Object pool: abstract super-class or generic?

Question

In my project, I want to use object pool for different types of objects — with similar behavior, but different pool sizes.

Should I create generic class for a pool and interface to apply to created objects, or should I create abstract pool class with common logic and then create specific sub-classes for all the different classes that I want to use it with?

Create a generic class and an interface to apply to created objects, that would be a better option.. — S2S2, Mar 06 '12 at 08:32
@CSharpVJ, I think you should leave it as answer, especially if you would be so kind to tell why do you think it's the best way. — Max Yankov, Mar 06 '12 at 08:55

VinayC · Accepted Answer · 2012-03-06T08:40:52.880

Well you can have both things i.e create an abstract generic class. I would prefer a generic interface implemented by a generic class and instantiated for a specific type behind a factory method/class. Abstract class will force creating derived classes making it more tedious. The example usage that I have in mind are something like

IPool<MyClass> = PoolFactory.Get<MyClass>(5);  // 5 being pool size
IPool<IFoo> = PoolFactory.Get<FooImpl>(5);
IPool<IBar> = PoolFactory.Get(5, () => new BarImpl("some argument")); // instance creation with factory method

Note that it can still leave me a scope for specialization by inheriting from the generic class - typical need would be a complicated instance creation (of course can be modeled by supplying the pool implementation with factory interface or factory delegate)

score 0 · Answer 2 · answered Mar 06 '12 at 08:54

That is the typical scenario for generic types. So I advocate generic pool.

Generics make only problems in cases where other classes use references to it without knowing the concrete type. In that case you can create a non-generic interface that is implemented by generic pool class.

score 0 · Answer 3 · answered Mar 06 '12 at 09:11

This is a classic example of why you should prefer Generic Stack<T> over object based Stack class and why generics was introduced to solve the object based classes problem. This is explained in MSDN here.

I suppose if you use second option, then you would have to introduce a new concrete class for every object pool that you want to create in future which would be cumbersome to maintain and develop. So, go with the first option of creating a Generic Pool<T> class and yes, you can also avail the benefits of Factory design pattern with this first option as explained in another answer.

In fact, there is a sample Generic ObjectPool<T> implementation here.

Object pool: abstract super-class or generic?

3 Answers3