tl;dr -- What does the below quoted paragraph mean?
Be suspicious of classes of which there is only one instance. A
single instance might indicate that the design confuses objects with
classes. Consider whether you could just create an object instead of a
new class. Can the variation of the derived class be represented in
data rather than as a distinct class? The Singleton pattern is one
notable exception to this guideline.
McConnell, Steve (2004-06-09). Code Complete (2nd Edition)
Extended version:
I'm currently reading Code Complete, and I'm having trouble understanding the above mentioned paragraph. For context, it's from Chapter 6 under guidelines for inheritance. At first I thought this was advice against using Singletons, but I was obviously proven wrong by the time I got to the end of the paragraph.
I simply can't grasp what the author is trying to get through my thick skull. For example, I don't know what he means by design confusing objects with classes, nor what that means in the context of having a class with only one instance. Help!
The wording is pretty confusing there, but I believe what's meant is that sometimes a novice programmer might create a whole new type just to instantiate one object of it. As a particularly blatant example:
struct Player1Name
{
string data;
};
There we could just use string player1_name; (or even an aggregate for multiple players) without creating a whole new type, hence the confusion of trying to use classes to model what new objects (new instances of existing types) can already do.
In such a case, a developer might spam the codebase with hundreds of new user-defined data types and possibly massive inheritance hierarchies with no potential for a single class to be reused beyond a single instance for every single new thing he wants to create when the existing classes generally suffice.
The real problem is not that the classes are being instantiated once,
but that their design is so narrowly applicable as to only be worth instantiating once.
Classes are generally meant to model a one-to-many relationship with their instances (objects). They're supposed to be at least somewhat more generally applicable beyond a single instance of that class. Put crudely, a class should model a Dog, not your neighbor's specific pet dog, Spark. It's supposed to model a Rectangle, not a precise Rectangle42x87 that is 4.2 meters by 8.7 meters. If you're designing things to be instantiated one time, you're probably designing them too narrowly and probably have existing things you can use instead.
A new data type is typically meant to tackle a class (category) of problems, so to speak, rather than one very precise one that calls for only one instance of that class. Otherwise your class designs are going to be one-shot deals that are just superficially creating classes all over the place to solve very individual problems with no potential for broader application whatsoever.
A singleton is an exception to the rule since it's not utilizing classes in this normal object-oriented kind of way. There it's deliberately setting out to create a single instance, lazy constructed, and with a global point of access. So there it's not by some accident and misunderstanding of object-oriented design that the developer created a class designed to be instantiated one time. It's a very deliberate and conscious design decision, so to speak, rather than a misunderstanding of how to use the tools.
When I have a series of processes which are similar in nature but work on slightly different types of objects, do I unify the type of work in a single utility class, or do I put the functionality directly on each object that will need to utilized the functionality?
I'm not concerned about a specific case per-se, but I'm most curious about what factors go into this decision.
I think it depends on the class-ancestry of your objects, the real difference in logic between each object, and the future-possible-need to do this on some other kind of class.
It sounds to me like the utility class is a good way to go if the functionaliy you're applying to multiple classes is largely the same, and could be applied to future classes down the road.
if on the other hand the functionality is different enoguh that you'd end up with a big switch/case statement in your utility class to accomodate the differnet object types, you might want to implement it in the objects themselves.
You have two approaches to your problem: One is to use generic programming (horizontal polymorphism) or to attack it using a more traditional vertical hierarchy based implementation.
You decisions have to be based in the type of similarities that are shared among the various data types. In the case that we can define a complete and orthogonal contract that can be operated in any type then we can easily decide to use generics.
This for example is the case with List, Dictionary and all the class under the System.Collections.Generic name space that eventually replaced their corresponding non generic counterparts of the early versions of .NET.
In the other hand, again from the .NET world we can use as an example of a vertical hierarchy, the UserControl class than derives from ContainerControl and serves as the base for other controls specializing it behavior using its virtual methods...
In most of the cases though the design of your class hierarchy involves a lot of judgment calls that are not always to defined deterministically as they rely more on your experience and talent as a developer rather in a concrete model that can be applied across the board in every possible situation..
From what I have read best practice is to have classes based on an interface and loosely couple the objects, in order to help code re-use and unit test.
Is this correct and is it a rule that should always be followed?
The reason I ask is I have recently worked on a system with 100’s of very different objects. A few shared common interfaces but most do not and wonder if it should have had an interface mirroring every property and function in those classes?
I am using C# and dot net 2.0 however I believe this question would fit many languages.
It's useful for objects which really provide a service - authentication, storage etc. For simple types which don't have any further dependencies, and where there are never going to be any alternative implementations, I think it's okay to use the concrete types.
If you go overboard with this kind of thing, you end up spending a lot of time mocking/stubbing everything in the world - which can often end up creating brittle tests.
Not really. Service components (class that do things for your application) are a good fit for interfaces, but as a rule I wouldn't bother having interfaces for, say, basic entity classes.
For example:
If you're working on a domain model, then that model shouldn't be interfaces. However if that domain model wants to call service classes (like data access, operating system functions etc) then you should be looking at interfaces for those components. This reduces coupling between the classes and means it's the interface, or "contract" that is coupled.
In this situation you then start to find it much easier to write unit tests (because you can have stubs/mocks/fakes for database access etc) and can use IoC to swap components without recompiling your applications.
I'd only use interfaces where that level of abstraction was required - i.e. you need to use polymorphic behaviour. Common examples would be dependency injection or where you have a factory-type scenario going on somewhere, or you need to establish a "multiple inheritance" type behaviour.
In my case, with my development style, this is quite often (I favour aggregation over deep inheritance hierarchies for most things other than UI controls), but I have seen perfectly fine apps that use very little. It all depends...
Oh yes, and if you do go heavily into interfaces - beware web services. If you need to expose your object methods via a web service they can't really return or take interface types, only concrete types (unless you are going to hand-write all your own serialization/deserialization). Yes, that has bitten me big time...
A downside to interface is that they can't be versioned. Once you shipped the interface you won't be making changes to it. If you use abstract classes then you can easily extend the contract over time by adding new methods and flagging them as virtual.
As an example, all stream objects in .NET derive from System.IO.Stream which is an abstract class. This makes it easy for Microsoft to add new features. In version 2 of the frameworkj they added the ReadTimeout and WriteTimeout properties without breaking any code. If they used an interface(say IStream) then they wouldn't have been able to do this. Instead they'd have had to create a new interface to define the timeout methods and we'd have to write code to conditionally cast to this interface if we wanted to use the functionality.
Interfaces should be used when you want to clearly define the interaction between two different sections of your software. Especially when it is possible that you want to rip out either end of the connection and replace it with something else.
For example in my CAM application I have a CuttingPath connected to a Collection of Points. It makes no sense to have a IPointList interface as CuttingPaths are always going to be comprised of Points in my application.
However I uses the interface IMotionController to communicate with the machine because we support many different types of cutting machine each with their own commend set and method of communications. So in that case it makes sense to put it behind a interface as one installation may be using a different machine than another.
Our applications has been maintain since the mid 80s and went to a object oriented design in late 90s. I have found that what could change greatly exceeded what I originally thought and the use of interfaces has grown. For example it used to be that our DrawingPath was comprised of points. But now it is comprised of entities (splines, arcs, ec) So it is pointed to a EntityList that is a collection of Object implementing IEntity interface.
But that change was propelled by the realization that a DrawingPath could be drawn using many different methods. Once that it was realized that a variety of drawing methods was needed then the need for a interface as opposed to a fixed relationship to a Entity Object was indicated.
Note that in our system DrawingPaths are rendered down to a low level cutting path which are always series of point segments.
I tried to take the advice of 'code to an interface' literally on a recent project. The end result was essentially duplication of the public interface (small i) of each class precisely once in an Interface (big I) implementation. This is pretty pointless in practice.
A better strategy I feel is to confine your interface implementations to verbs:
Print()
Draw()
Save()
Serialize()
Update()
...etc etc. This means that classes whose primary role is to store data - and if your code is well-designed they would usually only do that - don't want or need interface implementations. Anywhere you might want runtime-configurable behaviour, for example a variety of different graph styles representing the same data.
It's better still when the thing asking for the work really doesn't want to know how the work is done. This means you can give it a macguffin that it can simply trust will do whatever its public interface says it does, and let the component in question simply choose when to do the work.
I agree with kpollock. Interfaces are used to get a common ground for objects. The fact that they can be used in IOC containers and other purposes is an added feature.
Let's say you have several types of customer classes that vary slightly but have common properties. In this case it is great to have a ICustomer interface to bound them together, logicaly. By doing that you could create a CustomerHander class/method that handels ICustomer objects the same way instead of creating a handerl method for each variation of customers.
This is the strength of interfaces.
If you only have a single class that implements an interface, then the interface isn't to much help, it just sits there and does nothing.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
I understand that they force you to implement methods and such but what I cant understand is why you would want to use them. Can anybody give me a good example or explanation on why I would want to implement this.
One specific example: interfaces are a good way of specifying a contract that other people's code must meet.
If I'm writing a library of code, I may write code that is valid for objects that have a certain set of behaviours. The best solution is to specify those behaviours in an interface (no implementation, just a description) and then use references to objects implementing that interface in my library code.
Then any random person can come along, create a class that implements that interface, instantiate an object of that class and pass it to my library code and expect it to work. Note: it is of course possible to strictly implement an interface while ignoring the intention of the interface, so merely implementing an interface is no guarantee that things will work. Stupid always finds a way! :-)
Another specific example: two teams working on different components that must co-operate. If the two teams sit down on day 1 and agree on a set of interfaces, then they can go their separate ways and implement their components around those interfaces. Team A can build test harnesses that simulate the component from Team B for testing, and vice versa. Parallel development, and fewer bugs.
The key point is that interfaces provide a layer of abstraction so that you can write code that is ignorant of unnecessary details.
The canonical example used in most textbooks is that of sorting routines. You can sort any class of objects so long as you have a way of comparing any two of the objects. You can make any class sortable therefore by implementing the IComparable interface, which forces you to implement a method for comparing two instances. All of the sort routines are written to handle references to IComparable objects, so as soon as you implement IComparable you can use any of those sort routines on collections of objects of your class.
The easiest way of understanding interfaces is that they allow different objects to expose COMMON functionality. This allows the programmer to write much simplier, shorter code that programs to an interface, then as long as the objects implement that interface it will work.
Example 1:
There are many different database providers, MySQL, MSSQL, Oracle, etc. However all database objects can DO the same things so you will find many interfaces for database objects. If an object implements IDBConnection then it exposes the methods Open() and Close(). So if I want my program to be database provider agnostic, I program to the interface and not to the specific providers.
IDbConnection connection = GetDatabaseConnectionFromConfig()
connection.Open()
// do stuff
connection.Close()
See by programming to an interface (IDbconnection) I can now SWAP out any data provider in my config but my code stays the exact same. This flexibility can be extremely useful and easy to maintain. The downside to this is that I can only perform 'generic' database operations and may not fully utilize the strength that each particular provider offers so as with everything in programming you have a trade off and you must determine which scenario will benefit you the most.
Example 2:
If you notice almost all collections implement this interface called IEnumerable. IEnumerable returns an IEnumerator which has MoveNext(), Current, and Reset(). This allows C# to easily move through your collection. The reason it can do this is since it exposes the IEnumerable interface it KNOWS that the object exposes the methods it needs to go through it. This does two things. 1) foreach loops will now know how to enumerate the collection and 2) you can now apply powerful LINQ exprssions to your collection. Again the reason why interfaces are so useful here is because all collections have something in COMMON, they can be moved through. Each collection may be moved through a different way (linked list vs array) but that is the beauty of interfaces is that the implementation is hidden and irrelevant to the consumer of the interface. MoveNext() gives you the next item in the collection, it doesn't matter HOW it does it. Pretty nice, huh?
Example 3:
When you are designing your own interfaces you just have to ask yourself one question. What do these things have in common? Once you find all the things that the objects share, you abstract those properties/methods into an interface so that each object can inherit from it. Then you can program against several objects using one interface.
And of course I have to give my favorite C++ polymorphic example, the animals example. All animals share certain characteristics. Lets say they can Move, Speak, and they all have a Name. Since I just identified what all my animals have in common and I can abstract those qualities into the IAnimal interface. Then I create a Bear object, an Owl object, and a Snake object all implementing this interface. The reason why you can store different objects together that implement the same interface is because interfaces represent an IS-A replationship. A bear IS-A animal, an owl IS-A animal, so it makes since that I can collect them all as Animals.
var animals = new IAnimal[] = {new Bear(), new Owl(), new Snake()} // here I can collect different objects in a single collection because they inherit from the same interface
foreach (IAnimal animal in animals)
{
Console.WriteLine(animal.Name)
animal.Speak() // a bear growls, a owl hoots, and a snake hisses
animal.Move() // bear runs, owl flys, snake slithers
}
You can see that even though these animals perform each action in a different way, I can program against them all in one unified model and this is just one of the many benefits of Interfaces.
So again the most important thing with interfaces is what do objects have in common so that you can program against DIFFERENT objects in the SAME way. Saves time, creates more flexible applications, hides complexity/implementation, models real-world objects / situations, among many other benefits.
Hope this helps.
One typical example is a plugin architecture. Developer A writes the main app, and wants to make certain that all plugins written by developer B, C and D conform to what his app expects of them.
Interfaces define contracts, and that's the key word.
You use an interface when you need to define a contract in your program but you don't really care about the rest of the properties of the class that fulfills that contract as long as it does.
So, let's see an example. Suppose you have a method which provides the functionality to sort a list. First thing .. what's a list? Do you really care what elements does it holds in order to sort the list? Your answer should be no... In .NET (for example) you have an interface called IList which defines the operations that a list MUST support so you don't care the actual details underneath the surface.
Back to the example, you don't really know the class of the objects in the list... neither you care. If you can just compare the object you might as well sort them. So you declare a contract:
interface IComparable
{
// Return -1 if this is less than CompareWith
// Return 0 if object are equal
// Return 1 if CompareWith is less than this
int Compare(object CompareWith);
}
that contract specify that a method which accepts an object and returns an int must be implemented in order to be comparable. Now you have defined an contract and for now on you don't care about the object itself but about the contract so you can just do:
IComparable comp1 = list.GetItem(i) as IComparable;
if (comp1.Compare(list.GetItem(i+1)) < 0)
swapItem(list,i, i+1)
PS: I know the examples are a bit naive but they are examples ...
When you need different classes to share same methods you use Interfaces.
Interfaces are absolutely necessary in an object-oriented system that expects to make good use of polymorphism.
A classic example might be IVehicle, which has a Move() method. You could have classes Car, Bike and Tank, which implement IVehicle. They can all Move(), and you could write code that didn't care what kind of vehicle it was dealing with, just so it can Move().
void MoveAVehicle(IVehicle vehicle)
{
vehicle.Move();
}
The pedals on a car implement an interface. I'm from the US where we drive on the right side of the road. Our steering wheels are on the left side of the car. The pedals for a manual transmission from left to right are clutch -> brake -> accelerator. When I went to Ireland, the driving is reversed. Cars' steering wheels are on the right and they drive on the left side of the road... but the pedals, ah the pedals... they implemented the same interface... all three pedals were in the same order... so even if the class was different and the network that class operated on was different, i was still comfortable with the pedal interface. My brain was able to call my muscles on this car just like every other car.
Think of the numerous non-programming interfaces we can't live without. Then answer your own question.
Imagine the following basic interface which defines a basic CRUD mechanism:
interface Storable {
function create($data);
function read($id);
function update($data, $id);
function delete($id);
}
From this interface, you can tell that any object that implements it, must have functionality to create, read, update and delete data. This could by a database connection, a CSV file reader, and XML file reader, or any other kind of mechanism that might want to use CRUD operations.
Thus, you could now have something like the following:
class Logger {
Storable storage;
function Logger(Storable storage) {
this.storage = storage;
}
function writeLogEntry() {
this.storage.create("I am a log entry");
}
}
This logger doesn't care if you pass in a database connection, or something that manipulates files on disk. All it needs to know is that it can call create() on it, and it'll work as expected.
The next question to arise from this then is, if databases and CSV files, etc, can all store data, shouldn't they be inherited from a generic Storable object and thus do away with the need for interfaces? The answer to this is no... not every database connection might implement CRUD operations, and the same applies to every file reader.
Interfaces define what the object is capable of doing and how you need to use it... not what it is!
Interfaces are a form of polymorphism. An example:
Suppose you want to write some logging code. The logging is going to go somewhere (maybe to a file, or a serial port on the device the main code runs on, or to a socket, or thrown away like /dev/null). You don't know where: the user of your logging code needs to be free to determine that. In fact, your logging code doesn't care. It just wants something it can write bytes to.
So, you invent an interface called "something you can write bytes to". The logging code is given an instance of this interface (perhaps at runtime, perhaps it's configured at compile time. It's still polymorphism, just different kinds). You write one or more classes implementing the interface, and you can easily change where logging goes just by changing which one the logging code will use. Someone else can change where logging goes by writing their own implementations of the interface, without changing your code. That's basically what polymorphism amounts to - knowing just enough about an object to use it in a particular way, while allowing it to vary in all the respects you don't need to know about. An interface describes things you need to know.
C's file descriptors are basically an interface "something I can read and/or write bytes from and/or to", and almost every typed language has such interfaces lurking in its standard libraries: streams or whatever. Untyped languages usually have informal types (perhaps called contracts) that represent streams. So in practice you almost never have to actually invent this particular interface yourself: you use what the language gives you.
Logging and streams are just one example - interfaces happen whenever you can describe in abstract terms what an object is supposed to do, but don't want to tie it down to a particular implementation/class/whatever.
There are a number of reasons to do so. When you use an interface, you're ready in the future when you need to refactor/rewrite the code. You can also provide an sort of standardized API for simple operations.
For example, if you want to write a sort algorithm like the quicksort, all you need to sort any list of objects is that you can successfuuly compare two of the objects. If you create an interface, say ISortable, than anyone who creates objects can implement the ISortable interface and they can use your sort code.
If you're writing code that uses a database storage, and you write to an storage interface, you can replace that code down the line.
Interfaces encourage looser coupling of your code so that you can have greater flexibility.
In an article in my blog I briefly describe three purposes interfaces have.
Interfaces may have different
purposes:
Provide different implementations for the same goal. The typical example
is a list, which may have different
implementations for different
performance use cases (LinkedList,
ArrayList, etc.).
Allow criteria modification. For example, a sort function may accept a
Comparable interface in order to
provide any kind of sort criteria,
based on the same algorithm.
Hide implementation details. This also makes it easier for a user to
read the comments, since in the body
of the interface there are only
methods, fields and comments, no long
chunks of code to skip.
Here's the article's full text: http://weblogs.manas.com.ar/ary/2007/11/
The best Java code I have ever seen defined almost all object references as instances of interfaces instead of instances of classes. It is a strong sign of quality code designed for flexibility and change.
As you noted, interfaces are good for when you want to force someone to make it in a certain format.
Interfaces are good when data not being in a certain format can mean making dangerous assumptions in your code.
For example, at the moment I'm writing an application that will transform data from one format in to another. I want to force them to place those fields in so I know they will exist and will have a greater chance of being properly implemented. I don't care if another version comes out and it doesn't compile for them because it's more likely that data is required anyways.
Interfaces are rarely used because of this, since usually you can make assumptions or don't really require the data to do what you need to do.
An interface, defines merely the interface. Later, you can define method (on other classes), which accepted interfaces as parameters (or more accurately, object which implement that interface). This way your method can operate on a large variety of objects, whose only commonality is that they implement that interface.
First, they give you an additional layer of abstraction. You can say "For this function, this parameter must be an object that has these methods with these parameters". And you probably want to also set the meaning of these methods, in somehow abstracted terms, yet allowing you to reason about the code. In duck-typed languages you get that for free. No need for explicit, syntax "interfaces". Yet you probably still create a set of conceptual interfaces, something like contracts (like in Design by Contract).
Furthermore, interfaces are sometimes used for less "pure" purposes. In Java, they can be used to emulate multiple inheritance. In C++, you can use them to reduce compile times.
In general, they reduce coupling in your code. That's a good thing.
Your code may also be easier to test this way.
Let's say you want to keep track of a collection of stuff. Said collections must support a bunch of things, like adding and removing items, and checking if an item is in the collection.
You could then specify an interface ICollection with the methods add(), remove() and contains().
Code that doesn't need to know what kind of collection (List, Array, Hash-table, Red-black tree, etc) could accept objects that implemented the interface and work with them without knowing their actual type.
In .Net, I create base classes and inherit from them when the classes are somehow related. For example, base class Person could be inherited by Employee and Customer. Person might have common properties like address fields, name, telephone, and so forth. Employee might have its own department property. Customer has other exclusive properties.
Since a class can only inherit from one other class in .Net, I use interfaces for additional shared functionality. Sometimes interfaces are shared by classes that are otherwise unrelated. Using an interface creates a contract that developers will know is shared by all of the other classes implementing it. I also forces those classes to implement all of its members.
In C# interfaces are also extremely useful for allowing polymorphism for classes that do not share the same base classes. Meaning, since we cannot have multiple inheritance you can use interfaces to allow different types to be used. It's also a way to allow you to expose private members for use without reflection (explicit implementation), so it can be a good way to implement functionality while keeping your object model clean.
For example:
public interface IExample
{
void Foo();
}
public class Example : IExample
{
// explicit implementation syntax
void IExample.Foo() { ... }
}
/* Usage */
Example e = new Example();
e.Foo(); // error, Foo does not exist
((IExample)e).Foo(); // success
I think you need to get a good understand of design patterns so see there power.
Check out
Head First Design Patterns
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