Not during instantiation, but once instantiation of singleton object is done, what will happen if two or more threads are trying to access the same singleton object? Especially in the case where the singleton object takes lot of time to process the request (say 1 min)... In this case, if for ex., 5 threads try to access the same singleton object, what will the result be?
Additional question: normally when should we go for the singleton pattern and when should we avoid it?
Unless synchronization (locking) is being performed within the Singleton, the answer is this: it's a free-for-all.
Though the Singleton ensures that only one instance of an object is used when requested, the pattern itself doesn't inherently provide any form of thread safety. This is left up to the implementer.
In the specific case you cited (with a long running method), it would be critical to synchronize access to any method that uses class or object-level variables. Failure to do so would, in all likelihood, lead to race conditions.
Good luck!
The general rule of thumb i use for Singletons is that it should not affect the running code, and have no side-effects. Essentially for me, in my projects this translates into some kind of logging functionality, or static value lookup (ie. loading some common data from a database once and storing it for reference so it doesn't have to be read in everytime its needed).
A singleton is no different than any other object other than there is only one instance. What happens when you try to access it will largely depend on what the accessing threads are attempting (ie read vs write) and what kind of data your singleton is holding.
The answer to your question as it is, is "it really depends". What kind of singleton? i.e. what does it do, and how does it do it? And in what language?
The reality is that the singleton patter)n only dictates and enforces that you can only have one instance of a certain object. In of itself it does not say anything about multiple threads accessing that object.
So, if coded right (with thread synchronization implemented correctly) there is no reason why it shouldn't behave correctly - even if the requests to the object take a really long time to process!
Then you need thread safe implementation of singleton pattern.
Find this article useful for the same which describes most of the multi-threading scenario of singleton pattern.
HTH!
Related
It seems to me that singletons enforce a single instance but why would an application that understands that there should be only on such instance even attempt to instantiate a second instance?
I think its also about managing the single shared instance. Synchronization to be precise.You don't want someone to use the resource when you are using it.
Private constructor and static method simply enforces the application to do so.
A lot of developers refrain from using it since its also difficult to test and causes multi-threading issues.
I have an object that performs a very specific task. To be created, this object needs some parameters. I create a new instance in some parts of my system. But there is the problem. What if a parameter or argument must be changed in the future? I will need to change it everywhere. Then I thought: "Well, maybe I can encapsulate its creation in a class, if some argument changes, I will need to change it just in a single place!".
It does make perfect sense to me. The real question is, is this "wrapper" object a factory? Its responsibility would be "Create a new object with specific parameters and return it". Consumers would just use this object ...
You a refactoring code to avoid duplication, that is itself likely to improve your overall maintainability.
If this piece of refactored code is creating objects then, yes, it is a factory. It really doesn't matter what you call it - is your code better structured now you have it? Then do it!
However, given that it is a factory study the classic design patterns concerning factories and understand what leads people to use more sophisticate forms of this pattern. Decide whether you have any of the forces that lead them to use "clever" factories.
The problem you describe is that all clients of your class have to change when the constructor parameters of that class change. Introducing a factory could help prevent recompilation of the clients. But does this really solve the problem? If you modify the class to be constructed with another parameter that parameter has to be determined somewhere, probably in the context of the clients that initiate the construction. How should the factory class know? Would the clients have to pass any context information to the factory?
What parameters are needed to construct the object? Do the clients provide them or could the objects be created beforehand and then injected into the clients as you would inject the factory (as I understand your question the latter seems to be the case)? Consider using a DI framework. This oftentimes makes factories obsolete.
Why are you afraid that your class is likely to be changed? Could it be that your class just does too much? Mind the Single Responsibility Principle. In your case also the Open/Closed Principle is an interesting study.
As I understand a factory does not necessarily address the problem you describe. Factories take the responsibility of creating objects away from clients so the client doesn't have to know the concrete type of the object. Just preventing that signatures remain stable can also be done by wrapping parameters in a single object. This is also a well known refactoring pattern. But it also doesn't solve the question where the new parameters come from.
As the question states, can a shared method of an object be multithreaded? I don't quite having threading down in my skillset, otherwise I would test myself. On the other hand, I am involved in designing class that could be part of a multithreaded application in VB.Net.
If you mean "is it safe for a shared method to be called from multiple threads at once" - the answer is "it depends". A method itself isn't multi-threaded or single-threaded; threads and methods are very separate things.
If your shared method is called from multiple threads, then unless there's any synchronization to say otherwise, it will be executed concurrently on those threads. That can definitely cause a problem if your method uses shared state without appropriate safeguards. However, if the method either takes care when accessing shared resources (e.g. using locks) or it doesn't access any state which is shared between threads, that's fine.
Yes, it can. Any method can become a thread.
Yes, shared methods can be executed simultaneously by multiple threads. In fact, they often are. You do not have as much control over which threads are executing shared methods as compared to instance methods. Consider an ASP.NET application for example. Different page requests may come in on different threads. If you call a shared method in your web application then there is a high probability that it is getting executed by multiple threads.
This is an incredibly important point when designing an API. All self respecting API authors go to extremes to make sure all shared/static methods are thread-safe. Afterall, it would be ridiculously onerous to make a caller of your API synchronize access to every single shared/static method you provide. Take a look at the documentation Microsoft provides for almost all classes in the BCL.
Any public static (Shared in Visual Basic) members of this type are
thread safe. Any instance members are not guaranteed to be thread
safe.
I have yet to run across a static method provided by Microsoft that was not thread-safe.1 And that is good because it makes life easier for you and I.
1If you know of one let me know.
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.
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