Class to get a thread safe count of previous Instances

There have been many examples,posted on CodeGuru, of how to check for a previously running instance of an application. Some used DDE, others mutexs but what struck me as the easiest suggestion was to use a 'shared section' to store a flag - accessable by every instance.

The following class uses that technique, along with a couple of the 'interlocked' functions to make it threadsafe. Instead of a simple flag, a count of running instances is kept. The count obtained by the class is only a snapshot.

To use the class simply create a static instance of it. Then check the 'Count()' method to determine how many instances of your application where running before the CPreviousInstance object was instantiated.

Code tested on WinNT 4.0 spk 4 VC6.0 spk 2

// CPreviousInstance.h

class CPreviousInstance  
{
public:
	CPreviousInstance();
	virtual ~CPreviousInstance();

	LONG Count() const
	{
		return m_previous;
	}

private:
	static LONG		s_count;
	LONG			m_previous;

	CPreviousInstance(const CPreviousInstance&);
	CPreviousInstance& operator=(const CPreviousInstance&);
};

// CPreviousInstance.cpp

// static instance count stored in a shared read/write section

#pragma data_seg("Instance")

LONG  CPreviousInstance::s_count = 0;

#pragma data_seg()
#pragma comment(linker,"/section:Instance,rws")


// Construction/Destruction

CPreviousInstance::CPreviousInstance():
m_previous(0)
{
	m_previous = ::InterlockedIncrement(&s_count);
	--m_previous;
}

CPreviousInstance::~CPreviousInstance()
{
	::InterlockedDecrement(&s_count);
}




Comments

  • Even Jeffrey Richter did neglect the crash bug.

    Posted by Legacy on 10/17/2000 12:00am

    Originally posted by: Franz

    I saw Mike Junkin's proposal in a slightly different coding published in Jeffrey Richter's Advanced Windows, an even an expert like him did not point out that this method fails when one of the instances crashes.

    This proofs to me how much source code may exist which holds 'logical' bugs and un-thought possibilities.

    Reply
  • What about a crash

    Posted by Legacy on 03/15/1999 12:00am

    Originally posted by: Mike

    Some of the other methods allow the system to handle a crash. Wouldn't your count be incorrect if one of the instances would take a dive?

    Reply
Leave a Comment
  • Your email address will not be published. All fields are required.

Top White Papers and Webcasts

  • Live Event Date: February 11, 2015 @ 1:00 p.m. ET / 10:00 a.m. PT New computing platforms, expanding information environments, recurrent security breaches and evolving regulatory frameworks are factors that security executives must contend with and address when developing their security strategy. In response to these dynamics, security executives are seeking stronger, more nimble and more pervasive security technologies to help protect business-critical information from unauthorized disclosure, loss or …

  • Today's agile organizations pose operations teams with a tremendous challenge: to deploy new releases to production immediately after development and testing is completed. To ensure that applications are deployed successfully, an automatic and transparent process is required. We refer to this process as Zero Touch Deployment™. This white paper reviews two approaches to Zero Touch Deployment--a script-based solution and a release automation platform. The article discusses how each can solve the key …

Most Popular Programming Stories

More for Developers

RSS Feeds

Thanks for your registration, follow us on our social networks to keep up-to-date