Singletons are a well known pattern to ensure that only one instance of a class exists during the whole life-time of the application. A self-deleting variant is the "Meyers Singleton":
where the GetInstance() method is implemented as
If such a singleton is accessed during static deinitialization (which happens during unloading of shared libraries or application termination), your program might crash or even worse, exhibit undefined behavior, depending on your compiler and/or weekday. Such an access might happen in destructors of other objects with static life-time.
For example, suppose that SingletonOne needs to call a second Meyers singleton during destruction:
If SingletonTwo was destroyed before SingletonOne, this leads to the mentioned problems. Note that this problem only occurs for static objects defined in the same shared library.
Since you cannot reliably control the destruction order of global static objects, you must not introduce dependencies between them during static deinitialization. This is one reason why one should consider an alternative approach to singletons (unless you can absolutely make sure that nothing in your shared library will introduce such dependencies. Never.)
Of course you could use something like a "Phoenix singleton" but that will have other drawbacks in certain scenarios. Returning pointers instead of references in GetInstance() would open up the possibility to return NULL, but than again this would not help if you require a non-NULL instance in your destructor.
Another reason for an alternative approach is that singletons are usually not meant to be singletons for eternity. If your design evolves, you might hit a point where you suddenly need multiple instances of your singleton.
The C++ Micro Services can be used to emulate the singleton pattern using a non-singleton class. This leaves room for future extensions without the need for heavy refactoring. Additionally, it gives you full control about the construction and destruction order of your "singletons" inside your shared library or executable, making it possible to have dependencies between them during destruction.
We modify the previous SingletonOne class such that it internally uses the micro services API. The changes are discussed in detail below.
Let's have a look at the modified GetInstance() and ~SingletonOneService() methods.
The inline comments should explain the details. Note that we now had to change the return type to a pointer, instead of a reference as in the classic singleton. This is necessary since we can no longer guarantee that an instance always exists. Clients of the GetInstance() method must check for null pointers and react appropriately.
The SingletonTwoService::GetInstance() method is implemented exactly as in SingletonOneService. Because we know that the module activator guarantees that a SingletonTwoService instance will always be available during the life-time of a SingletonOneService instance (see below), we can assert a non-null pointer. Otherwise, we would have to handle the null-pointer case.
The order of construction/registration and destruction/unregistration of our singletons (or any other services) is defined in the Load() and Unload() methods of the module activator.
The Unload() method is defined as: