I am creating a simple application using the MVC design pattern where my model accesses data off the web and makes it available to my controllers for subsequent display.
After a little research I have decided that one method would be to implement my model as a singleton so that I can access it as a shared instance from any of my controllers.
Having said that the more I read about singletons the more I notice people saying there are few situations where a better solution is not possible.
If I don't use a singleton I am confused as to where I might create my model class. I am not over happy about doing it via the appDelegate and it does not seem viable to put it in any of the viewControllers.
any comments or pointers would be much appreciated.
EDIT_001:
TechZen, very much appreciated (fantastic answer as always) can I add one further bit to the question before making it accepted. What are your thoughts on deallocating the singleton when the app exits? I am not sure how important this is as I know quite often that object deallocs are not called on app teardown as they will be cleared when the app exits anyway. Apparently I could register the shared instance with NSApplicationWillTerminateNotification, is that worth doing, just curious?
gary
There is a lot of push back on the use of singletons because they are often abused. Lazy coders either (1) don't put enough functionality in the singleton which results in having logic spread out in other objects like spaghetti or (2) they put in to much functionality such that the singleton becomes the entire program. Lazy coders way to often use singletons instead of doing data validation, object testing and object tracking. People get sick of trying to untangle and maintain lazy singleton use so they try to suppress the use of singletons.
I thoroughly understand the impulse and I myself ritualistically warn against singleton abuse.
However, a data model is one of the few legitimate uses for a singleton. This is especially true in small apps like those which run on mobiles. In the end, you will either use a singleton for your data model or you will attach it to a singleton.
For example, suppose you decide to park your non-singleton data model object in the app delegate. Well, you've done this: dataModel-->appDelegate-->application(singleton). To access it, you would call:
[[[UIApplication sharedApplication (a singleton)] delegate] theDataModelObj];
Even if you pass it around like a token from object to object you will still have to have the dataModel obj begin as the property of a singleton.
When an object really does have to meet the "Highlander" pattern ("There can be only one!") then a singleton is the best choice. In addition to the application object, you have user defaults as a singleton as well as the file manager. Clearly, in all three cases, you want one and only one instance in existence for the entire app. For example, if you had more than one user defaults object, your app would be a train wreck trying to track all the preference settings. If you have more than one file manager, file operations could step on one another.
A properly designed user data model is just a larger version of user defaults. It should be the only object that directly manipulates the user's data. No other object in the app should have that task in the least. That makes the singleton design pattern the best one to use in this particular case.
Singletons are a very powerful tool but just as with a physical tools, the more power they give you, the more opportunities they create for you to cut you head off if you use them carelessly. For this reason, a singleton should seldom be your first choice. There are usually better design patterns to employ.
However, when you really need a singleton, you shouldn't shy away from using them just because the laziness of others has given them a bad rep.
Knowing when and when not to use a powerful and dangerous tool is part of the programmers intuition you develop with experience. You can't go by formula. It is one of those factors that makes good coding an art and the programmer a craftsman.
Related
I've been working on a small project using C++ (although this question might be considered language-agnostic) and I'm trying to write my program so that it is as efficient and encapsulated as possible. I'm a self-taught and inexperienced programmer but I'm trying to teach myself good habits when it comes to using interfaces and OOP practices. I'm mainly interested in the typical 'best' practices when it comes to accessing the methods of an object that is acting as a subsystem for another class.
First, let me explain what I mean:
An instance of ClassGame wants to render out a 2d sprite image using the private ClassRenderer subsystem of ClassEngine. ClassGame only has access to the interface of ClassEngine, and ClassRenderer is supposed to be a subsystem of ClassEngine (behind a layer of abstraction).
My question is based on the way that the ClassGame object can indirectly make use of ClassRenderer's functionality while still remaining fast and behind a layer of abstraction. From what I've seen in lessons and other people's code examples, there seems to be two basic ways of doing this:
The first method that I learned via a series of online lectures on OOP design was to have one class delegate tasks to it's private member objects internally. [ In this example, ClassGame would call a method that belongs to ClassEngine, and ClassEngine would 'secretly' pass that request on to it's ClassRenderer subsystem by calling one of its methods. ] Kind of a 'daisy chain' of function calls. This makes sense to me, but it seems like it may be slower than some alternative options.
Another way that I've seen in other people's code is have an accessor method that returns a reference or pointer to the location of a particular subsystem. [ So, ClassGame would call a simple method in ClassEngine that would return a reference/pointer to the object that makes up its ClassRenderer subsystem ]. This route seems convenient to me, but it also seems to eliminate the point of having a private member act as a sub-component of a bigger class. Of course, this also means writing much fewer 'mindless' functions that simply pass a particular task on, due to the fact that you can simply write one getter function for each independent subsystem.
Considering the various important aspects of OO design (abstraction, encapsulation, modularity, usability, extensibility, etc.) while also considering speed and performance, is it better to use the first or the second type of method for delegating tasks to a sub-component?
The book Design Patterns Explained discusses a very similar problem in its chapter about the Bridge Pattern. Apparently this chapter is freely available online.
I would recommend you to read it :)
I think your type-1 approach resembles the OOP bridge pattern the most.
Type-2, returning handles to internal data is something that should generally be avoided.
There are many ways to do what you want, and it really depends on the context (for example, how big the project is, how much you expect to reuse from it in other projects etc.)
You have three classes: Game, Engine and Renderer. Both of your solutions make the Game commit to the Engine's interface. The second solution also makes the Game commit to the Renderer's interface. Clearly, the more interfaces you use, the more you have to change if the interfaces change.
How about a third option: The Game knows what it needs in terms of rendering, so you can create an abstract class that describes those requirements. That would be the only interface that the Game commits to. Let's call this interface AbstractGameRenderer.
To tie this into the rest of the system, again there are many ways. One option would be:
1. Implement this abstract interface using your existing Renderer class. So we have a class GameRenderer that uses Renderer and implements the AbstractGameRenderer interface.
2. The Engine creates both the Game object and the GameRenderer object.
3. The Engine passes the GameRenderer object to the Game object (using a pointer to AbstractGameRenderer).
The result: The Game can use a renderer that does what it wants. It doesn't know where it comes from, how it renders, who owns it - nothing. The GameRenderer is a specific implementation, but other implementations (using other renderers) could be written later. The Engine "knows everything" (but that may be acceptable).
Later, you want to take your Game's logic and use it as a mini-game in another game. All you need to do is create the appropriate GameRenderer (implementing AbstractGameRenderer) and pass it to the Game object. The Game object does not care that it's a different game, a different Engine and a different Renderer - it doesn't even know.
The point is that there are many solutions to design problems. This suggestion may not be appropriate or acceptable, or maybe it's exactly what you need. The principles I try to follow are:
1. Try not to commit to interfaces you can't control (you'll have to change if they change)
2. Try to prevent now the pain that will come later
In my example, the assumption is that it's less painful to change GameRenderer if Renderer changes, than it is to change a large component such as Game. But it's better to stick to principles (and minimise pain) rather than follow patterns blindly.
I have a new project, kind of a board game, and I'm using a storyboard which has multiple view controllers in it - the game simply moves from one view to the next with the player making various decisions and then loops back.
I have an object which holds information about the player (along with a couple of methods) - the score etc. I obviously only need one instance of this object and as I want each View Controller to access the same instance, should it be a singleton? I've never used them before and I've read they're often over-used, so I just want to check if this is the correct way to do this from the start. Many thanks.
What you have described is the Model for your application, holding the game data and core logic. Is there any reason to make this a singleton rather than passing it between your controllers?!
I would assume one controller calls the next and so can pass this information across?! We use singletons for services and the like but not for model data, it's not really the point of them in our experience.
I personally have nothing against singletons, as long as you don't use too many of them in one project. While other people might recommend you use some other mediation for this project, I say go for it—this is exactly what you'd use a singleton for.
Singleton's can be be bad if you are developing a library component, a large server project, or for unit testing. But since you are doing an iphone game don't fret about it, it'll will be easier and faster just to use a singleton.
If you are worried about unit testing, since objetive-c is latebound and singletons are made with factory methods instead of constructors it's not hard to changeout the singleton for your unit test anyway.
I just got into using singletons and I just want to evaluate if I'm using it correctly. I've read that singletons are evil. I've only started with game dev't so things like unit testing and multithreading doesn't reach me yet.
I separated the logic of my game into different modules. Each module has a singleton and non-singleton classes (eg. data model). I'm using the singleton as a mediator so it can interact with other modules. This allows me to work with other people since it's in manageable pieces and I only need to expose the helper methods of my singleton. He doesn't need to know how I implemented it.
Am I doing the right thing?
Examples:
In a traditional japanese SRPG game (like FFTactics), the cells/grid for the tilemap has its own module. The character interacts with the singleton of this module.
All my sprites are generated by an AssetManager (a singleton) which autoscales the sprite depending on the resolution-availability and resolution of the device. This is done just by a calling a method in the singleton.
I definitely don't agree that singletons are evil. They are sometimes overused perhaps but on some occasions are just perfect for the job. In some applications it makes sense to have some kind of general data manager. The singleton pattern is used extensively in the SDK itself (app delegates, shared managers, default centers and so on). Most often these are not "pure" singletons, as in you can access a shared instance but can also create new instances if necessary.
The question you need to ask yourself is whether it would be useful to have access to a single instance of a data manager from anywhere at anytime, if it isn't then a singleton is probably not needed. If you are going to be using singletons in multi-threaded environments however, you do need to worry about race conditions (can one thread modify a resource while another is accessing it), the documentation has good explanations on how best to achieve this in Cocoa.
You could easily do that with an instance too.
Let's say you have a GameMap class and a Tile class. The GameMap represents a 2 dimension grid of Tile objects. (This is your FFTactics example).
GameMap *gameMap = [[GameMap alloc] init];
NSArray *theTiles = gameMap.tiles;
The instance of the GameMap owns the grid of tiles, and creates the tiles when the game map is created. No singleton needed.
You may say "but I only have one GameMap at a time, what's the big deal?". What about loading saved games, or loading new levels? Well that becomes as easy as:
// In whatever class object owns the game map
self.gameMap = [[GameMap alloc] initWithSaveData:saveData];
In conclusion, create an instance of a class that has code to manage other instances of things. Keep as little global as possible and your code will be more scalable and maintainable.
This blog post by Joubert just opened my eyes. I have dealt with a lot of design patterns in Java and other languages. But Objective-C is a rather unique language.
Let's say that in a project we talk with a third party API, like Dropbox or Facebook. What I've been doing so far is to combine everything that has to do with the third party API into a singleton class. So I can access the class from anywhere in my view controllers. I can just go for example: [[DropboxModel sharedInstance] uploadFile:aFile]
However as the blog post noted, this isn't efficient and leads to spaghetti code and bad unit testing. So what is the best way to design the system so that it's modular and easy to use?
I would dispute the idea that singletons lead to spaghetti code and are inefficient. However, the unit testing problem is legitimate and singletons do reduce modularity since they are really just fancy global variables.
I like Joubert's idea of injecting the singleton instance into the controller(s) from the app delegate (which is itself a singleton, ahem). I think the same approach would work for you.
What I normally do in these situations where I might want to use a different stub object in unit tests is define a protocol to represent the API and make my "real" API object conform to it and also my stub API object. I use the stub in the unit tests and the real object in the app.
Not that this really solves any architectural problems associated with singletons, but for the sake of readability and typability you can always define a macro in your DropboxModel header file, eg:
#define DBM [DropboxModel sharedInstance]
<...>
[DBM uploadFile:aFile];
i'll typically create an abstraction layer. this wraps a simple interface onto the library's calls which you use, while giving you a chance to introduce whatever state (e.g. variables) you'll need.
you can then expose only what you need and use, and add your own state, checks, and conveniently deal with all issues of the library from one place. 'issues' may be introduced for several reasons - it could be threading, resources, state, or undesired behavioral changes across versions.
most libraries are not meant to be used solely via a singleton. in such cases, it's best (subjective) to create interfaces as you would normally -- of course, being mindful of the constraints behind the abstraction layer. in that sense, you simply create object based interfaces which are divided by size/task/purpose/functionality -- all as you'd usually do when writing your own classes.
if you don't need the library all over the place, then i think it's also good to wrap what you need to minimize dependencies (increasingly important in large projects).
if you use the library all over the place, then you may also prefer to use the calls without the abstraction layer.
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