Originally Posted by ASWC
well he put 3 little dots in the enforcer declaration as if he's gonna write code there.
He shouldn't... That's what I am trying to explain...
Even so, the "extend AbstractController" part is completely out of place.
Or maybe someone can explain why would it make sense for a helper class that is supposed to enforce a single instance for the object in matter extend a type that based on it's name at least is more appropriate to be the superclass of the class that we are trying to limit to a single instance. I am not saying that such enforcers should always be empty ( although 99% of the time they are ), but in the above case, things simply make no sense to me.
So why not stop a bad design now than let it possibly cause havoc later on?