Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 695021
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 14, 20262026-05-14T02:54:59+00:00 2026-05-14T02:54:59+00:00

Would you call this implementation of a multiton in objective-c ‘elegant’? I have programmatically

  • 0

Would you call this implementation of a multiton in objective-c ‘elegant’? I have programmatically ‘disallowed’ use of alloc and allocWithZone: because the decision to allocate or not allocate memory needs to be done based on a key.

I know for sure that I need to work with only two instances, so I’m using ‘switch-case’ instead of a map.

#import "Multiton.h"

static Multiton *firstInstance = nil;
static Multiton *secondInstance = nil;

@implementation Multiton

+ (Multiton *) sharedInstanceForDirection:(enum KeyName)direction {

    return [[self allocWithKey:direction] init];
}

+ (id) allocWithKey:(enum KeyName)key {

    return [self allocWithZone:nil andKey:key];
}

+ (id) allocWithZone:(NSZone *)zone andKey:(enum KeyName)key {

    Multiton **sharedInstance;

    @synchronized(self) {

        switch (key) {
            case KEY_1:
                sharedInstance = &firstInstance;
                break;
            case KEY_2:
                sharedInstance = &secondInstance;
                break;
            default:
                [NSException raise:NSInvalidArgumentException format:@"Invalid key"];
                break;
        }
        if (*sharedInstance == nil)
            *sharedInstance = [super allocWithZone:zone];
    }

    return *sharedInstance;
}

+ (id) allocWithZone:(NSZone *)zone {

    //Do not allow use of alloc and allocWithZone
    [NSException raise:NSObjectInaccessibleException format:@"Use allocWithZone:andKey: or allocWithKey:"];
    return nil;
}

- (id) copyWithZone:(NSZone *)zone {

    return self;
}

- (id) retain {

    return self;
}

- (unsigned) retainCount {

    return NSUIntegerMax;
}

- (void) release {

    return;
}

- (id) autorelease {

    return self;
}

- (id) init {
    [super init];
    return self;
}

@end

PS: I’ve not tried out if this works as yet, but its compiling cleanly 🙂

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-14T02:55:00+00:00Added an answer on May 14, 2026 at 2:55 am

    I find singletons a bad idea and this looks about four times as horrible. The code is quite complex, you can be sure of spending a nice few hours chasing subtle bugs in it and you will probably never feel comfortable about it. That’s no good. You should throw this abomination away and wire your objects together in some other way that doesn’t require so much thinking.

    If you like patterns, you can use something akin to Factory pattern to wire your objects. The Factory will take care of creating those two instances and passing them wherever needed. And the Factory will be a lot more simple than Multiton:

    @interface Factory : NSObject {
        Foo *foo1, *foo2;
    }
    @end
    
    @implementation Factory
    
    - (id) init {
        [super init];
        foo1 = [[Foo alloc] init];
        foo2 = [[Foo alloc] init];
        return self;
    }
    

    Of course you don’t have to create both instances at once. You can do anything you like there – cache, lazy load, anything. The point is leaving the Foo lifetime management up to the Factory, separate from the Foo code. Then it gets much easier. ¶ All the other objects that need Foo will be created and wired through Factory and will receive their Foo through a setter:

    @implementation Factory
    
    - (id) wireSomeClass {
        id instance = [[SomeClass alloc] init];
        [instance setFoo:foo1];
        [instance setAnotherDependency:bar];
        return [instance autorelease];
    }
    

    This is all much more straightforward then the code from your question.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.