Re: Instantiate an object in two ways???
- From: "Marina" <someone@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 08:48:46 -0400
If the object will be used for read only purposes, then going the static
route is fine.
"J-T" <J-T@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OO9sbXYYFHA.3836@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> About the first method,
>
> As you can see ,it is using an static variable ,and I think static
> variables are stored in the heap and objects stored on the heap can be
> accessed by all threads.My object is a readonly object.what I mean by read
> only is that none of the threads are trying to change it ,they only want
> to use it,so none of those threads lock the object.Having said all this,do
> you still think that I have still thread issue.
>
> Thanks
> "Marina" <someone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:urAYvXWYFHA.3040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 1. No, it is not right. When it is a static object, it means it belongs
>> to class type. And there is only one of that. Once it is instantiated, it
>> stays around for the lifetime of the application. Meaning until asp.net
>> is shut down or recycled.
>>
>> 2. ASP.NET is multithreaded - and if it wasn't, you would have a very
>> very slow application. This is why I suggested having the static object
>> is not a way to go - you have to start worrying about multiple threads
>> accessing your object at the same time.
>>
>> "J-T" <J-T@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:O%23tWwsVYFHA.2264@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> The first way, you will have one instance for the entire asp.net app.
>>>> It will not be garbage collected.
>>> Why it is not gargage collected? Imagine a request makes this object be
>>> created and when the request is done the object is there ,may hang
>>> around for a while and if no one else (no other request) uses that one
>>> ,then it has no reference to it and it's ready to be garbage
>>> collected.right?
>>>
>>>
>>>> However, you are opening yourself up for potential threading issues. If
>>>> 2 people make a request at the same time, what if both their threads
>>>> are accessing this one instance of the object at the same time?
>>>
>>> ASP.NET application is a multi-threaded one and there is always multiple
>>> threads working with objects it create,There is no way of getting rid of
>>> multiple threads working at the same time ,right?
>>>
>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Marina" <someone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:ecR0NtUYFHA.2948@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> The first way, you will have one instance for the entire asp.net app.
>>>> It will not be garbage collected.
>>>>
>>>> However, you are opening yourself up for potential threading issues. If
>>>> 2 people make a request at the same time, what if both their threads
>>>> are accessing this one instance of the object at the same time?
>>>> Depending on what your object does, you may need to synchronize access
>>>> to it. Which could potentially slow down your app if it takes a long
>>>> time to complete its work, as well as adding complexity to anything
>>>> using it, because now it has to worry about making sure it is safe to
>>>> access this object.
>>>>
>>>> For asp.net, hands down I would go with way #2. Odds are, the creation
>>>> of this object is not expensive, and it will be garbage collected when
>>>> the request is finished. You aren't really going to see a noticeable
>>>> performance difference, and you will avoid a whole lot of other
>>>> problems.
>>>>
>>>> "J-T" <J-T@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:%23H6uuhUYFHA.3712@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>I can instantiate my object in my *ASP.NET* application in two ways:
>>>>>
>>>>> A)
>>>>> public sealed class RSSingleton
>>>>> {
>>>>>
>>>>> private static ReportingServiceProxy m_RsProxy=null;
>>>>> static RSSingleton()
>>>>> {
>>>>> m_RsProxy = new ReportingServiceProxy();
>>>>> m_RsProxy.Credentials =
>>>>> System.Net.CredentialCache.DefaultCredentials;
>>>>> m_RsProxy.Url =
>>>>> ConfigurationSettings.AppSettings[Constants.CONFIG_RS_URL] +
>>>>> "/ReportService.asmx";
>>>>> }
>>>>> internal static ReportingServiceProxy Instance{get{return
>>>>> m_RsProxy;}}
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> B)
>>>>> public class RSFactory
>>>>> {
>>>>> //Empty constructor
>>>>> static RSFactory()
>>>>> {
>>>>>
>>>>> }
>>>>> public static ReportingServiceProxy Proxy
>>>>> {
>>>>> get
>>>>> {
>>>>> ReportingServiceProxy rsProxy = new ReportingServiceProxy();
>>>>> rsProxy.Credentials =
>>>>> System.Net.CredentialCache.DefaultCredentials;
>>>>> return rsProxy;
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> public static string doSomthing(..)
>>>>> {
>>>>> Proxy.Render(...)
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I personally like the second one.Some people say that the second one
>>>>> is not good because everytime you call doSomthing(..) a new instance
>>>>> is created.I do agree with it ,but the first approach in an aasp.net
>>>>> application has the same demrits ,unless you put the object inside
>>>>> application variable or session variable and persist it.Other wise
>>>>> when you are done working with the object it is ready for the garbage
>>>>> collector to be collected and when the second request arrives ,if the
>>>>> object is collected then you need to create another instance.Am I
>>>>> righ?
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW ReportingServiceProxy is a proxy class of a webservice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Instantiate an object in two ways???
- From: J-T
- Re: Instantiate an object in two ways???
- References:
- Instantiate an object in two ways???
- From: J-T
- Re: Instantiate an object in two ways???
- From: Marina
- Re: Instantiate an object in two ways???
- From: J-T
- Re: Instantiate an object in two ways???
- From: Marina
- Re: Instantiate an object in two ways???
- From: J-T
- Instantiate an object in two ways???
- Prev by Date: Re: DropDownList Bound to ArrayList of Custom Objects
- Next by Date: RE: Format Date from DB
- Previous by thread: Re: Instantiate an object in two ways???
- Next by thread: Re: Instantiate an object in two ways???
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
