On 26.09.2012 23:38 CE(S)T, Stuart Dallas wrote: > On 26 Sep 2012, at 22:29, Yves Goergen <nospam.list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> My class is a debug helper class, that can write trace messages and >> so on. I have added a random per-request tag to distinguish >> concurrent requests in the trace file and thought that generating >> such a tag would perfectly fit in a static constructor. Now a >> helper function does that check and generates one on the first call >> of the method. > > I would strongly recommend a singleton, or if you must use a static > class you can either use the initialisation mechanism I described or, > if the class has a single method as I'm guessing, have that method > check the static variable to see if it's been set yet, and if not > generate it before doing anything else. Why does everybody seem to recommend singletons so strongly? What's wrong with static classes? Are they considered as "global variables", the most evil remainder from the Middle Age? What is easier to call on a regular hacky basis: XyzDebug::Trace(...); or XyzDebug::GetInstance()->Trace(...); I really prefer the first one. I always use static classes when there is no real instance of something. Why should I force to act as if, only to follow some trendy pattern? -- Yves Goergen - nospam.list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - http://unclassified.de -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
