Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 7 Next »

The Singleton Pattern is used to make sure only one object of a particular class is ever created. This can be useful when when exactly one object is needed to coordinate actions across a system; perhaps for efficiency where creating lots of identical objects would be wasteful, perhaps because a particular algorithm needing a single point of control is required or perhaps when an object is used to interact with a non-shareable resource.

Weaknesses of the Singleton pattern include:

  • It can reduce reuse. For instance, there are issues if you want to use inheritance with Singletons. If SingletonB extends SingletonA, should there be exactly (at most) one instance of each or should the creation of an object from one of the classes prohibit creation from the other. Also, if you decide both classes can have an instance, how do you override the getInstance() method which is static?
  • It is also hard to test singletons in general because of the static methods but Groovy can support that if required.

Example

Suppose we wish to create a class for collecting votes. Because getting the right number of votes may be very important, we decide to use the singleton pattern. There will only ever be one VoteCollector object, so it makes it easier for us to reason about that objects creation and use.

Some points of interest about this code:

  • it has a private constructor, so no VoteCollector objects can be created in our system (except for the INSTANCE we create)
  • the INSTANCE is also private, so it can't be changed once set
  • we haven't made the updating of votes thread-safe at this point (it doesn't add to this example)
  • the vote collector instance is not lazyily created (if we never reference the class, the instance won't be created; however, as soon as we reference the class, the instance will be created even if not needed initially)

We can use this singleton class in some script code as follows:

Here we used the instance 3 times. The second usage was even in a different thread (but don't try this in a scenario with a new class loader).

Running this script yields (your hashcode value will vary):

Variations to this pattern:

  • To support lazy-loading and multi-threading, we could just use the synchronized keyword with the getInstance() method. This has a performance hit but will work.
  • We can consider variations involving double-checked locking and the volatile keyword (for Java 5 and above), but see the limitations of this approach here.

Guice Example

We can also implement the Singleton Pattern using Guice. This example relies on annotations. Annotations are a Groovy 1.1 feature and will need to be run on a Java 5 or above JVM.

Suppose we want to keep track of the total number of calculations that a calculator performs. One way to do that is to use a singleton for the calculator class and keep a variable in the class with the count.

Guice is a Java-oriented framework that supports Interface-Oriented design. Hence we create a Calculator interface first. We can then create our CalculatorImpl implementation and a Client object which our script will interact with. The Client class isn't strictly needed for this example but allows us to show that non-singleton instances are the default. Here is the code:

Note the @Inject annotation in the Client class. We can always tell right in the source code which fields will be injected.

In this example we chose to use an explicit binding. All of our dependencies (ok, only one in this example at the moment) are configured in the binding. The Guide injector knows about the binding and injects the dependencies as required when we create objects. For the singleton pattern to hold, you must always use Guice to create your instances. Nothing shown so far would stop you creating another instance of the calculator manually using new CalculatorImpl() which would of course violate the desired singleton behaviour.

In other scenarios (though probably not in large systems), we could choose to express dependencies using annotations, such as the following example shows:

Note the @Singleton annotation on the CalculatorImpl class and the @ImplementedBy annotation in the Calculator interface.

When run, the above example (using either approach) yields (your hashcode values will vary):

You can see that we obtained a new client object whenever we asked for an instance but it was injected with the same calculator object.

  • No labels