[C++] How to solve the problem of global access?

Question

Hi,

I'm building an app, and I need the wisdom of the SO community on a design issue.

In my application, there needs to be EXACTLY one instance of the class UiConnectionList, UiReader and UiNotifier.

Now, I have figured two ways to do this:

Method 1: Each file has a global instance of that class in the header file itself.

Method 2: there is a separate globals.h file that contains single global instances of each class.

Example code:

Method 1

file: uiconnectionlist.h

#ifndef UICONNECTIONLIST_H
#define UICONNECTIONLIST_H

#include <QObject>
#include <QList>

class UiConnection;

class UiConnectionList : public QObject
{
    Q_OBJECT
public:
    UiConnectionList();

    void addConnection(UiConnection* conn);
    void removeConnection(UiConnection* conn);
private:
    QList<UiConnection*> connList;
};

namespace Globals {
    UiConnectionList connectionList;
}

#endif // UICONNECTIONLIST_H

file: uinotifier.h

#ifndef UINOTIFIER_H
#define UINOTIFIER_H

class UiNotifier
{
public:
    UiNotifier();
};

namespace Globals {
    UiNotifier uiNotifier;
}

#endif // UINOTIFIER_H

Method 2:

file: uiconnectionlist.h

#ifndef UICONNECTIONLIST_H
#define UICONNECTIONLIST_H

#include <QObject>
#include <QList>

class UiConnection;

class UiConnectionList : public QObject
{
    Q_OBJECT
public:
    UiConnectionList();

    void addConnection(UiConnection* conn);
    void removeConnection(UiConnection* conn);
private:
    QList<UiConnection*> connList;
};

#endif // UICONNECTIONLIST_H

file: uinotifier.h

#ifndef UINOTIFIER_H
#define UINOTIFIER_H

class UiNotifier
{
public:
    UiNotifier();
};

#endif // UINOTIFIER_H

file: globals.h

#ifndef GLOBALS_H
#define GLOBALS_H

#include "uiconnectionlist.h"
#include "uinotifier.h"

namespace Globals {
    UiConnectionList connectionList;
    UiNotifier uiNotifier;
}

#endif // GLOBALS_H

My Question

What is the better/right way to do this?

PS: I don't think that singleton is the right answer here, is it?

Thanks

---

Okay, so two answers have told me to make instances of UiConnectionList and UiNotifier, optionally wrap it in a UiContext and pass it around wherever required.

Could someone enumerate reasons (with examples) why passing around the context is better than having globally accessible variables.

This will help me judge what method is better (or better suited for my app).

Thanks

Answer 1

The least you can do is to create a UiContext class/structure. Define all other things as member variables of this class. Then create a instance of UiContext in your main class and pass it to whichever class that requires it.

Answer 2

I wouldn't do them global, instead create the three objects in your main and pass them to wherever they are needed. It is easier to follow for some other programmer because he sees when/where they are used. It gives you also better control when to create and destroy them than if you declare them global.

EDIT: to clarify, I have seen a lot of code in my days and normally programs as time goes by get more and more code added to them by various developers with different ideas about design etc. In general (IMHO) once you start introducing globals in a program it encourages other programmers to do the same. That is why I prefer to have data passed to wherever it is used, in a procedural language as an argument or in an OOP language passed in via the ctor. It is then easier to see the dependencies.

Maybe this was answer was off to mark and became too general, sorry 'bout that.

Answer 3

The better way to do this is to use the Singleton method. It has been tested and proven. Besides, the class would fail if I defined another UiConnectionList variable for example in my local scope.

void myfunction()
{
    UiConnectionList connectionList;
    // Any usage to connectionList would be cleared after this function exits.
}

Always remember when creating a singleton class. Lock (Private-tify?) the big four: Constructor, Copy Constructor, Assignment Operator, Destructor

Also, since you're using global variables, I'm assuming you don't need scoping or hiding. So the singleton method is the better way to do it.

Here's an example on implementing a singleton.

// Meyers singleton
static UiConnectionList* UiConnectionList::getSingletonPtr()
{
    static UiConnectionList x;
    return &x;
}

Cheers, Roy!

Answer 4

With your usage in globals.h you are going to have a multiple definition of Globals::UiConnectionList and Globals::UiNotifier for each compilation unit (.cc or .cpp file) that you use. This is not the way to make exactly one instance of those clases. You should use the singleton pattern as previous posters suggested.

If you didn't want to use the singleton pattern, the correct way is to define both clases in one compilation unit and then declare them as extern in the header file, the result is your intended one global instance of the class, but that won't prevent it from being copied or copy constructed. From your example you don't know the difference between declaration and definition.

Answer 5

First of all, you're right. This question has nothing to do with the Singleton pattern. It is a question of class design.

In this case i would prefer a different implementation than yours. In both of your examples you use a namespace called "Global". This is breaking the single concern principle, because here are a lot of objects having nothing else in common than being global accessible singletons. Instead of doing this you should encapsulate your singletons in the class declaration itself.

Look at this:

class UiConnectionList : public QObject
{
    Q_OBJECT

public:
    static UiConnectionList Connections; // This is your global varaible

public:
    UiConnectionList();

    void addConnection(UiConnection* conn);
    void removeConnection(UiConnection* conn);
private:
    QList<UiConnection*> connList;

};

Now your global connections can be accessed via UiConnectionList::Connections. The singleton implementation as a static variable isn't really good and should be done better. Especially to prevent the change of the pointer. But this is a different question.

Answer 6

Even though, as people have mentioned already, your solution is faulty, I would avoid using a singleton. Using singleton to achieve your goal will make your code hard to test. Instead classes should depend on a pure virtual interface IConnetion or the like. Would sending instances to objects when they are created be implausible? You should at least have the option to do so (or preferably using a setter) to make your code testable. Note that the "extern" solution propsed by piotr more or less is the same as a singleton.

Answer 7

A lot of people disagree on whether to use the global/singleton pattern. I personally don't like it merely because it goes against the concept of loosely coupled class design.

Each class should do one thing, and should be able to exist by itself as much as possible. Having classes use a global UiConnectionList instance is not only creating maintainability issues, but its also means that the classes have to know where they're getting their instance from when they should preferably be told what list to use when they are created.

Think of a resource and its manager.

Resource *ResouceManager::createResource (string name)
{
    Resource *res = new Resource(this);
    res->SetName(name);
    resourceList->Add(res);
    return res;
}

In this example, the resource and its manager are very modestly coupled. The manager can find its created resources, and the resource knows which manager it was created in, but the resource is told which manager its owned by, not defining it itself (through a global manager).

The other way is to create a Resource (or a subclass) then ask a Manager to add it to its list essentially temporary coupling them, but until then they exist separately and aren't relying on pre-defined instances.