Skip to main content

Service Configurator pattern and singleton deletion

The Service Configurator pattern is about linking in additional functionality in an application dynamically by means of an API such as dlsym/dlopen provided by the OS/run-time linker. Almost all popular platforms provide this functionality. This post is about programmatically, dynamically loaded libraries (hence forth called simply library)(e.g., .DLL, .so) that contain sigletons.

One of my previous posts talks about singleton deletion. If the sinlgleton in such a library is a static instance then it is not deleted untill the library is closed using appropriate API such as dlclose. This can be quite undesirable or awkward at times. All the destruction techniques based on static variables fail if you want to destroy the singleton without unloading the library. A possible variant of the singleton in such a case is given below.

class Singleton {
Singleton ();
static Singleton *instance () {
if (instance_ == 0)
instance_ = new Singleton;
return instance_;
static void operator delete (void *arg) // operator delete is implicitely static
::delete arg; // Call the global delete operator.
instance_ = 0; // A very important step.
static Singleton * instance_;
Singleton * Singleton::instance_ = 0;

The overloaded delete operator allows us to nullify the static instance_ pointer to the singleton transperantly to the user/owner of the sinlgeton. If the singleton is required again then can be instantiated again. The owner of the singleton can use the const auto_ptr idiom to ensure that the ownership of the singleton is never transferred and it is always deleted.


Anonymous said…
How is the static delete operator invoked?
Sumant said…
The operator delete is invoked as you would do for any other dynamically allocated object.
for example, delete Singleton::instance();
Or else
{ // for automatic deletion
const std::auto_ptr owner(Singleton::instance());
Web development said…
What nice and professional article you have held, really you have impressed me. I respect your comment from my bottom of heart.
descargar anime said…
Hello, this is my first comment on this blog and I wanted to say that I'm really amazed with this blog after reading this article about C++ in which I share your same opinion. I will definitely bookmark this page!
Anonymous said…
Anonymous Anonymous said...
How is the static delete operator invoked?

Popular Content

Multi-dimensional arrays in C++11

What new can be said about multi-dimensional arrays in C++? As it turns out, quite a bit! With the advent of C++11, we get new standard library class std::array. We also get new language features, such as template aliases and variadic templates. So I'll talk about interesting ways in which they come together. It all started with a simple question of how to define a multi-dimensional std::array. It is a great example of deceptively simple things. Are the following the two arrays identical except that one is native and the other one is std::array? int native[3][4]; std::array<std::array<int, 3>, 4> arr; No! They are not. In fact, arr is more like an int[4][3]. Note the difference in the array subscripts. The native array is an array of 3 elements where every element is itself an array of 4 integers. 3 rows and 4 columns. If you want a std::array with the same layout, what you really need is: std::array<std::array<int, 4>, 3> arr; That's quite annoying for

Unit Testing C++ Templates and Mock Injection Using Traits

Unit testing your template code comes up from time to time. (You test your templates, right?) Some templates are easy to test. No others. Sometimes it's not clear how to about injecting mock code into the template code that's under test. I've seen several reasons why code injection becomes challenging. Here I've outlined some examples below with roughly increasing code injection difficulty. Template accepts a type argument and an object of the same type by reference in constructor Template accepts a type argument. Makes a copy of the constructor argument or simply does not take one Template accepts a type argument and instantiates multiple interrelated templates without virtual functions Lets start with the easy ones. Template accepts a type argument and an object of the same type by reference in constructor This one appears straight-forward because the unit test simply instantiates the template under test with a mock type. Some assertion might be tested in

Want speed? Use constexpr meta-programming!

It's official: C++11 has two meta-programming languages embedded in it! One is based on templates and other one using constexpr . Templates have been extensively used for meta-programming in C++03. C++11 now gives you one more option of writing compile-time meta-programs using constexpr . The capabilities differ, however. The meta-programming language that uses templates was discovered accidently and since then countless techniques have been developed. It is a pure functional language which allows you to manipulate compile-time integral literals and types but not floating point literals. Most people find the syntax of template meta-programming quite abominable because meta-functions must be implemented as structures and nested typedefs. Compile-time performance is also a pain point for this language feature. The generalized constant expressions (constexpr for short) feature allows C++11 compiler to peek into the implementation of a function (even classes) and perform optimization