~
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
OriginalGriff wrote:
But ... is that a pattern?
Yes, it is. I would refer to it as the static OGDictionarySingleton.
OriginalGriff wrote:
I hope not, I might have to stop using it
Why? The definition of a pattern is a piece of reusable code that solves a given problem. Does your manager not allow for tested and documented solutions?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
I admit I googled ... mostly Beer companies, which may be appropriate.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
:-D
Jeremy Falcon
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
But ... is that a pattern?
Yes, it is. I would refer to it as the static OGDictionarySingleton.
OriginalGriff wrote:
I hope not, I might have to stop using it
Why? The definition of a pattern is a piece of reusable code that solves a given problem. Does your manager not allow for tested and documented solutions?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Because most patterns are a waste of time, but worshipped as the One True Holy Grail of Computing by those that learn it. And then force all applications they write to fit that pattern regardless of the appropriateness.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
Because most patterns are a waste of time, but worshipped as the One True Holy Grail of Computing by those that learn it. And then force all applications they write to fit that pattern regardless of the appropriateness.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
OriginalGriff wrote:
Because most patterns are a waste of time, but worshipped as the One True Holy Grail of Computing by those that learn it. And then force all applications they write to fit that pattern regardless of the appropriateness.
..you are interacting with the wrong kind of people. Regardless of your silver bullet, I will not follow in the procession. "Most patterns"? Which are you referring to? They're used throughout the .NET Framework, from factories and adapters to decorators. Just my favourite, the memento, isn't included (afaik, which doesn't mean much). A pattern is simply a formalized piece of code that solves a problem. You have a list of those in your intellisense, don't you? Those snippets are formalized pieces of code that follow a specific pattern and that have a name. Now how does one take one of those templated pieces of code and make a holy grail of it? Is it some consultant, yammering to implement an event-receiver in C#? Code needs to be kissable clean; no patterns "just" to show of that you know something, the simplest solution is always the preferred one. But please, do follow the pattern of wrapping your connections and commands in a using-clause, do use parameterized queries, and please, use the factory-method that is included in the connection object to create your command. It saves a lot of time when rewriting to another provider. ..maybe I should just put my rambling in an article, as a lot of devs that I respect are not too fond of patterns for some weird reason. Tell me, do you vary your code to show a form, or does that happen to be another unnamed pattern that you repeat? :rolleyes:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
I use this when the instances are going to be resource heavy - maybe have a couple of images in them - and / or I want one example of each instance through the whole system. So I have a private constructor, a static Dictionary containing all created instances, and a static method which fetches the instance:
private static Dictionary all = new Dictionary();
private MyClass(string name, List data )
{
...
all.Add(name, this);
}
public static MyClass Get(string name, List data)
{
if (all.ContainsKey(name)) return all[name];
return new MyClass(name, data);
}And it works really well. But ... is that a pattern? I hope not, I might have to stop using it ... :~
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
The only pattern worth using is GIWAGO - 'Get It Working And Get Out!' :laugh:
veni bibi saltavi
-
I use this when the instances are going to be resource heavy - maybe have a couple of images in them - and / or I want one example of each instance through the whole system. So I have a private constructor, a static Dictionary containing all created instances, and a static method which fetches the instance:
private static Dictionary all = new Dictionary();
private MyClass(string name, List data )
{
...
all.Add(name, this);
}
public static MyClass Get(string name, List data)
{
if (all.ContainsKey(name)) return all[name];
return new MyClass(name, data);
}And it works really well. But ... is that a pattern? I hope not, I might have to stop using it ... :~
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
It is the Tinder pattern. (A collection of singletons)
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Because most patterns are a waste of time, but worshipped as the One True Holy Grail of Computing by those that learn it. And then force all applications they write to fit that pattern regardless of the appropriateness.
..you are interacting with the wrong kind of people. Regardless of your silver bullet, I will not follow in the procession. "Most patterns"? Which are you referring to? They're used throughout the .NET Framework, from factories and adapters to decorators. Just my favourite, the memento, isn't included (afaik, which doesn't mean much). A pattern is simply a formalized piece of code that solves a problem. You have a list of those in your intellisense, don't you? Those snippets are formalized pieces of code that follow a specific pattern and that have a name. Now how does one take one of those templated pieces of code and make a holy grail of it? Is it some consultant, yammering to implement an event-receiver in C#? Code needs to be kissable clean; no patterns "just" to show of that you know something, the simplest solution is always the preferred one. But please, do follow the pattern of wrapping your connections and commands in a using-clause, do use parameterized queries, and please, use the factory-method that is included in the connection object to create your command. It saves a lot of time when rewriting to another provider. ..maybe I should just put my rambling in an article, as a lot of devs that I respect are not too fond of patterns for some weird reason. Tell me, do you vary your code to show a form, or does that happen to be another unnamed pattern that you repeat? :rolleyes:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
But please, do follow the pattern of wrapping your connections and commands in a using-clause, do use parameterized queries, and please, use the factory-method that is included in the connection object to create your command. It saves a lot of time when rewriting to another provider.
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic because there's not much there I agree with (except maybe the parametrised queries, even then ...) Using older dated systems/databases/external devices some of that is not even possible let alone sensible. But this is not really the correct forum for that and I'm off to bed anyway.
Installing Signature... Do not switch off your computer.
-
It is the Tinder pattern. (A collection of singletons)
Swipe left! Swipe left!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
I admit I googled ... mostly Beer companies, which may be appropriate.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
Success. :-D
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
:laugh: That's actually a pretty good name for it, considering!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
Joke aside, I believe there is a pattern called the flyweight pattern that is fitting the description.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Because most patterns are a waste of time, but worshipped as the One True Holy Grail of Computing by those that learn it. And then force all applications they write to fit that pattern regardless of the appropriateness.
..you are interacting with the wrong kind of people. Regardless of your silver bullet, I will not follow in the procession. "Most patterns"? Which are you referring to? They're used throughout the .NET Framework, from factories and adapters to decorators. Just my favourite, the memento, isn't included (afaik, which doesn't mean much). A pattern is simply a formalized piece of code that solves a problem. You have a list of those in your intellisense, don't you? Those snippets are formalized pieces of code that follow a specific pattern and that have a name. Now how does one take one of those templated pieces of code and make a holy grail of it? Is it some consultant, yammering to implement an event-receiver in C#? Code needs to be kissable clean; no patterns "just" to show of that you know something, the simplest solution is always the preferred one. But please, do follow the pattern of wrapping your connections and commands in a using-clause, do use parameterized queries, and please, use the factory-method that is included in the connection object to create your command. It saves a lot of time when rewriting to another provider. ..maybe I should just put my rambling in an article, as a lot of devs that I respect are not too fond of patterns for some weird reason. Tell me, do you vary your code to show a form, or does that happen to be another unnamed pattern that you repeat? :rolleyes:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
maybe I should just put my rambling in an article,
Why not? Do it... I really think it might bring a nice debate in the board
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
