information overload - Page 222

Student Loan Guarantor Hit With Data Breach

After theft of a portable media device, federal student loan group Educational Credit Management Corp. notifies 3.3 million borrowers that their information is at risk.

const vs. readonly for a singleton

First off, I understand there are folk who oppose the use of singletons. I think it's an appropriate use in this case as it's constant state information, but I'm open to differing opinions / solutions. (See The singleton pattern and When should the singleton pattern not be used?) Second, for a broader audience: C++/CLI has a similar keyword to readonly with initonly, so this isn't strictly a C# type question. (Literal field versus constant variable in C++/CLI) Sidenote: A discussion of some of the nuances on using const or readonly. My Question: I have a singleton that anchors together some different data structures. Part of what I expose through that singleton are some lists and other objects, which represent the necessary keys or columns in order to connect the linked data structures. I doubt that anyone would try to change these objects through a different module, but I want to explicitly protect them from that risk. So I'm currently using a "readonly" modifier on those objects*. I'm using readonly instead of const with the lists as I read that using const will embed those items in the referencing assemblies and will therefore trigger a rebuild of those referencing assemblies if / when the list(s) is/are modified. This seems like a tighter coupling than I would want between the modules, but I wonder if I'm obsessing over a moot point. (This is question #2 below) The alternative I see to using "readonly" is to make the variables private and then wrap them with a public get. I'm struggling to see the advantage of this approach as it seems like wrapper code that doesn't provide much additional benefit. (This is question #1 below) It's highly unlikely that we'll change the contents or format of the lists - they're a compilation of things to avoid using magic strings all over the place. Unfortunately, not all the code has converted over to using this singleton's presentation of those strings. Likewise, I don't know that we'd change the containers / classes for the lists. So while I normally argue for the encapsulations advantages a get wrapper provides, I'm just not feeling it in this case. A representative sample of my singleton public sealed class mySingl { private static volatile mySingl sngl; private static object lockObject = new Object(); public readonly Dictionary<string, string> myDict = new Dictionary<string, string>() { {"I", "index"}, {"D", "display"}, }; public enum parms { ABC = 10, DEF = 20, FGH = 30 }; public readonly List<parms> specParms = new List<parms>() { parms.ABC, parms.FGH }; public static mySingl Instance { get { if(sngl == null) { lock(lockObject) { if(sngl == null) sngl = new mySingl(); } } return sngl; } } private mySingl() { doSomething(); } } Questions: Am I taking the most reasonable approach in this case? Should I be worrying about const vs. readonly? is there a better way of providing this information?

Search Results

Search found 25071 results on 1003 pages for 'information overload'.

Page 222/1003 | < Previous Page | 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 | Next Page >

- by GlenH7

- by Enrique Lima

- by JuergenKress

- by chandan

- by Roxana Babiciu

- by Sahil Malik

- by asantaga

- by JuergenKress

- by Michael Stephenson

- by jamiet

- by MartinBell

- by Andrew Kelly

- by Priya Jayakumar

- by PorusHH_OCM11g10g

- by Tanu Sood

- by Kris

- by WalrusTusks

- by Mala Narasimharajan

- by Richard Lefebvre

- by Matt Stevens

- by Anurag Uniyal

< Previous Page | 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 | Next Page >