Static access to ICore

[Esben Mose Hansen]

On Friday 16 November 2007 19:35:06 Andreas Pakulat wrote:

> Huh? Ok, the constructor check would help if one could directly create
> an ICore object, but the destructor check doesn't help with anything, if
> instance != it gets set to 0, if it already is 0, well nothing happens
> in the end.

Well, as I presume that only one instance is ever created, that check is 
almost free and would catch the rather fatal bug if it was created twice. 
Likewise with the destructor: While unlikely, the check is nearly free (could 
be an assert, even) and is a nice sanity check. I admit I might be too 
paranoid there. Blame my IT career ;)

> > I would further suggest that ICore
> > constructor/destructor is private but friends with the few classes that
> > actually need it.
>
> There's no way to create an ICore object, because its an abstract class.
> The I in ICore stands for "Interface" ;)

Ah. Well, that's not much of a concern, then. 

>
> Oh and the subclass "Core" of ICore that does have a constructor can
> only be created by linking to a special KDevelop library, which is only
> allowed to happen from the main program (i.e. there's 1 call to Core()
> in main())

ok, so maybe I was too paranoid. All my alarm bells just went of when I saw 
the code. No offense meant! (I would still add the constructor check, at 
least as an assert) :p )

-- 
regards, Esben

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.