In an interview I was told to write a Singleton class so I wrote the following code
object Ant{
}
but later he asked me to write Singleton instance which confused me and I ended up writing like this
object what{
}
now, I know I am wrong but I am really curious how to write down Singleton Instance.
please check my helper class, What I was using might be wrong so please correct me
class Helper{
companion object{
#Volatile
var INSTANCE : Helper? = null
fun getInstance(): Helper {
return INSTANCE?: synchronized(this){
val instance = Helper()
INSTANCE = instance
instance
}
}
}
}
and then I would create a variable like this val helper = Helper.getInstance() and use this object from then on, sometimes I declare them as global variables outside class to make it easier to access across the app
recently we have shifted to Koin so we just declare these classes as singleton by using #Single ksp annotation
It is hard to guess what an interviewer was asking about, after the event, but in your code above there is no instance of either Ant or What yet, only the object declaration. You would need to instantiate the object like:
val mySingleton = What
Object declarations are initialized lazily when first used
I think you were right!
In Kotlin, an object is a singleton: it defines a class, with exactly one instance. (That one instance is created automatically, and you can't create any others.) So if you need a singleton, that's the standard way to get it.
You could do something like:
class Ant private constructor() {
companion object {
val INSTANCE = Ant()
}
}
That's how you'd have to do it in Java: a private constructor and a single static instance. It may be that your interviewer was more familiar with Java, and was expecting you to do that — but that's absolutely pointless in Kotlin, because object does exactly the same, only more concisely (and with less opportunity for errors or race conditions or whatever).
If you were using a framework such as Spring, that provides other ways of creating single instances (e.g. with annotations such as #Component, #Bean, etc.) but those are specific to the framework, so you'd probably know if you needed anything like that.
Or your interviewer may have something else in mind — but in that case, he should have given you some hints; you're not a mind-reader!
The bottom line is that without any further information, object is the most obvious way to get a singleton, so from what you've posted, you were right.
Related
When reading about singletons, I have found this explanation as a reason to use singleton:
since these object methods are not changing the internal class state, we
can create this class as a singleton.
What does this really mean ? When you consider that some method is not changing internal class state ? If it is a getter ? Can someone provide code examples for class that uses methods that are not changing its internal state, and therefore can be used as a singleton, and class that should not be a singleton ?
Usually, when people are explaining singleton pattern, they use DB connection class as an example. And that makes sense to me, because I know that I want to have only one db connection during one application instance. But what if I want to provide an option to force using the new connection when I instantiate DB connection class? If I have some setter method, or constructor parameter that forces my class to open new connection, is that class still a subject to be a singleton ?
I am using PHP, but may understand examples written in JAVA, C#...
This is the article reference. You can ctrl+f search for "internal". Basically, autor is explaining why FileStorage class is a good candidate to be a singleton. I do not understand this sentance
"These operations do not change the internal class state, so we can
create its instance once and use it multiple times."
and therefore I do not understand when to use singletons.
In their example, they have some FileStorage class :
class FileStorage
{
public function __contruct($root) {
// whatever
}
public function read() {
// whatever
}
public function write($content) {
// whatever
}
}
And they say that this class can be a singleton since its methods read() and write() do not chage internal class structure. What does that mean ? They are not setters and class is automatically singleton ?
The quote reads:
These operations do not change the internal class state, so we can create its instance once and use it multiple times.
This means that the object in question has no interesting internal state that could be changed; it’s just a collection of methods (that could probably be static). If the object has no internal state, you don’t have to create multiple instances of it, you can keep reusing a single one. Therefore you can configure the dependency injection container to treat the object as a singleton.
This is a performance optimization only. You could create a fresh instance of the class each time it’s needed. And it would be better – until the object creation becomes a measurable bottleneck.
I have little doubt about adapter class. I know what's the goal of adapter class. And when should be used. My doubt is about class construction. I've checked some tutorials and all of them say that I should pass "Adaptee" class as a dependency to my "Adapter".
e.g.
Class SampleAdapter implements MyInterface
{
private AdapteeClass mInstance;
public SampleAdapter(AdapteeClass instance)
{
mInstance=instance;
}
}
This example is copied from wikipedia. As you can see AdapteeClass is passed to my object as dependency. The question is why? If I'm changing interface of an object It's obvious I'm going to use "new" interface and I won't need "old" one. Why I need to create instance of "old" class outside my adapter. Someone may say that I should use dependency injection so I can pass whatever I want, but this is adapter - I need to change interface of concrete class. Personally I think code bellow is better.
Class SampleAdapter implements MyInterface
{
private AdapteeClass mInstance;
public SampleAdapter()
{
mInstance= new AdapteeClass();
}
}
What is your opinion?
I would say that you should always avoid the new operator in a class when it comes to complex objects (except when the class is a Builder or Factory) to reduce coupling and make your code better testable. Off course objects like a List or Dictionary or value objects can be constructed inside a class method (which is probably the purpose of the class method!)
Lets say for example that your AdapteeClass is a Remote Proxy. If you want to use Unit Testing, your unit tests will have to use the real proxy class because there is no way to replace it in your unit tests.
If you use the first approach, you can easily inject a mock or fake into the constructor when running your unit test so you can test all code paths.
Google has a guide on writing testable code which describes this in more detail but some important points are:
Warning Signs for not testable code
new keyword in a constructor or at field declaration
Static method calls in a constructor or at field declaration
Anything more than field assignment in constructors
Object not fully initialized after the constructor finishes (watch out for initialize methods)
Control flow (conditional or looping logic) in a constructor
Code does complex object graph construction inside a constructor rather than using a factory or builder
Adding or using an initialization block
AdapteeClass can have one or more non-trivial constructors. In this case you'll need to duplicate all of them in your SampleAdapter constructor to have the same flexibility. Passing already constructed object is simpler.
I think creating the Adaptee inside the Adapter is limiting. What if some day you want to adapt a pre-existing instance?
To be honest though, I'd do both if at all possible.
Class SampleAdapter implements MyInterface
{
private AdapteeClass mInstance;
public SampleAdapter()
: base (new AdapteeClass())
{
}
public SampleAdapter(AdapteeClass instance)
{
mInstance=instance;
}
}
Let's assume you have an external hard drive with a regular USB port and you are trying to hook it up with a Mac which only has type-c ports. Yes, you can buy a new drive which has a type-c port but what about the data in it?
It's the same for the adapter pattern. There're times you initialize AdapteeClass with tons of flavors. When you do the conversion, you want to keep all the context.
I often use a pattern where I have a static member function in a class which instantiates object of itself, uses it, and destroys it.
Is this a good pattern? I think so. Does the pattern have a name?
I guess it's sort of a combination of Singleton and Factory method patterns. "Singletory" maybe?
The pattern is called 'Factory method'.
I often use this pattern, if using a factory class is a bit overkill, and when creating an instance of the class is a bit cumbersome (some initialization that has to be done for instance on other objects), or, when you want to have an easy way of creating different types of instances of that class.
are you saying you are doing this
class MyClass {
static void util(){
obj = new MyClass();
obj.InstanceMem();
obj.destroy();
}
void InstanceMem(){}
}
i see this more of a utility method.
well if you think it solves a common reoccurring problem then it may be called as a pattern.
I'm reading about constructors,
When an object is instantiated for a class, c'tors (if explicitly written or a default one) are the starting points for execution. My doubts are
is a c'tor more like the main() in
C
Yes i understand the point that you
can set all the default values using
c'tor. I can also emulate the behavior
by writing a custom method. Then why a c'tor?
Example:
//The code below is written in C#.
public class Manipulate
{
public static int Main(string[] args) {
Provide provide = new Provide();
provide.Number(8);
provide.Square();
Console.ReadKey();
return 0;
}
}
public class Provide {
uint num;
public void Number(uint number)
{
num = number;
}
public void Square()
{
num *= num;
Console.WriteLine("{0}", num);
}
}
Am learning to program independently, so I'm depending on programming communities, can you also suggest me a good OOP's resource to get a better understanding. If am off topic please excuse me.
Head First OOA&D will be a good start.
Dont you feel calling a function for setting each and every member variable of your class is a bit overhead.
With a constructor you can initialize all your member variables at one go. Isnt this reason enough for you to have constructors.
Constructor and Destructor functionality may be emulated using regular methods. However, what makes those two type of methods unique is that the language treats them in a special way.
They are automatically called when an object is created or destroyed. This presents a uniform means to handle the most delicate operations that must take place during those two critical periods of an object's lifetime. It takes out the possibility of an end user of a class forgetting to call those at the appropriate times.
Furthermore, advanced OO features such as inheritance require that uniformity to even work.
First of all, most answers will depend at least a bit on the language you're using. Reasons that make great sense in one language don't necessarily have direct analogs in other languages. Just for example, in C++ there are quite a few situations where temporary objects are created automatically. The ctor is invoked as part of that process, but for most practical purposes it's impossible to explicitly invoke other member functions in the process. That doesn't necessarily apply to other OO languages though -- some won't create temporary objects implicitly at all.
Generally you should do all your initialization in the constructor. The constructor is the first thing called when an instance of your class is created, so you should setup any defaults here.
I think a good way to learn is comparing OOP between languages, it's like seeing the same picture from diferent angles.
Googling a while:
java (I prefer this, it's simple and full)- http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/concepts/
python - http://www.devshed.com/c/a/Python/Object-Oriented-Programming-With-Python-part-1/
c# - http://cplus.about.com/od/learnc/ss/csharpclasses.htm
Why constructors?
The main diference between a simple function (that also could have functions inside) and an Object, is the way that an Object can be hosted inside a "variable", with all it functions inside, and that also can react completly diferent to an other "variable" with the same kind of "object" inside. The way to make them have the same structure with diferent behaviours depends on the arguments you gave to the class.
So here's a lazy example:
car() is now a class.
c1 = car()
c2 = car()
¿c1 is exactly c2? Yes.
c1 = car(volkswagen)
c2 = car(lamborghini)
C1 has the same functionalities than C2, but they are completly diferent kinds of car()
Variables volkswagen and lamborghini were passed directly to the constructor.
Why a -constructor-? why not any other function? The answer is: order.
That's my best shot, man, for this late hours. I hope i've helped somehow.
You can't emulate the constructor in a custom method as the custom method is not called when the object is created. Only the constructor is called. Well, of course you can then call your custom method after you create the object, but this is not convention and other people using your object will not know to do this.
A constructor is just a convention that is agreed upon as a way to setup your object once it is created.
One of the reasons we need constructor is 'encapsulation',the code do something initialization must invisible
You also can't force the passing of variables without using a constructor. If you only want to instantiate an object if you have say an int to pass to it, you can set the default constructor as private, and make your constructor take an int. This way, it's impossible to create an object of that class without having it take an int.
Sub-objects will be initialized in the constructor. In languages like C++, where sub-objects exist within the containing object (instead of as separate objects connected via pointers or handles), the constructor is your only chance to pass parameters to sub-object constructors. Even in Java and C#, any base class is directly contained, so parameters to its constructor must be provided by your constructor.
Lastly, any constant (or in C#, readonly) member variables can only be set from the constructor. Even helper functions called from the constructor are unable to change them.
When I first started working with object-oriented programming languages, I was taught the following rule:
When declaring a field in a class, don't initialize it yet. Do that in the constructor.
An example in C#:
public class Test
{
private List<String> l;
public Test()
{
l = new List<String>();
}
}
But when someone recently asked me why to do that, I couldn't come up with a reason.
I'm not really familiar with the internal workings of C# (or other programming languages, for that matter, as I believe this can be done in all OO languages).
So why is this done? Is it security? Properties?
If you have multiple constructors, you might want to initialize a field to different values
When you initialize the field in the constructor, there can be no confusion over when exactly it is initialized in regard to the rest of the constructor. This may seem trivial with a single class, but not so much when you have an inheritance hierarchy with constructor code running at each level and accessing superclass fields.
The C# compiler will take any non-static member intialization that you do inline and move it into the constructor for you. In other words this:
class Test
{
Object o = new Object();
}
gets compiled to this:
class Test
{
Object o;
public Test()
{
this.o = new Object();
}
}
I am not sure how compilers for other languages handle this but as far as C# is concerned it is a matter of style and you are free to do whichever you wish. Please note that static fields are handled differently: read this article for more information on that.
One reason to do it is that it puts all of the initialization code in one place which is convenient for others reading your class. Having said this I don't really do it for two primary reasons. (1) I use TDD/Unit testing to define the behavior of my class. If you want to know what the parameterless constructor does, you should really read the tests I've built on the parameterless constructor. (2) With C# 3.0, I typically use automatic properties and inline initialization with a parameterless constructor to instantiate the object. This is much more flexible and it puts the definition of the properties right in line where the code is being used. This would override any initialization in the constructor so I rarely put any there. Of course, this only applies to C#.
Ex. (of 2)
var foo = new Foo { Bar = "baz" };
public class Foo
{
public string Bar { get; set; }
public Foo() { }
}
sometimes the constructor has parameters that are used for initializing internal variables. For example size of arrays
I haven't heard a compelling reason to not offer both options. I suspect that the real reason has to do with simplifying the language structure from a parsing perspective. This is especially true in C-derivative languages where parsing an assignment statement requires 75% of the language syntax rules. It seems to me that allowing it and defining how it would work precisely would be nice. I agree with Michael's comment about the complexity increase as you insert inheritance and multiple constructors but just because you add a feature doesn't mean that you have to use it. I would vote to support both even though my vote doesn't really add up to much.
I always like to think of the class as a factory for objects, and the constructor as the final stop on the production line. The fields declared in the class are blueprints descirbing the object, but the blueprint won't be realised into an object before such an object is ordered tthrough a call to the constructor... Also, as someone pointed out, doing all your initialisations in your constructor will improve readability, as well as it wil provide for dynamicity in initialisation (it might not be a parameterless constructor you're dealing with).
Also, in some languages the constructor may be used for resetting an object to an original state, which is why it will then be necessary to instatiate the object in the constructor.