Singletons and factories with multiple libraries in C++ - c++

Question

I've been reading and searching the web for a while now but haven't found a nice solution. Here's what I want to do:
I am writing a library that defines an abstract base class - lets call it IFoo.
class IFoo {
public:
virtual void doSomething() = 0;
virtual ~IFoo() {}
};
The library also defines a couple of implementations for that - lets call them FooLibOne and FooLibTwo.
In order to encapsulate the creation process and decide which concrete implementation is used depending on some runtime paramter, I use a factory FooFactory that maps std::string to factory methods (in my case boost::function, but that should not be the point here). It also allows new factory methods to be registered. It looks something like this:
class FooFactory {
public:
typedef boost::function<IFoo* ()> CreatorFunction;
IFoo* create(std::string name);
void registerCreator(std::string name, CreatorFunction f);
private:
std::map<std::string, CreatorFunction> mapping_;
};
For now, I added the implementations provided (FooLibOne, FooLibTwo) by the library directly in the constructor of FooFactory - thus they are always available. Some of the library code uses the FooFactory to initialize certain objects etc. I have refrained from using the Singleton pattern for the factories so far since tee pattern is debated often enough and I wasn't sure, how different implementations of the Singleton pattern would work in combination with possibly multiple shared libraries etc.
However, passing around the factories can be a little cumbersome and I still think, this is one of the occassions the Singleton pattern could be of good use. Especially if I consider, that the users of the library should be able to add more implementations of IFoo which should also be accessible for the (already existing) library code. Of course, Dependency Injection - meaning I pass an instance of a factory through the constructor - could do the trick (and does it for now). But this approach kind of fails if I want to be even more flexible and introduce a second layer of dynamic object creation. Meaning: I want to dynamicly create objects (see above) within dynamically created objects (say implementations of an abstract base class IBar - BarOne and BarTwo - again via a factory BarFactory).
Lets say BarOne requires an IFoo object but BarTwo doesn't. I still have to provide the FooFactory to the BarFactory in any case, since one of the IBar implementations might need it. Having globally accessible factories would mitigate this problem and I wouldn't be forced to forsee, which factories may be needed by implementations of a specific interface. In addition I could register the creation methods directly in the source file of the implementations.
FooFactory::Instance().registerCreator("new_creator", boost::bind(...));
Since I think it is a good idea, what would be the right way to implement it? I was going for a templated approach like the SingletonHolder from Modern C++ Design (see also Loki library) to wrap the factories. However, I'd rather implement it as a Meyer's Singleton instead. But I still think there will be issues with shared libraries. The solution should work with GCC (and preferably MSVC). I'm also open for other ideas from a design point of view but please avoid the common "Singletons are evil"-rants. ;-)
Thanks in advance.

Answer 1

Hopefully, 76 lines of code speak more than a few words - (using C++11 version of these features instead of the boost ones, but they're pretty much the same anyway)
I would put the definition of the factory(ies) and the definition of the creators in the same (or nearby) scope, so that each of the creators can "see" any of their dependent factories - avoiding the need to pass factories around too much, and avoiding singletons
Cars & Sirens:
class ISiren {};
class Siren : public ISiren
{
public:
Siren() { std::cout << "Siren Created" << std::endl; }
};
class ICar{};
class EstateCar : public ICar
{
public:
EstateCar() { std::cout << "EstateCar created" << std::endl;}
};
class PoliceCar : public ICar
{
std::shared_ptr<ISiren> siren;
public:
PoliceCar( std::shared_ptr<ISiren> siren)
: siren( siren )
{
std::cout << "PoliceCar created" << std::endl;
}
};
Factories:
typedef std::function< std::shared_ptr<ICar> () > CreatorType;
class CarFactory
{
std::map<std::string, CreatorType> creators;
public:
void AddFactory( std::string type, CreatorType func )
{
creators.insert( std::make_pair(type, func) );
}
std::shared_ptr<ICar> CreateCar( std::string type )
{
CreatorType& create( creators[type] );
return create();
}
};
class SirenFactory
{
public: // Simple factory creating 1 siren type just for brevity
std::shared_ptr<ISiren> CreateSiren() { return std::make_shared<Siren>(); }
};
"Factory Root" (main function, wherever factories are defined) :
int main()
{
CarFactory car_factory; // Car factory unaware of Siren factory
SirenFactory siren_factory;
auto EstateCarLambda = []() {
return std::make_shared<EstateCar>();
}; // Estate car lambda knows nothing of the Siren Factory
auto PoliceCarLambda = [&siren_factory]() {
return std::make_shared<PoliceCar>( siren_factory.CreateSiren() );
}; // Police car creation lambda using the Siren Factory
car_factory.AddFactory( "EstateCar", EstateCarLambda );
car_factory.AddFactory( "PoliceCar", PoliceCarLambda );
std::shared_ptr<ICar> car1 = car_factory.CreateCar( "EstateCar" );
std::shared_ptr<ICar> car2 = car_factory.CreateCar( "PoliceCar" );
}