My app contains several singletons (following from this tutorial). I've noticed however, when the app crashes because of a singleton, it becomes nearly impossible to figure out where it came from. The app breakpoints at the main function giving an EXEC_BAD_ACCESS even though the problem lies in one of the Singleton objects. Is there a guide to how would I debug my singleton objects if they were problematic?
if you don't want to change your design (as recommended in my other post), then consider the usual debugging facilities: assertions, unit tests, zombie tests, memory tests (GuardMalloc, scribbling), etc. this should identify the vast majority of issues one would encounter.
of course, you will have some restrictions regarding what you can and cannot do - notably regarding what cannot be tested independently using unit tests.
as well, reproducibility may be more difficult in some contexts when/if you are dealing with a complex global state because you have created several enforced singletons. when the global state is quite large and complex - testing these types independently may not be fruitful in all cases since the bug may appear only in a complex global state found in your app (when 4 singletons interact in a specific manner). if you have isolated the issue to interactions of multiple singleton instances (e.g. MONAudioFileCache and MONVideoCache), placing these objects in a container class will allow you to introduce coupling, which will help diagnose this. although increasing coupling is normally considered a bad thing; this does't really increase coupling (it already exists as components of the global state) but simply concentrates existing global state dependencies -- you're really not increasing it as much as you are concentrating it when the state of these singletons affect other components of the mutable global state.
if you still insist on using singletons, these may help:
either make them thread safe or add some assertions to verify mutations happen only on the main thread (for example). too many people assume an object with atomic properties implies the object is thread safe. that is false.
encapsulate your data better, particularly that which mutates. for example: rather than passing out an array your class holds for the client to mutate, have the singleton class add the object to the array it holds. if you truly must expose the array to the client, then return a copy. ths is just basic ood, but many objc devs expose the majority of their ivars disregarding the importance of encapsualtion.
if it's not thread safe and the class is used in a mutithreaded context, make the class (not the client) implement proper thread safety.
design singletons' error checking to be particularly robust. if the programmer passes an invalid argument or misuses the interface - just assert (with a nice message about the problem/resolution).
do write unit tests.
detach state (e.g. if you can remove an ivar easily, do it)
reduce complexity of state.
if something is still impossible to debug after writing/testing with thorough assertions, unit tests, zombie tests, memory tests (GuardMalloc, scribbling), etc,, you are writing programs which are too complex (e.g. divide the complexity among multiple classes), or the requirements do not match the actual usage. if you're at that point, you should definitely refer to my other post. the more complex the global variable state, the more time it will take to debug, and the less you can reuse and test your programs when things do go wrong.
good luck
I scanned the article, and while it had some good ideas it also had some bad advice, and it should not be taken as gospel.
And, as others have suggested, if you have a lot of singleton objects it may mean that you're simply keeping too much state global/persistent. Normally only one or two of your own should be needed (in addition to those that other "packages" of one sort or another may implement).
As to debugging singletons, I don't understand why you say it's hard -- no worse than anything else, for the most part. If you're getting EXEC_BAD_ACCESS it's because you've got some sort of addressing bug, and that's nothing specific to singleton schemes (unless you're using a very bad one).
Macros make debugging difficult because the lines of code they incorporate can't have breakpoints put in them. Deep six macros, if nothing else. In particular, the SYNTHESIZE_SINGLETON_FOR_CLASS macro from the article is interfering with debugging. Replace the call to this macro function with the code it generates for your singleton class.
ugh - don't enforce singletons. just create normal classes. if your app needs just one instance, add them to something which is created once, such as your app delegate.
most cocoa singleton implementations i've seen should not have been singletons.
then you will be able to debug, test, create, mutate and destroy these objects as usual.
the good part is course that the majority of your global variable pains will disappear when you implement these classes as normal objects.
If I understand correctly, the typical mechanism for Dependency Injection is to inject either through a class' constructor or through a public property (member) of the class.
This exposes the dependency being injected and violates the OOP principle of encapsulation.
Am I correct in identifying this tradeoff? How do you deal with this issue?
Please also see my answer to my own question below.
There is another way of looking at this issue that you might find interesting.
When we use IoC/dependency injection, we're not using OOP concepts. Admittedly we're using an OO language as the 'host', but the ideas behind IoC come from component-oriented software engineering, not OO.
Component software is all about managing dependencies - an example in common use is .NET's Assembly mechanism. Each assembly publishes the list of assemblies that it references, and this makes it much easier to pull together (and validate) the pieces needed for a running application.
By applying similar techniques in our OO programs via IoC, we aim to make programs easier to configure and maintain. Publishing dependencies (as constructor parameters or whatever) is a key part of this. Encapsulation doesn't really apply, as in the component/service oriented world, there is no 'implementation type' for details to leak from.
Unfortunately our languages don't currently segregate the fine-grained, object-oriented concepts from the coarser-grained component-oriented ones, so this is a distinction that you have to hold in your mind only :)
It's a good question - but at some point, encapsulation in its purest form needs to be violated if the object is ever to have its dependency fulfilled. Some provider of the dependency must know both that the object in question requires a Foo, and the provider has to have a way of providing the Foo to the object.
Classically this latter case is handled as you say, through constructor arguments or setter methods. However, this is not necessarily true - I know that the latest versions of the Spring DI framework in Java, for example, let you annotate private fields (e.g. with #Autowired) and the dependency will be set via reflection without you needing to expose the dependency through any of the classes public methods/constructors. This might be the kind of solution you were looking for.
That said, I don't think that constructor injection is much of a problem, either. I've always felt that objects should be fully valid after construction, such that anything they need in order to perform their role (i.e. be in a valid state) should be supplied through the constructor anyway. If you have an object that requires a collaborator to work, it seems fine to me that the constructor publically advertises this requirement and ensures it is fulfilled when a new instance of the class is created.
Ideally when dealing with objects, you interact with them through an interface anyway, and the more you do this (and have dependencies wired through DI), the less you actually have to deal with constructors yourself. In the ideal situation, your code doesn't deal with or even ever create concrete instances of classes; so it just gets given an IFoo through DI, without worrying about what the constructor of FooImpl indicates it needs to do its job, and in fact without even being aware of FooImpl's existance. From this point of view, the encapsulation is perfect.
This is an opinion of course, but to my mind DI doesn't necessarily violate encapsulation and in fact can help it by centralising all of the necessary knowledge of internals into one place. Not only is this a good thing in itself, but even better this place is outside your own codebase, so none of the code you write needs to know about classes' dependencies.
This exposes the dependency being injected and violates the OOP principle of encapsulation.
Well, frankly speaking, everything violates encapsulation. :) It's a kind of a tender principle that must be treated well.
So, what violates encapsulation?
Inheritance does.
"Because inheritance exposes a subclass to details of its parent's implementation, it's often said that 'inheritance breaks encapsulation'". (Gang of Four 1995:19)
Aspect-oriented programming does. For example, you register onMethodCall() callback and that gives you a great opportunity to inject code to the normal method evaluation, adding strange side-effects etc.
Friend declaration in C++ does.
Class extention in Ruby does. Just redefine a string method somewhere after a string class was fully defined.
Well, a lot of stuff does.
Encapsulation is a good and important principle. But not the only one.
switch (principle)
{
case encapsulation:
if (there_is_a_reason)
break!
}
Yes, DI violates encapsulation (also known as "information hiding").
But the real problem comes when developers use it as an excuse to violate the KISS (Keep It Short and Simple) and YAGNI (You Ain't Gonna Need It) principles.
Personally, I prefer simple and effective solutions. I mostly use the "new" operator to instantiate stateful dependencies whenever and wherever they are needed. It is simple, well encapsulated, easy to understand, and easy to test. So, why not?
A good depenancy injection container/system will allow for constructor injection. The dependant objects will be encapsulated, and need not be exposed publicly at all. Further, by using a DP system, none of your code even "knows" the details of how the object is constructed, possibly even including the object being constructed. There is more encapsulation in this case since nearly all of your code not only is shielded from knowledge of the encapsulated objects, but does not even participate in the objects construction.
Now, I am assuming you are comparing against the case where the created object creates its own encapsulated objects, most likely in its constructor. My understanding of DP is that we want to take this responsibility away from the object and give it to someone else. To that end, the "someone else", which is the DP container in this case, does have intimate knowledge which "violates" encapsulation; the benefit is that it pulls that knowledge out of the object, iteself. Someone has to have it. The rest of your application does not.
I would think of it this way: The dependancy injection container/system violates encapsulation, but your code does not. In fact, your code is more "encapsulated" then ever.
This is similar to the upvoted answer but I want to think out loud - perhaps others see things this way as well.
Classical OO uses constructors to define the public "initialization" contract for consumers of the class (hiding ALL implementation details; aka encapsulation). This contract can ensure that after instantiation you have a ready-to-use object (i.e. no additional initialization steps to be remembered (er, forgotten) by the user).
(constructor) DI undeniably breaks encapsulation by bleeding implemenation detail through this public constructor interface. As long as we still consider the public constructor responsible for defining the initialization contract for users, we have created a horrible violation of encapsulation.
Theoretical Example:
Class Foo has 4 methods and needs an integer for initialization, so its constructor looks like Foo(int size) and it's immediately clear to users of class Foo that they must provide a size at instantiation in order for Foo to work.
Say this particular implementation of Foo may also need a IWidget to do its job. Constructor injection of this dependency would have us create a constructor like Foo(int size, IWidget widget)
What irks me about this is now we have a constructor that's blending initialization data with dependencies - one input is of interest to the user of the class (size), the other is an internal dependency that only serves to confuse the user and is an implementation detail (widget).
The size parameter is NOT a dependency - it's simple a per-instance initialization value. IoC is dandy for external dependencies (like widget) but not for internal state initialization.
Even worse, what if the Widget is only necessary for 2 of the 4 methods on this class; I may be incurring instantiation overhead for Widget even though it may not be used!
How to compromise/reconcile this?
One approach is to switch exclusively to interfaces to define the operation contract; and abolish the use of constructors by users.
To be consistent, all objects would have to be accessed through interfaces only, and instantiated only through some form of resolver (like an IOC/DI container). Only the container gets to instantiate things.
That takes care of the Widget dependency, but how do we initialize "size" without resorting to a separate initialization method on the Foo interface? Using this solution, we lost the ability to ensure that an instance of Foo is fully initialized by the time you get the instance. Bummer, because I really like the idea and simplicity of constructor injection.
How do I achieve guaranteed initialization in this DI world, when initialization is MORE than ONLY external dependencies?
As Jeff Sternal pointed out in a comment to the question, the answer is entirely dependent on how you define encapsulation.
There seem to be two main camps of what encapsulation means:
Everything related to the object is a method on an object. So, a File object may have methods to Save, Print, Display, ModifyText, etc.
An object is its own little world, and does not depend on outside behavior.
These two definitions are in direct contradiction to each other. If a File object can print itself, it will depend heavily on the printer's behavior. On the other hand, if it merely knows about something that can print for it (an IFilePrinter or some such interface), then the File object doesn't have to know anything about printing, and so working with it will bring less dependencies into the object.
So, dependency injection will break encapsulation if you use the first definition. But, frankly I don't know if I like the first definition - it clearly doesn't scale (if it did, MS Word would be one big class).
On the other hand, dependency injection is nearly mandatory if you're using the second definition of encapsulation.
It doesn't violate encapsulation. You're providing a collaborator, but the class gets to decide how it is used. As long as you follow Tell don't ask things are fine. I find constructer injection preferable, but setters can be fine as well as long as they're smart. That is they contain logic to maintain the invariants the class represents.
Pure encapsulation is an ideal that can never be achieved. If all dependencies were hidden then you wouldn't have the need for DI at all. Think about it this way, if you truly have private values that can be internalized within the object, say for instance the integer value of the speed of a car object, then you have no external dependency and no need to invert or inject that dependency. These sorts of internal state values that are operated on purely by private functions are what you want to encapsulate always.
But if you're building a car that wants a certain kind of engine object then you have an external dependency. You can either instantiate that engine -- for instance new GMOverHeadCamEngine() -- internally within the car object's constructor, preserving encapsulation but creating a much more insidious coupling to a concrete class GMOverHeadCamEngine, or you can inject it, allowing your Car object to operate agnostically (and much more robustly) on for example an interface IEngine without the concrete dependency. Whether you use an IOC container or simple DI to achieve this is not the point -- the point is that you've got a Car that can use many kinds of engines without being coupled to any of them, thus making your codebase more flexible and less prone to side effects.
DI is not a violation of encapsulation, it is a way of minimizing the coupling when encapsulation is necessarily broken as a matter of course within virtually every OOP project. Injecting a dependency into an interface externally minimizes coupling side effects and allows your classes to remain agnostic about implementation.
It depends on whether the dependency is really an implementation detail or something that the client would want/need to know about in some way or another. One thing that is relevant is what level of abstraction the class is targeting. Here are some examples:
If you have a method that uses caching under the hood to speed up calls, then the cache object should be a Singleton or something and should not be injected. The fact that the cache is being used at all is an implementation detail that the clients of your class should not have to care about.
If your class needs to output streams of data, it probably makes sense to inject the output stream so that the class can easily output the results to an array, a file, or wherever else someone else might want to send the data.
For a gray area, let's say you have a class that does some monte carlo simulation. It needs a source of randomness. On the one hand, the fact that it needs this is an implementation detail in that the client really doesn't care exactly where the randomness comes from. On the other hand, since real-world random number generators make tradeoffs between degree of randomness, speed, etc. that the client may want to control, and the client may want to control seeding to get repeatable behavior, injection may make sense. In this case, I'd suggest offering a way of creating the class without specifying a random number generator, and use a thread-local Singleton as the default. If/when the need for finer control arises, provide another constructor that allows for a source of randomness to be injected.
Having struggled with the issue a little further, I am now in the opinion that Dependency Injection does (at this time) violate encapsulation to some degree. Don't get me wrong though - I think that using dependency injection is well worth the tradeoff in most cases.
The case for why DI violates encapsulation becomes clear when the component you are working on is to be delivered to an "external" party (think of writing a library for a customer).
When my component requires sub-components to be injected via the constructor (or public properties) there's no guarantee for
"preventing users from setting the internal data of the component into an invalid or inconsistent state".
At the same time it cannot be said that
"users of the component (other pieces of software) only need to know what the component does, and cannot make themselves dependent on the details of how it does it".
Both quotes are from wikipedia.
To give a specific example: I need to deliver a client-side DLL that simplifies and hides communication to a WCF service (essentially a remote facade). Because it depends on 3 different WCF proxy classes, if I take the DI approach I am forced to expose them via the constructor. With that I expose the internals of my communication layer which I am trying to hide.
Generally I am all for DI. In this particular (extreme) example, it strikes me as dangerous.
I struggled with this notion as well. At first, the 'requirement' to use the DI container (like Spring) to instantiate an object felt like jumping thru hoops. But in reality, it's really not a hoop - it's just another 'published' way to create objects I need. Sure, encapsulation is 'broken' becuase someone 'outside the class' knows what it needs, but it really isn't the rest of the system that knows that - it's the DI container. Nothing magical happens differently because DI 'knows' one object needs another.
In fact it gets even better - by focusing on Factories and Repositories I don't even have to know DI is involved at all! That to me puts the lid back on encapsulation. Whew!
I belive in simplicity. Applying IOC/Dependecy Injection in Domain classes does not make any improvement except making the code much more harder to main by having an external xml files describing the relation. Many technologies like EJB 1.0/2.0 & struts 1.1 are reversing back by reducing the stuff the put in XML and try put them in code as annoation etc. So applying IOC for all the classes you develope will make the code non-sense.
IOC has it benefits when the dependent object is not ready for creation at compile time. This can happend in most of the infrasture abstract level architecture components, trying establish a common base framework which may need to work for different scenarios. In those places usage IOC makes more sense. Still this does not make the code more simple / maintainable.
As all the other technologies, this too has PROs & CONs. My worry is, we implement latest technologies in all the places irrespective of their best context usage.
Encapsulation is only broken if a class has both the responsibility to create the object (which requires knowledge of implementation details) and then uses the class (which does not require knowledge of these details). I'll explain why, but first a quick car anaology:
When I was driving my old 1971 Kombi,
I could press the accelerator and it
went (slightly) quicker. I did not
need to know why, but the guys who
built the Kombi at the factory knew
exactly why.
But back to the coding. Encapsulation is "hiding an implementation detail from something using that implementation." Encapsulation is a good thing because the implementation details can change without the user of the class knowing.
When using dependency injection, constructor injection is used to construct service type objects (as opposed to entity/value objects which model state). Any member variables in service type object represent implementation details that should not leak out. e.g. socket port number, database credentials, another class to call to perform encryption, a cache, etc.
The constructor is relevant when the class is being initially created. This happens during the construction-phase while your DI container (or factory) wires together all the service objects. The DI container only knows about implementation details. It knows all about implementation details like the guys at the Kombi factory know about spark plugs.
At run-time, the service object that was created is called apon to do some real work. At this time, the caller of the object knows nothing of the implementation details.
That's me driving my Kombi to the beach.
Now, back to encapsulation. If implementation details change, then the class using that implementation at run-time does not need to change. Encapsulation is not broken.
I can drive my new car to the beach too. Encapsulation is not broken.
If implementation details change, the DI container (or factory) does need to change. You were never trying to hide implementation details from the factory in the first place.
DI violates Encapsulation for NON-Shared objects - period. Shared objects have a lifespan outside of the object being created, and thus must be AGGREGATED into the object being created. Objects that are private to the object being created should be COMPOSED into the created object - when the created object is destroyed, it takes the composed object with it.
Let's take the human body as an example. What's composed and what's aggregated. If we were to use DI, the human body constructor would have 100's of objects. Many of the organs, for example, are (potentially) replaceable. But, they are still composed into the body. Blood cells are created in the body (and destroyed) everyday, without the need for external influences (other than protein). Thus, blood cells are created internally by the body - new BloodCell().
Advocators of DI argue that an object should NEVER use the new operator.
That "purist" approach not only violates encapsulation but also the Liskov Substitution Principle for whoever is creating the object.
PS. By providing Dependency Injection you do not necessarily break Encapsulation. Example:
obj.inject_dependency( factory.get_instance_of_unknown_class(x) );
Client code does not know implementation details still.
Maybe this is a naive way of thinking about it, but what is the difference between a constructor that takes in an integer parameter and a constructor that takes in a service as a parameter? Does this mean that defining an integer outside the new object and feeding it into the object breaks encapsulation? If the service is only used within the new object, I don't see how that would break encapsulation.
Also, by using some sort of autowiring feature (Autofac for C#, for example), it makes the code extremely clean. By building extension methods for the Autofac builder, I was able to cut out a LOT of DI configuration code that I would have had to maintain over time as the list of dependencies grew.
I think it's self evident that at the very least DI significantly weakens encapsulation. In additional to that here are some other downsides of DI to consider.
It makes code harder to reuse. A module which a client can use without having to explicitly provide dependencies to, is obviously easier to use than one where the client has to somehow discover what that component's dependencies are and then somehow make them available. For example a component originally created to be used in an ASP application may expect to have its dependencies provided by a DI container that provides object instances with lifetimes related to client http requests. This may not be simple to reproduce in another client that does not come with the same built in DI container as the original ASP application.
It can make code more fragile. Dependencies provided by interface specification can be implemented in unexpected ways which gives rise to a whole class of runtime bugs that are not possible with a statically resolved concrete dependency.
It can make code less flexible in the sense that you may end up with fewer choices about how you want it to work. Not every class needs to have all its dependencies in existence for the entire lifetime of the owning instance, yet with many DI implementations you have no other option.
With that in mind I think the most important question then becomes, "does a particular dependency need to be externally specified at all?". In practise I have rarely found it necessary to make a dependency externally supplied just to support testing.
Where a dependency genuinely needs to be externally supplied, that normally suggests that the relation between the objects is a collaboration rather than an internal dependency, in which case the appropriate goal is then encapsulation of each class, rather than encapsulation of one class inside the other.
In my experience the main problem regarding the use of DI is that whether you start with an application framework with built in DI, or you add DI support to your codebase, for some reason people assume that since you have DI support that must be the correct way to instantiate everything. They just never even bother to ask the question "does this dependency need to be externally specified?". And worse, they also start trying to force everyone else to use the DI support for everything too.
The result of this is that inexorably your codebase starts to devolve into a state where creating any instance of anything in your codebase requires reams of obtuse DI container configuration, and debugging anything is twice as hard because you have the extra workload of trying to identify how and where anything was instantiated.
So my answer to the question is this. Use DI where you can identify an actual problem that it solves for you, which you can't solve more simply any other way.
I agree that taken to an extreme, DI can violate encapsulation. Usually DI exposes dependencies which were never truly encapsulated. Here's a simplified example borrowed from Miško Hevery's Singletons are Pathological Liars:
You start with a CreditCard test and write a simple unit test.
#Test
public void creditCard_Charge()
{
CreditCard c = new CreditCard("1234 5678 9012 3456", 5, 2008);
c.charge(100);
}
Next month you get a bill for $100. Why did you get charged? The unit test affected a production database. Internally, CreditCard calls Database.getInstance(). Refactoring CreditCard so that it takes a DatabaseInterface in its constructor exposes the fact that there's dependency. But I would argue that the dependency was never encapsulated to begin with since the CreditCard class causes externally visible side effects. If you want to test CreditCard without refactoring, you can certainly observe the dependency.
#Before
public void setUp()
{
Database.setInstance(new MockDatabase());
}
#After
public void tearDown()
{
Database.resetInstance();
}
I don't think it's worth worrying whether exposing the Database as a dependency reduces encapsulation, because it's a good design. Not all DI decisions will be so straight forward. However, none of the other answers show a counter example.
I think it's a matter of scope. When you define encapsulation (not letting know how) you must define what is the encapsuled functionality.
Class as is: what you are encapsulating is the only responsability of the class. What it knows how to do. By example, sorting. If you inject some comparator for ordering, let's say, clients, that's not part of the encapsuled thing: quicksort.
Configured functionality: if you want to provide a ready-to-use functionality then you are not providing QuickSort class, but an instance of QuickSort class configured with a Comparator. In that case the code responsible for creating and configuring that must be hidden from the user code. And that's the encapsulation.
When you are programming classes, it is, implementing single responsibilities into classes, you are using option 1.
When you are programming applications, it is, making something that undertakes some useful concrete work then you are repeteadily using option 2.
This is the implementation of the configured instance:
<bean id="clientSorter" class="QuickSort">
<property name="comparator">
<bean class="ClientComparator"/>
</property>
</bean>
This is how some other client code use it:
<bean id="clientService" class"...">
<property name="sorter" ref="clientSorter"/>
</bean>
It is encapsulated because if you change implementation (you change clientSorter bean definition) it doesn't break client use. Maybe, as you use xml files with all written together you are seeing all the details. But believe me, the client code (ClientService)
don't know nothing about its sorter.
It's probably worth mentioning that Encapsulation is somewhat perspective dependent.
public class A {
private B b;
public A() {
this.b = new B();
}
}
public class A {
private B b;
public A(B b) {
this.b = b;
}
}
From the perspective of someone working on the A class, in the second example A knows a lot less about the nature of this.b
Whereas without DI
new A()
vs
new A(new B())
The person looking at this code knows more about the nature of A in the second example.
With DI, at least all that leaked knowledge is in one place.
This is a question with many answers - I am interested in knowing what others consider to be "best practice".
Consider the following situation: you have an object-oriented program that contains one or more data structures that are needed by many different classes. How do you make these data structures accessible?
You can explicitly pass references around, for example, in the constructors. This is the "proper" solution, but it means duplicating parameters and instance variables all over the program. This makes changes or additions to the global data difficult.
You can put all of the data structures inside of a single object, and pass around references to this object. This can either be an object created just for this purpose, or it could be the "main" object of your program. This simplifies the problems of (1), but the data structures may or may not have anything to do with one another, and collecting them together in a single object is pretty arbitrary.
You can make the data structures "static". This lets you reference them directly from other classes, without having to pass around references. This entirely avoids the disadvantages of (1), but is clearly not OO. This also means that there can only ever be a single instance of the program.
When there are a lot of data structures, all required by a lot of classes, I tend to use (2). This is a compromise between OO-purity and practicality. What do other folks do? (For what it's worth, I mostly come from the Java world, but this discussion is applicable to any OO language.)
Global data isn't as bad as many OO purists claim!
After all, when implementing OO classes you've usually using an API to your OS. What the heck is this if it isn't a huge pile of global data and services!
If you use some global stuff in your program, you're merely extending this huge environment your class implementation can already see of the OS with a bit of data that is domain specific to your app.
Passing pointers/references everywhere is often taught in OO courses and books, academically it sounds nice. Pragmatically, it is often the thing to do, but it is misguided to follow this rule blindly and absolutely. For a decent sized program, you can end up with a pile of references being passed all over the place and it can result in completely unnecessary drudgery work.
Globally accessible services/data providers (abstracted away behind a nice interface obviously) are pretty much a must in a decent sized app.
I must really really discourage you from using option 3 - making the data static. I've worked on several projects where the early developers made some core data static, only to later realise they did need to run two copies of the program - and incurred a huge amount of work making the data non-static and carefully putting in references into everything.
So in my experience, if you do 3), you will eventually end up doing 1) at twice the cost.
Go for 1, and be fine-grained about what data structures you reference from each object. Don't use "context objects", just pass in precisely the data needed. Yes, it makes the code more complicated, but on the plus side, it makes it clearer - the fact that a FwurzleDigestionListener is holding a reference to both a Fwurzle and a DigestionTract immediately gives the reader an idea about its purpose.
And by definition, if the data format changes, so will the classes that operate on it, so you have to change them anyway.
You might want to think about altering the requirement that lots of objects need to know about the same data structures. One reason there does not seem to be a clean OO way of sharing data is that sharing data is not very object-oriented.
You will need to look at the specifics of your application but the general idea is to have one object responsible for the shared data which provides services to the other objects based on the data encapsulated in it. However these services should not involve giving other objects the data structures - merely giving other objects the pieces of information they need to meet their responsibilites and performing mutations on the data structures internally.
I tend to use 3) and be very careful about the synchronisation and locking across threads. I agree it is less OO, but then you confess to having global data, which is very un-OO in the first place.
Don't get too hung up on whether you are sticking purely to one programming methodology or another, find a solution which fits your problem. I think there are perfectly valid contexts for singletons (Logging for instance).
I use a combination of having one global object and passing interfaces in via constructors.
From the one main global object (usually named after what your program is called or does) you can start up other globals (maybe that have their own threads). This lets you control the setting up of program objects in the main objects constructor and tearing them down again in the right order when the application stops in this main objects destructor. Using static classes directly makes it tricky to initialize/uninitialize any resources these classes use in a controlled manner. This main global object also has properties for getting at the interfaces of different sub-systems of your application that various objects may want to get hold of to do their work.
I also pass references to relevant data-structures into constructors of some objects where I feel it is useful to isolate those objects from the rest of the world within the program when they only need to be concerned with a small part of it.
Whether an object grabs the global object and navigates its properties to get the interfaces it wants or gets passed the interfaces it uses via its constructor is a matter of taste and intuition. Any object you're implementing that you think might be reused in some other project should definately be passed data structures it should use via its constructor. Objects that grab the global object should be more to do with the infrastructure of your application.
Objects that receive interfaces they use via the constructor are probably easier to unit-test because you can feed them a mock interface, and tickle their methods to make sure they return the right arguments or interact with mock interfaces correctly. To test objects that access the main global object, you have to mock up the main global object so that when they request interfaces (I often call these services) from it they get appropriate mock objects and can be tested against them.
I prefer using the singleton pattern as described in the GoF book for these situations. A singleton is not the same as either of the three options described in the question. The constructor is private (or protected) so that it cannot be used just anywhere. You use a get() function (or whatever you prefer to call it) to obtain an instance. However, the architecture of the singleton class guarantees that each call to get() returns the same instance.
We should take care not to confuse Object Oriented Design with Object Oriented Implementation. Al too often, the term OO Design is used to judge an implementation, just as, imho, it is here.
Design
If in your design you see a lot of objects having a reference to exactly the same object, that means a lot of arrows. The designer should feel an itch here. He should verify whether this object is just commonly used, or if it is really a utility (e.g. a COM factory, a registry of some kind, ...).
From the project's requirements, he can see if it really needs to be a singleton (e.g. 'The Internet'), or if the object is shared because it's too general or too expensive or whatsoever.
Implementation
When you are asked to implement an OO Design in an OO language, you face a lot of decisions, like the one you mentioned: how should I implement all the arrows to the oft used object in the design?
That's the point where questions are addressed about 'static member', 'global variable' , 'god class' and 'a-lot-of-function-arguments'.
The Design phase should have clarified if the object needs to be a singleton or not. The implementation phase will decide on how this singleness will be represented in the program.
Option 3) while not purist OO, tends to be the most reasonable solution. But I would not make your class a singleton; and use some other object as a static 'dictionary' to manage those shared resources.
I don't like any of your proposed solutions:
You are passing around a bunch of "context" objects - the things that use them don't specify what fields or pieces of data they are really interested in
See here for a description of the God Object pattern. This is the worst of all worlds
Simply do not ever use Singleton objects for anything. You seem to have identified a few of the potential problems yourself