3 ms·

> xxx->getInstance()->yyy->getInstance() That is weird... wouldn't you just do yyy::getInstance() directly? The whole point of singletons is being global right

• jason_slack 13y ago
  Well I think that yyy is a private member variable inside of xxx so maybe that is why the did that? Like: #define GAMELAYERINSTANCE _dir->Instance()->getGameScene()->Instance()->getGameLayerObject()->Instance()
  • gohrt 13y ago
    You mean getGameSceneClass() and getGameLayerClass(), yes? As in Dependency Injection? object->getInstance() makes no sense, you already have the object!
    • jason_slack 13y ago
      I may be reading this weird. object->getInstance makes no sense? You mean if object is a private member variable? So class _dir contains object as a member variable. _dir->Instance(), already has access to object without doing _dir_Instance()->object->Instance() as an example...?
      • pmelendez 13y ago
        > object->getInstance makes no sense? If getInstance returns an instance of object class, and object is an instance itself, then it doesn't make sense or it is not a singleton. You can think it like this: if object class has one unique instance, then object == object->getInstance(), so in your case either object != object->getInstance and they are from the same class (hence it is not a singleton) or they are from different classes (once again then, it is not a singleton).