Related
I have created a Singleton class that handles my project texts. What is the appropriate name of a Singleton class like this?
TextManager?
TextHandler?
TextController?
Is there a difference in meaning of these names?
UPDATE:
The class stores the project text as xml and have a method for returning the correct text.
function getText(uid : String) : String
I suppose it doesn't deal with adding/removing/... (-> managing) the texts (maybe just loading), so it isn't a "real" Manager.
It also doesn't "control" the texts (something "You're only accessible from ...", "Return another value for that key if ...").
The class provides you with texts.
I suppose it's some Kind of localized text provider, right?
So why don't you call it LocalizedTextProvider?
I usually call something like this
TextUtility
or
TextHelper
the problem with 'handler' is that it implies some sort of event handling. Same thing with 'Controller', it has meaning in a different context.
I believe Controller is 'reserved' for the MVC model but I may be wrong. TextHandler and TextManager may be better but at least at the place I work, 'Manager' in a service/class is generally discouraged since it is assumed that every class 'manages' something (this may just be culture-specific, though).
I'd vote for TextHandler out of those three. It may also depend slightly on your programming language.
This actually sounds like a service or repository to me...
TextService or TextRepository? TextModel?
But let me back up a bit... the Singleton pattern is a pretty bad way of accessing something like this. Just google "Singleton pattern problems" if you want to see what I am talking about. Plus, in AS3, you don't have private constructors so you can't implement the Singleton pattern in a pure way.
Instead, I really prefer composition via "Inversion of Control" (IoC) containers. There are plenty of them out there for ActionScript. They can be really lightweight but they decouple your components in a really elegant way.
Sorry to inject my thoughts here... ymmv :)
EDIT -- More on eliminating Singleton pattern
I have written about several strategies on eliminating singletons in your code. This article was written for C#, but all the same principles apply. In that article, I DON't talk explicitly about IoC containers.
Here is a pretty good article about IoC in Flex. In addition, several frameworks give you IoC capabilities:
Swiz
Robot Legs
fling
Cairngorm
flex-ioc
All three of the names you proposed can all be interpreted in the same way. Some people prefer handlers while others might say controllers... it really is a matter of semantics. Whatever convention you choose to adopt just be consistent. The common notion that you should capture though is that the class which you are describing is not doing anything. It should only be in charge of delegating, since that's what managers do to employees and controllers do in the classic MVC paradigm.
As I usually have Handler in the event/message handling context. Controller for actions and MVC stuff, I would go with something different:
TextResources.get(key)
I18n.get(key) (if your class is in fact used for internationalisation)
I usually reserve Helpers for classes allowing to simply transform some data into something to be used in the view.
TextCache? Sounds like you are just using it to store and retrieve data...
Why not : ProjectNameTexts
FooTexts.getInstance().getText('hello_world');
During coding I frequently encounter this situation:
I have several objects (ConcreteType1, ConcreteType2, ...) with the same base type AbstractType, which has abstract methods save and load . Each object can (and has to) save some specific kind of data, by overriding the save method.
I have a list of AbstractType objects which contains various ConcreteTypeX objects.
I walk the list and the save method for each object.
At this point I think it's a good OO design. (Or am I wrong?) The problems start when I want to reload the data:
Each object can load its own data, but I have to know the concrete type in advance, so I can instantiate the right ConcreteTypeX and call the load method. So the loading method has to know a great deal about the concrete types. I usually "solved" this problem by writing some kind of marker before calling save, which is used by the loader to determine the right ConcreteTypeX.
I always had/have a bad feeling about this. It feels like some kind of anti-pattern...
Are there better ways?
EDIT:
I'm sorry for the confusion, I re-wrote some of the text.
I'm aware of serialization and perhaps there is some next-to-perfect solution in Java/.NET/yourFavoriteLanguage, but I'm searching for a general solution, which might be better and more "OOP-ish" compared to my concept.
Is this either .NET or Java? If so, why aren't you using serialisation?
If you can't simply use serialization, then I would still definitely pull the object loading logic out of the base class. Your instinct is correct, leading you to correctly identify a code smell. The base class shouldn't need to change when you change or add derived classes.
The problem is, something has to load the data and instantiate those objects. This sounds like a job for the Abstract Factory pattern.
There are better ways, but let's take a step back and look at it conceptually. What are all objects doing? Loading and Saving. When you get the object from memory, you really don't to have to care whether it gets its information from a file, a database, or the windows registry. You just want the object loaded. That's important to remember because later on, your maintanence programmer will look at the LoadFromFile() method and wonder, "Why is it called that since it really doesn't load anything from a file?"
Secondly, you're running into the issue that we all run into, and it's based in dividing work. You want a level that handles getting data from a physical source; you want a level that manipulates this data, and you want a level that displays this data. This is the crux of N-Tier Development. I've linked to an article that discusses your problem in great detail, and details how to create a Data Access Layer to resolve your issue. There are also numerous code projects here and here.
If it's Java you seek, simply substitute 'java' for .NET and search for 'Java N-Tier development'. However, besides syntactical differences, the design structure is the same.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
One of the biggest advantages of object-oriented programming is encapsulation, and one of the "truths" we've (or, at least, I've) been taught is that members should always be made private and made available via accessor and mutator methods, thus ensuring the ability to verify and validate the changes.
I'm curious, though, how important this really is in practice. In particular, if you've got a more complicated member (such as a collection), it can be very tempting to just make it public rather than make a bunch of methods to get the collection's keys, add/remove items from the collection, etc.
Do you follow the rule in general? Does your answer change depending on whether it's code written for yourself vs. to be used by others? Are there more subtle reasons I'm missing for this obfuscation?
It depends. This is one of those issues that must be decided pragmatically.
Suppose I had a class for representing a point. I could have getters and setters for the X and Y coordinates, or I could just make them both public and allow free read/write access to the data. In my opinion, this is OK because the class is acting like a glorified struct - a data collection with maybe some useful functions attached.
However, there are plenty of circumstances where you do not want to provide full access to your internal data and rely on the methods provided by the class to interact with the object. An example would be an HTTP request and response. In this case it's a bad idea to allow anybody to send anything over the wire - it must be processed and formatted by the class methods. In this case, the class is conceived of as an actual object and not a simple data store.
It really comes down to whether or not verbs (methods) drive the structure or if the data does.
As someone having to maintain several-year-old code worked on by many people in the past, it's very clear to me that if a member attribute is made public, it is eventually abused. I've even heard people disagreeing with the idea of accessors and mutators, as that's still not really living up to the purpose of encapsulation, which is "hiding the inner workings of a class". It's obviously a controversial topic, but my opinion would be "make every member variable private, think primarily about what the class has got to do (methods) rather than how you're going to let people change internal variables".
Yes, encapsulation matters. Exposing the underlying implementation does (at least) two things wrong:
Mixes up responsibilities. Callers shouldn't need or want to understand the underlying implementation. They should just want the class to do its job. By exposing the underlying implementation, you're class isn't doing its job. Instead, it's just pushing the responsibility onto the caller.
Ties you to the underlying implementation. Once you expose the underlying implementation, you're tied to it. If you tell callers, e.g., there's a collection underneath, you cannot easily swap the collection for a new implementation.
These (and other) problems apply regardless of whether you give direct access to the underlying implementation or just duplicate all the underlying methods. You should be exposing the necessary implementation, and nothing more. Keeping the implementation private makes the overall system more maintainable.
I prefer to keep members private as long as possible and only access em via getters, even from within the very same class. I also try to avoid setters as a first draft to promote value style objects as long as it is possible. Working with dependency injection a lot you often have setters but no getters, as clients should be able to configure the object but (others) not get to know what's acutally configured as this is an implementation detail.
Regards,
Ollie
I tend to follow the rule pretty strictly, even when it's just my own code. I really like Properties in C# for that reason. It makes it really easy to control what values it's given, but you can still use them as variables. Or make the set private and the get public, etc.
Basically, information hiding is about code clarity. It's designed to make it easier for someone else to extend your code, and prevent them from accidentally creating bugs when they work with the internal data of your classes. It's based on the principle that nobody ever reads comments, especially ones with instructions in them.
Example: I'm writing code that updates a variable, and I need to make absolutely sure that the Gui changes to reflect the change, the easiest way is to add an accessor method (aka a "Setter"), which is called instead of updating data is updated.
If I make that data public, and something changes the variable without going through the Setter method (and this happens every swear-word time), then someone will need to spend an hour debugging to find out why the updates aren't being displayed. The same applies, to a lesser extent, to "Getting" data. I could put a comment in the header file, but odds are that no-one will read it till something goes terribly, terribly wrong. Enforcing it with private means that the mistake can't be made, because it'll show up as an easily located compile-time bug, rather than a run-time bug.
From experience, the only times you'd want to make a member variable public, and leave out Getter and Setter methods, is if you want to make it absolutely clear that changing it will have no side effects; especially if the data structure is simple, like a class that simply holds two variables as a pair.
This should be a fairly rare occurence, as normally you'd want side effects, and if the data structure you're creating is so simple that you don't (e.g a pairing), there will already be a more efficiently written one available in a Standard Library.
With that said, for most small programs that are one-use no-extension, like the ones you get at university, it's more "good practice" than anything, because you'll remember over the course of writing them, and then you'll hand them in and never touch the code again. Also, if you're writing a data structure as a way of finding out about how they store data rather than as release code, then there's a good argument that Getters and Setters will not help, and will get in the way of the learning experience.
It's only when you get to the workplace or a large project, where the probability is that your code will be called to by objects and structures written by different people, that it becomes vital to make these "reminders" strong. Whether or not it's a single man project is surprisingly irrelevant, for the simple reason that "you six weeks from now" is as different person as a co-worker. And "me six weeks ago" often turns out to be lazy.
A final point is that some people are pretty zealous about information hiding, and will get annoyed if your data is unnecessarily public. It's best to humour them.
C# Properties 'simulate' public fields. Looks pretty cool and the syntax really speeds up creating those get/set methods
Keep in mind the semantics of invoking methods on an object. A method invocation is a very high level abstraction that can be implemented my the compiler or the run time system in a variety of different ways.
If the object who's method you are invoking exists in the same process/ memory map then a method could well be optimized by a compiler or VM to directly access the data member. On the other hand if the object lives on another node in a distributed system then there is no way that you can directly access it's internal data members, but you can still invoke its methods my sending it a message.
By coding to interfaces you can write code that doesn't care where the target object exists or how it's methods are invoked or even if it's written in the same language.
In your example of an object that implements all the methods of a collection, then surely that object actually is a collection. so maybe this would be a case where inheritance would be better than encapsulation.
It's all about controlling what people can do with what you give them. The more controlling you are the more assumptions you can make.
Also, theorectically you can change the underlying implementation or something, but since for the most part it's:
private Foo foo;
public Foo getFoo() {}
public void setFoo(Foo foo) {}
It's a little hard to justify.
Encapsulation is important when at least one of these holds:
Anyone but you is going to use your class (or they'll break your invariants because they don't read the documentation).
Anyone who doesn't read the documentation is going to use your class (or they'll break your carefully documented invariants). Note that this category includes you-two-years-from-now.
At some point in the future someone is going to inherit from your class (because maybe an extra action needs to be taken when the value of a field changes, so there has to be a setter).
If it is just for me, and used in few places, and I'm not going to inherit from it, and changing fields will not invalidate any invariants that the class assumes, only then I will occasionally make a field public.
My tendency is to try to make everything private if possible. This keeps object boundaries as clearly defined as possible and keeps the objects as decoupled as possible. I like this because when I have to rewrite an object that I botched the first (second, fifth?) time, it keeps the damage contained to a smaller number of objects.
If you couple the objects tightly enough, it may be more straightforward just to combine them into one object. If you relax the coupling constraints enough you're back to structured programming.
It may be that if you find that a bunch of your objects are just accessor functions, you should rethink your object divisions. If you're not doing any actions on that data it may belong as a part of another object.
Of course, if you're writing a something like a library you want as clear and sharp of an interface as possible so others can program against it.
Fit the tool to the job... recently I saw some code like this in my current codebase:
private static class SomeSmallDataStructure {
public int someField;
public String someOtherField;
}
And then this class was used internally for easily passing around multiple data values. It doesn't always make sense, but if you have just DATA, with no methods, and you aren't exposing it to clients, I find it a quite useful pattern.
The most recent use I had of this was a JSP page where I had a table of data being displayed, defined at the top declaratively. So, initially it was in multiple arrays, one array per data field... this ended in the code being rather difficult to wade through with fields not being next to eachother in definition that would be displayed together... so I created a simple class like above which would pull it together... the result was REALLY readable code, a lot more so than before.
Moral... sometimes you should consider "accepted bad" alternatives if they may make the code simpler and easier to read, as long as you think it through and consider the consequences... don't blindly accept EVERYTHING you hear.
That said... public getters and setters is pretty much equivalent to public fields... at least essentially (there is a tad more flexibility, but it is still a bad pattern to apply to EVERY field you have).
Even the java standard libraries has some cases of public fields.
When I make objects meaningful they are easier to use and easier to maintain.
For example: Person.Hand.Grab(howquick, howmuch);
The trick is not to think of members as simple values but objects in themselves.
I would argue that this question does mix-up the concept of encapsulation with 'information hiding'
(this is not a critic, since it does seem to match a common interpretation of the notion of 'encapsulation')
However for me, 'encapsulation' is either:
the process of regrouping several items into a container
the container itself regrouping the items
Suppose you are designing a tax payer system. For each tax payer, you could encapsulate the notion of child into
a list of children representing the children
a map of to takes into account children from different parents
an object Children (not Child) which would provide the needed information (like total number of children)
Here you have three different kinds of encapsulations, 2 represented by low-level container (list or map), one represented by an object.
By making those decisions, you do not
make that encapsulation public or protected or private: that choice of 'information hiding' is still to be made
make a complete abstraction (you need to refine the attributes of object Children and you may decide to create an object Child, which would keep only the relevant informations from the point of view of a tax payer system)
Abstraction is the process of choosing which attributes of the object are relevant to your system, and which must be completely ignored.
So my point is:
That question may been titled:
Private vs. Public members in practice (how important is information hiding?)
Just my 2 cents, though. I perfectly respect that one may consider encapsulation as a process including 'information hiding' decision.
However, I always try to differentiate 'abstraction' - 'encapsulation' - 'information hiding or visibility'.
#VonC
You might find the International Organisation for Standardization's, "Reference Model of Open Distributed Processing," an interesting read. It defines: "Encapsulation: the property that the information contained in an object is accessible only through interactions at the interfaces supported by the object."
I tried to make a case for information hiding's being a critical part of this definition here:
http://www.edmundkirwan.com/encap/s2.html
Regards,
Ed.
I find lots of getters and setters to be a code smell that the structure of the program is not designed well. You should look at the code that uses those getters and setters, and look for functionality that really should be part of the class. In most cases, the fields of a class should be private implementation details and only the methods of that class may manipulate them.
Having both getters and setters is equal to the field being public (when the getters and setters are trivial/generated automatically). Sometimes it might be better to just declare the fields public, so that the code will be more simple, unless you need polymorphism or a framework requires get/set methods (and you can't change the framework).
But there are also cases where having getters and setters is a good pattern. One example:
When I create the GUI of an application, I try to keep the behaviour of the GUI in one class (FooModel) so that it can be unit tested easily, and have the visualization of the GUI in another class (FooView) which can be tested only manually. The view and model are joined with simple glue code; when the user changes the value of field x, the view calls setX(String) on the model, which in turn may raise an event that some other part of the model has changed, and the view will get the updated values from the model with getters.
In one project, there is a GUI model which has 15 getters and setters, of which only 3 get methods are trivial (such that the IDE could generate them). All the others contain some functionality or non-trivial expressions, such as the following:
public boolean isEmployeeStatusEnabled() {
return pinCodeValidation.equals(PinCodeValidation.VALID);
}
public EmployeeStatus getEmployeeStatus() {
Employee employee;
if (isEmployeeStatusEnabled()
&& (employee = getSelectedEmployee()) != null) {
return employee.getStatus();
}
return null;
}
public void setEmployeeStatus(EmployeeStatus status) {
getSelectedEmployee().changeStatusTo(status, getPinCode());
fireComponentStateChanged();
}
In practice I always follow only one rule, the "no size fits all" rule.
Encapsulation and its importance is a product of your project. What object will be accessing your interface, how will they be using it, will it matter if they have unneeded access rights to members? those questions and the likes of them you need to ask yourself when working on each project implementation.
I base my decision on the Code's depth within a module.
If I'm writting code that is internal to a module, and does not interface with the outside world I don't encapsulate things with private as much because it affects my programmer performance (how fast I can write and rewrite my code).
But for the objects that server as the module's interface with user code, then I adhere to strict privacy patterns.
Certainly it makes a difference whether your writing internal code or code to be used by someone else (or even by yourself, but as a contained unit.) Any code that is going to be used externally should have a well defined/documented interface that you'll want to change as little as possible.
For internal code, depending on the difficulty, you may find it's less work to do things the simple way now, and pay a little penalty later. Of course Murphy's law will ensure that the short term gain will be erased many times over in having to make wide-ranging changes later on where you needed to change a class' internals that you failed to encapsulate.
Specifically to your example of using a collection that you would return, it seems possible that the implementation of such a collection might change (unlike simpler member variables) making the utility of encapsulation higher.
That being said, I kinda like Python's way of dealing with it. Member variables are public by default. If you want to hide them or add validation there are techniques provided, but those are considered the special cases.
I follow the rules on this almost all the time. There are four scenarios for me - basically, the rule itself and several exceptions (all Java-influenced):
Usable by anything outside of the current class, accessed via getters/setters
Internal-to-class usage typically preceded by 'this' to make it clear that it's not a method parameter
Something meant to stay extremely small, like a transport object - basically a straight shot of attributes; all public
Needed to be non-private for extension of some sort
There's a practical concern here that isn't being addressed by most of the existing answers. Encapsulation and the exposure of clean, safe interfaces to outside code is always great, but it's much more important when the code you're writing is intended to be consumed by a spatially- and/or temporally-large "user" base. What I mean is that if you plan on somebody (even you) maintaining the code well into the future, or if you're writing a module that will interface with code from more than a handful of other developers, you need to think much more carefully than if you're writing code that's either one-off or wholly written by you.
Honestly, I know what wretched software engineering practice this is, but I'll oftentimes make everything public at first, which makes things marginally faster to remember and type, then add encapsulation as it makes sense. Refactoring tools in most popular IDEs these days makes which approach you use (adding encapsulation vs. taking it away) much less relevant than it used to be.
Here is a problem I've struggled with ever since I first started learning object-oriented programming: how should one implement a logger in "proper" OOP code?
By this, I mean an object that has a method that we want every other object in the code to be able to access; this method would output to console/file/whatever, which we would use for logging--hence, this object would be the logger object.
We don't want to establish the logger object as a global variable, because global variables are bad, right? But we also don't want to have the pass the logger object in the parameters of every single method we call in every single object.
In college, when I brought this up to the professor, he couldn't actually give me an answer. I realize that there are actually packages (for say, Java) that might implement this functionality. What I am ultimately looking for, though, is the knowledge of how to properly and in the OOP way implement this myself.
You do want to establish the logger as a global variable, because global variables are not bad. At least, they aren't inherently bad. A logger is a great example of the proper use of a globally accessible object. Read about the Singleton design pattern if you want more information.
There are some very well thought out solutions. Some involve bypassing OO and using another mechanism (AOP).
Logging doesn't really lend itself too well to OO (which is okay, not everything does). If you have to implement it yourself, I suggest just instantiating "Log" at the top of each class:
private final log=new Log(this);
and all your logging calls are then trivial: log.print("Hey");
Which makes it much easier to use than a singleton.
Have your logger figure out what class you are passing in and use that to annotate the log. Since you then have an instance of log, you can then do things like:
log.addTag("Bill");
And log can add the tag bill to each entry so that you can implement better filtering for your display.
log4j and chainsaw are a perfect out of the box solution though--if you aren't just being academic, use those.
A globally accessible logger is a pain for testing. If you need a "centralized" logging facility create it on program startup and inject it into the classes/methods that need logging.
How do you test methods that use something like this:
public class MyLogger
{
public static void Log(String Message) {}
}
How do you replace it with a mock?
Better:
public interface ILog
{
void Log(String message);
}
public class MyLog : ILog
{
public void Log(String message) {}
}
I've always used the Singleton pattern to implement a logging object.
You could look at the Singleton pattern.
Create the logger as a singleton class and then access it using a static method.
I think you should use AOP (aspect-oriented programming) for this, rather than OOP.
In practice a singleton / global method works fine, in my opinion. Preferably the global thing is just a framework to which you can connect different listeners (observer pattern), e.g. one for console output, one for database output, one for Windows EventLog output, etc.
Beware for overdesign though, I find that in practice a single class with just global methods can work quite nicely.
Or you could use the infrastructure the particular framework you work in offers.
The Enterprise Library Logging Application Block that comes from Microsoft's Pattern & Practices group is a great example of implementing a logging framework in an OOP environment. They have some great documentation on how they have implemented their logging application block and all the source code is available for your own review or modification.
There are other similar implementations: log4net, log4j, log4cxx
They way they have implemented the Enterprise Library Logging Application Block is to have a static Logger class with a number of different methods that actually perform the log operation. If you were looking at patterns this would probably be one of the better uses of the Singleton pattern.
I am all for AOP together with log4*. This really helped us.
Google gave me this article for instance. You can try to search more on that subject.
(IMHO) how 'logging' happens isn't part of your solution design, it's more part of whatever environment you happen to be running in - like System and Calendar in Java.
Your 'good' solution is one that is as loosely coupled to any particular logging implementation as possible so think interfaces. I'd check out the trail here for an example of how Sun tackled it as they probably came up with a pretty good design and laid it all out for you to learn from!
use a static class, it has the least overhead and is accessible from all project types within a simple assembly reference
note that a Singleton is equivalent, but involves unnecessary allocation
if you are using multiple app domains, beware that you may need a proxy object to access the static class from domains other than the main one
also if you have multiple threads you may need to lock around the logging functions to avoid interlacing the output
IMHO logging alone is insufficient, that's why I wrote CALM
good luck!
Maybe inserting Logging in a transparent way would rather belong in the Aspect Oriented Programming idiom. But we're talking OO design here...
The Singleton pattern may be the most useful, in my opinion: you can access the Logging service from any context through a public, static method of a LoggingService class.
Though this may seem a lot like a global variable, it is not: it's properly encapsulated within the singleton class, and not everyone has access to it. This enables you to change the way logging is handled even at runtime, but protects the working of the logging from 'vilain' code.
In the system I work on, we create a number of Logging 'singletons', in order to be able to distinguish messages from different subsystems. These can be switched on/off at runtime, filters can be defined, writing to file is possible... you name it.
I've solved this in the past by adding an instance of a logging class to the base class(es) (or interface, if the language supports that) for the classes that need to access logging. When you log something, the logger looks at the current call stack and determines the invoking code from that, setting the proper metadata about the logging statement (source method, line of code if available, class that logged, etc.) This way a minimal number of classes have loggers, and the loggers don't need to be specifically configured with the metadata that can be determined automatically.
This does add considerable overhead, so it is not necessarily a wise choice for production logging, but aspects of the logger can be disabled conditionally if you design it in such a way.
Realistically, I use commons-logging most of the time (I do a lot of work in java), but there are aspects of the design I described above that I find beneficial. The benefits of having a robust logging system that someone else has already spent significant time debugging has outweighed the need for what could be considered a cleaner design (that's obviously subjective, especially given the lack of detail in this post).
I have had issues with static loggers causing permgen memory issues (at least, I think that's what the problem is), so I'll probably be revisiting loggers soon.
To avoid global variables, I propose to create a global REGISTRY and register your globals there.
For logging, I prefer to provide a singleton class or a class which provides some static methods for logging.
Actually, I'd use one of the existing logging frameworks.
One other possible solution is to have a Log class which encapsulates the logging/stored procedure. That way you can just instantiate a new Log(); whenever you need it without having to use a singleton.
This is my preferred solution, because the only dependency you need to inject is the database if you're logging via database. If you're using files potentially you don't need to inject any dependencies. You can also entirely avoid a global or static logging class/function.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Singletons are a hotly debated design pattern, so I am interested in what the Stack Overflow community thought about them.
Please provide reasons for your opinions, not just "Singletons are for lazy programmers!"
Here is a fairly good article on the issue, although it is against the use of Singletons:
scientificninja.com: performant-singletons.
Does anyone have any other good articles on them? Maybe in support of Singletons?
In defense of singletons:
They are not as bad as globals because globals have no standard-enforced initialization order, and you could easily see nondeterministic bugs due to naive or unexpected dependency orders. Singletons (assuming they're allocated on the heap) are created after all globals, and in a very predictable place in the code.
They're very useful for resource-lazy / -caching systems such as an interface to a slow I/O device. If you intelligently build a singleton interface to a slow device, and no one ever calls it, you won't waste any time. If another piece of code calls it from multiple places, your singleton can optimize caching for both simultaneously, and avoid any double look-ups. You can also easily avoid any deadlock condition on the singleton-controlled resource.
Against singletons:
In C++, there's no nice way to auto-clean-up after singletons. There are work-arounds, and slightly hacky ways to do it, but there's just no simple, universal way to make sure your singleton's destructor is always called. This isn't so terrible memory-wise -- just think of it as more global variables, for this purpose. But it can be bad if your singleton allocates other resources (e.g. locks some files) and doesn't release them.
My own opinion:
I use singletons, but avoid them if there's a reasonable alternative. This has worked well for me so far, and I have found them to be testable, although slightly more work to test.
Google has a Singleton Detector for Java that I believe started out as a tool that must be run on all code produced at Google. The nutshell reason to remove Singletons:
because they can make testing
difficult and hide problems with your
design
For a more explicit explanation see 'Why Singletons Are Controversial' from Google.
A singleton is just a bunch of global variables in a fancy dress.
Global variables have their uses, as do singletons, but if you think you're doing something cool and useful with a singleton instead of using a yucky global variable (everyone knows globals are bad mmkay), you're unfortunately misled.
The purpose of a Singleton is to ensure a class has only one instance, and provide a global point of access to it. Most of the time the focus is on the single instance point. Imagine if it were called a Globalton. It would sound less appealing as this emphasizes the (usually) negative connotations of a global variable.
Most of the good arguments against singletons have to do with the difficulty they present in testing as creating test doubles for them is not easy.
There's three pretty good blog posts about Singletons by Miško Hevery in the Google Testing blog.
Singletons are Pathological Liars
Where Have All the Singletons Gone?
Root Cause of Singletons
Singleton is not a horrible pattern, although it is misused a lot. I think this misuse is because it is one of the easier patterns and most new to the singleton are attracted to the global side effect.
Erich Gamma had said the singleton is a pattern he wishes wasn't included in the GOF book and it's a bad design. I tend to disagree.
If the pattern is used in order to create a single instance of an object at any given time then the pattern is being used correctly. If the singleton is used in order to give a global effect, it is being used incorrectly.
Disadvantages:
You are coupling to one class throughout the code that calls the singleton
Creates a hassle with unit testing because it is difficult to replace the instance with a mock object
If the code needs to be refactored later on because of the need for more than one instance, it is more painful than if the singleton class were passed into the object (using an interface) that uses it
Advantages:
One instance of a class is represented at any given point in time.
By design you are enforcing this
Instance is created when it is needed
Global access is a side effect
Chicks dig me because I rarely use singleton and when I do it's typically something unusual. No, seriously, I love the singleton pattern. You know why? Because:
I'm lazy.
Nothing can go wrong.
Sure, the "experts" will throw around a bunch of talk about "unit testing" and "dependency injection" but that's all a load of dingo's kidneys. You say the singleton is hard to unit test? No problem! Just declare everything public and turn your class into a fun house of global goodness. You remember the show Highlander from the 1990's? The singleton is kind of like that because: A. It can never die; and B. There can be only one. So stop listening to all those DI weenies and implement your singleton with abandon. Here are some more good reasons...
Everybody is doing it.
The singleton pattern makes you invincible.
Singleton rhymes with "win" (or "fun" depending on your accent).
I think there is a great misunderstanding about the use of the Singleton pattern. Most of the comments here refer to it as a place to access global data. We need to be careful here - Singleton as a pattern is not for accessing globals.
Singleton should be used to have only one instance of the given class. Pattern Repository has great information on Singleton.
One of the colleagues I have worked with was very Singleton-minded. Whenever there was something that was kind of a manager or boss like object he would make that into a singleton, because he figured that there should be only one boss. And each time the system took up some new requirements, it turned out there were perfectly valid reasons to allow multiple instances.
I would say that singleton should be used if the domain model dictates (not 'suggests') that there is one. All other cases are just accendentally single instances of a class.
I've been trying to think of a way to come to the poor singelton's rescue here, but I must admit it's hard. I've seen very few legitimate uses of them and with the current drive to do dependency injection andd unit testing they are just hard to use. They definetly are the "cargo cult" manifestation of programming with design patterns I have worked with many programmers that have never cracked the "GoF" book but they know 'Singelton' and thus they know 'Patterns'.
I do have to disagree with Orion though, most of the time I've seen singeltons oversused it's not global variables in a dress, but more like global services(methods) in a dress. It's interesting to note that if you try to use Singeltons in the SQL Server 2005 in safe mode through the CLR interface the system will flag the code. The problem is that you have persistent data beyond any given transaction that may run, of course if you make the instance variable read only you can get around the issue.
That issue lead to a lot of rework for me one year.
Holy wars! Ok let me see.. Last time I checked the design police said..
Singletons are bad because they hinder auto testing - instances cannot be created afresh for each test case.
Instead the logic should be in a class (A) that can be easily instantiated and tested. Another class (B) should be responsible for constraining creation. Single Responsibility Principle to the fore! It should be team-knowledge that you're supposed to go via B to access A - sort of a team convention.
I concur mostly..
Many applications require that there is only one instance of some class, so the pattern of having only one instance of a class is useful. But there are variations to how the pattern is implemented.
There is the static singleton, in which the class forces that there can only be one instance of the class per process (in Java actually one per ClassLoader). Another option is to create only one instance.
Static singletons are evil - one sort of global variables. They make testing harder, because it's not possible to execute the tests in full isolation. You need complicated setup and tear down code for cleaning the system between every test, and it's very easy to forget to clean some global state properly, which in turn may result in unspecified behaviour in tests.
Creating only one instance is good. You just create one instance when the programs starts, and then pass the pointer to that instance to all other objects which need it. Dependency injection frameworks make this easy - you just configure the scope of the object, and the DI framework will take care of creating the instance and passing it to all who need it. For example in Guice you would annotate the class with #Singleton, and the DI framework will create only one instance of the class (per application - you can have multiple applications running in the same JVM). This makes testing easy, because you can create a new instance of the class for each test, and let the garbage collector destroy the instance when it is no more used. No global state will leak from one test to another.
For more information:
The Clean Code Talks - "Global State and Singletons"
Singleton as an implementation detail is fine. Singleton as an interface or as an access mechanism is a giant PITA.
A static method that takes no parameters returning an instance of an object is only slightly different from just using a global variable. If instead an object has a reference to the singleton object passed in, either via constructor or other method, then it doesn't matter how the singleton is actually created and the whole pattern turns out not to matter.
It was not just a bunch of variables in a fancy dress because this was had dozens of responsibilities, like communicating with persistence layer to save/retrieve data about the company, deal with employees and prices collections, etc.
I must say you're not really describing somthing that should be a single object and it's debatable that any of them, other than Data Serialization should have been a singelton.
I can see at least 3 sets of classes that I would normally design in, but I tend to favor smaller simpler objects that do a narrow set of tasks very well. I know that this is not the nature of most programmers. (Yes I work on 5000 line class monstrosities every day, and I have a special love for the 1200 line methods some people write.)
I think the point is that in most cases you don't need a singelton and often your just making your life harder.
The biggest problem with singletons is that they make unit testing hard, particularly when you want to run your tests in parallel but independently.
The second is that people often believe that lazy initialisation with double-checked locking is a good way to implement them.
Finally, unless your singletons are immutable, then they can easily become a performance problem when you try and scale your application up to run in multiple threads on multiple processors. Contended synchronization is expensive in most environments.
Singletons have their uses, but one must be careful in using and exposing them, because they are way too easy to abuse, difficult to truly unit test, and it is easy to create circular dependencies based on two singletons that accesses each other.
It is helpful however, for when you want to be sure that all your data is synchronized across multiple instances, e.g., configurations for a distributed application, for instance, may rely on singletons to make sure that all connections use the same up-to-date set of data.
I find you have to be very careful about why you're deciding to use a singleton. As others have mentioned, it's essentially the same issue as using global variables. You must be very cautious and consider what you could be doing by using one.
It's very rare to use them and usually there is a better way to do things. I've run into situations where I've done something with a singleton and then had to sift through my code to take it out after I discovered how much worse it made things (or after I came up with a much better, more sane solution)
I've used singletons a bunch of times in conjunction with Spring and didn't consider it a crutch or lazy.
What this pattern allowed me to do was create a single class for a bunch of configuration-type values and then share the single (non-mutable) instance of that specific configuration instance between several users of my web application.
In my case, the singleton contained client configuration criteria - css file location, db connection criteria, feature sets, etc. - specific for that client. These classes were instantiated and accessed through Spring and shared by users with the same configuration (i.e. 2 users from the same company). * **I know there's a name for this type of application but it's escaping me*
I feel it would've been wasteful to create (then garbage collect) new instances of these "constant" objects for each user of the app.
I'm reading a lot about "Singleton", its problems, when to use it, etc., and these are my conclusions until now:
Confusion between the classic implementation of Singleton and the real requirement: TO HAVE JUST ONE INSTANCE OF a CLASS!
It's generally bad implemented. If you want a unique instance, don't use the (anti)pattern of using a static GetInstance() method returning a static object. This makes a class to be responsible for instantiating a single instance of itself and also perform logic. This breaks the Single Responsibility Principle. Instead, this should be implemented by a factory class with the responsibility of ensuring that only one instance exists.
It's used in constructors, because it's easy to use and must not be passed as a parameter. This should be resolved using dependency injection, that is a great pattern to achieve a good and testable object model.
Not TDD. If you do TDD, dependencies are extracted from the implementation because you want your tests to be easy to write. This makes your object model to be better. If you use TDD, you won't write a static GetInstance =). BTW, if you think in objects with clear responsibilities instead classes, you'll get the same effect =).
I really disagree on the bunch of global variables in a fancy dress idea. Singletons are really useful when used to solve the right problem. Let me give you a real example.
I once developed a small piece of software to a place I worked, and some forms had to use some info about the company, its employees, services and prices. At its first version, the system kept loading that data from the database every time a form was opened. Of course, I soon realized this approach was not the best one.
Then I created a singleton class, named company, which encapsulated everything about the place, and it was completely filled with data by the time the system was opened.
It was not just a bunch of variables in a fancy dress because this was had dozens of responsibilities, like communicating with persistence layer to save/retrieve data about the company, deal with employees and prices collections, etc.
Plus, it was a fixed, system-wide, easily accessible point to have the company data.
Singletons are very useful, and using them is not in and of itself an anti-pattern. However, they've gotten a bad reputation largely because they force any consuming code to acknowledge that they are a singleton in order to interact with them. That means if you ever need to "un-Singletonize" them, the impact on your codebase can be very significant.
Instead, I'd suggest either hiding the Singleton behind a factory. That way, if you need to alter the service's instantiation behavior in the future, you can just change the factory rather than all types that consume the Singleton.
Even better, use an inversion of control container! Most of them allow you to separate instantiation behavior from the implementation of your classes.
One scary thing on singletons in for instance Java is that you can end up with multiple instances of the same singleton in some cases. The JVM uniquely identifies based on two elements: A class' fully qualified name, and the classloader responsible for loading it.
That means the same class can be loaded by two classloaders unaware of each other, and different parts of your application would have different instances of this singleton that they interact with.
Write normal, testable, injectable objects and let Guice/Spring/whatever handle the instantiation. Seriously.
This applies even in the case of caches or whatever the natural use cases for singletons are. There's no need to repeat the horror of writing code to try to enforce one instance. Let your dependency injection framework handle it. (I recommend Guice for a lightweight DI container if you're not already using one).