Hi, I thought we have these code can avoid errors, in my new PR I improve it. <pre> /** * Returns class instance. * * @param string $type the table type * * @return PMA_RecentFavoriteTable */ public static function getInstance($type) { if (is_null(self::$_instance)) { self::$_instance[$type] = new PMA_RecentFavoriteTable($type); } else { if (self::$_instance[$type]->table_type != $type) { self::$_instance[$type] = new PMA_RecentFavoriteTable($type); } } return self::$_instance[$type]; } </pre> Does my PR fix it? 2014-04-17 0:02 GMT+08:00 Chanaka Dharmarathna &lt;pe.chanaka.ck(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: > Hi, > > It seems like, the latest PMA_RecentFavoriteTable is trying to behave as > singleton design pattern. Is that a requirement ? I mean is there any > reason > for making it singleton ? By the way, there is good possibility to > create > new instances again and again with current logic. > > And the class has $table_type instance variable and more. Isn't it risky > behaviour to share a static instance throughout the web server, which > has > instance variable which used in functions of that instance ? >

Hi, Chanaka Dharmarathna, I'm sorry code I provided have problems, see sample blow, I fixed them <pre> <?php header("Content-type:text/plain"); class Sample { private $selfData; private $selfType; private static $_instance; public static function getInstance($type) { if (is_null(self::$_instance)) { self::$_instance[$type] = new Sample($type); } else { if (! array_key_exists($type, self::$_instance)) { self::$_instance[$type] = new Sample($type); } } return self::$_instance[$type]; }

public function __construct($type) { $this->selfType = $type; } public function setData($data) { $this->selfData = $data; } public function getData() { return $this->selfData; } } Sample::getInstance('A')->setData('AData'); echo Sample::getInstance('A')->getData(); Sample::getInstance('B')->setData('BData'); echo Sample::getInstance('A')->getData(); echo Sample::getInstance('B')->getData(); </pre> Results is "ADataADataBData", is that ok?

2014-04-18 1:01 GMT+08:00 Chanaka Dharmarathna &lt;pe.chanaka.ck(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Edward Cheng &lt;c4150221(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> I thought we have these code can avoid errors, in my new PR I improve >> it. >> <pre> >> /** >> * Returns class instance. >> * >> * @param string $type the table type >> * >> * @return PMA_RecentFavoriteTable >> */ >> public static function getInstance($type) >> { >> if (is_null(self::$_instance)) { >> self::$_instance[$type] = new PMA_RecentFavoriteTable($type); >> } else { >> if (self::$_instance[$type]->table_type != $type) { >> self::$_instance[$type] = new >> PMA_RecentFavoriteTable($type); >> } >> } >> return self::$_instance[$type]; >> } >> </pre> >> Does my PR fix it? >> >> 2014-04-17 0:02 GMT+08:00 Chanaka Dharmarathna >> &lt;pe.chanaka.ck(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: >> > Hi, >> > >> > It seems like, the latest PMA_RecentFavoriteTable is trying to behave >> > as >> > singleton design pattern. Is that a requirement ? I mean is there any >> > reason >> > for making it singleton ? By the way, there is good possibility to >> > create >> > new instances again and again with current logic. >> > >> > And the class has $table_type instance variable and more. Isn't it >> > risky >> > behaviour to share a static instance throughout the web server, which >> > has >> > instance variable which used in functions of that instance ? >> > > > > Hi Edward, > > Your code does not avoid creating many instances. By the way, we better > first clarify our self, the requirement. Any thoughts ?