In software engineering, the singleton pattern is a design pattern that is used to restrict instantiation of a class to one object. This is useful when exactly one object is needed to coordinate actions across the system. Sometimes it is generalized to systems that operate more efficiently when only one or a few objects exist. It is also considered an anti-pattern since it is often used as a euphemism for global variable.
Contents |
Common uses
- The Abstract Factory, Builder, and Prototype patterns can use Singletons in their implementation.
- Façade objects are often Singletons because only one Façade object is required.
- State objects are often Singletons.
- Singletons are often preferred to global variables because:
- They don't pollute the global namespace (or, in languages with namespaces, their containing namespace) with unnecessary variables.
- They permit lazy allocation and initialization, where global variables in many languages will always consume resources.
- Singletons behave differently depending on the lifetime of the virtual machine. While a software development kit may start a new virtual machine for every run which results in a new instance of the singleton being created, calls to a singleton e.g. within the virtual machine of an application server behave differently. There the virtual machine remains alive, therefore the instance of the singleton remains as well. Running the code again therefore can retrieve the "old" instance of the singleton which then may be contaminated with values in local fields which are the result of the first run.
Class diagram
Implementation
The singleton pattern is implemented by creating a class with a method that creates a new instance of the class if one does not exist. If an instance already exists, it simply returns a reference to that object. To make sure that the object cannot be instantiated any other way, the constructor is made either private or protected. Note the distinction between a simple static instance of a class and a singleton: although a singleton can be implemented as a static instance, it can also be lazily constructed, requiring no memory or resources until needed. Another notable difference is that static member classes cannot implement an interface, unless that interface is simply a marker. So if the class has to realize a contract expressed by an interface, you really have to make it a singleton. The singleton pattern must be carefully constructed in multi-threaded applications. If two threads are to execute the creation method at the same time when a singleton does not yet exist, they both must check for an instance of the singleton and then only one should create the new one. If the programming language has concurrent processing capabilities the method should be constructed to execute as a mutually exclusive operation. The classic solution to this problem is to use mutual exclusion on the class that indicates that the object is being instantiated.
Example implementations
Java
The Java programming language solutions provided here are all thread-safe but differ in supported language versions and lazy-loading.
The solution of Bill Pugh
This is the recommended method. It is known as the initialization on demand holder idiom and is as lazy as possible. Moreover, it works in all known versions of Java. This solution is the most portable across different Java compilers and virtual machines. The inner class is referenced no earlier (and therefore loaded no earlier by the class loader) than the moment that getInstance() is called. Thus, this solution is thread-safe without requiring special language constructs (i.e. volatile and/or synchronized). <source lang="java">
public class Singleton {
// Private constructor suppresses generation of a (public) default constructor
private Singleton() {}
/**
* SingletonHolder is loaded on the first execution of Singleton.getInstance()
* or the first access to SingletonHolder.INSTANCE, not before.
*/
private static class SingletonHolder {
private final static Singleton INSTANCE = new Singleton();
}
public static Singleton getInstance() {
return SingletonHolder.INSTANCE;
}
}
</source>
Traditional simple way
Just like the one above, this solution is thread-safe without requiring special language constructs, but it lacks the laziness. The INSTANCE is created as soon as the Singleton class loads. That might even be long before getInstance() is called. It might be (for example) when some static method of the class is used. If laziness doesn't bother you or you need the instance to be created early in your application's execution, you can use this (slightly) simpler solution: <source lang="java">
public class Singleton {
private final static Singleton INSTANCE = new Singleton();
// Private constructor suppresses generation of a (public) default constructor
private Singleton() {}
public static Singleton getInstance() {
return INSTANCE;
}
}
</source>
Java 5 solution
If and only if your compiler is Java 5 (also known as Java 1.5) or newer, AND all Java virtual machines your application is going to run on fully support the Java 5 memory model, then (and only then) you can use volatile double checked locking: <source lang="java">
public class Singleton {
private static volatile Singleton INSTANCE;
// Private constructor suppresses generation of a (public) default constructor
private Singleton() {}
public static Singleton getInstance() {
if (INSTANCE == null)
synchronized(Singleton.class) {
if (INSTANCE == null)
INSTANCE = new Singleton();
}
return INSTANCE;
}
}
</source> Allen Holub (in "Taming Java Threads", Berkeley, CA: Apress, 2000, pp. 176-178) notes that on multi-CPU systems (which are widespread as of 2007), the use of volatile may have an impact on performance approaching to that of synchronization, and raises the possibility of other problems. Thus this solution has little to recommend it over Pugh's solution described above.
PHP 5
Singleton pattern in PHP 5: <source lang="php"> <?php class Singleton {
// object instance
private static $instance;
private function __construct() {}
private function __clone() {}
public static function getInstance() {
if (self::$instance === null) {
self::$instance = new self;
}
return self::$instance;
}
public function doAction() {
...
}
} //usage Singleton::getInstance()->doAction(); ?> </source>
Objective-C
A common way to implement a singleton in Objective-C is the following: <source lang="objc"> @interface MySingleton : NSObject { } + (MySingleton *)sharedSingleton; @end @implementation MySingleton + (MySingleton *)sharedSingleton {
static MySingleton *sharedSingleton;
@synchronized(self)
{
if (!sharedSingleton)
sharedSingleton = [[MySingleton alloc] init];
return sharedSingleton;
}
} @end </source> If thread-safety is not required, the synchronization can be left out, leaving the +sharedSingleton method like this: <source lang="objc"> + (MySingleton *)sharedSingleton {
static MySingleton *sharedSingleton; if (!sharedSingleton) sharedSingleton = [[MySingleton alloc] init]; return sharedSingleton;
} </source> This pattern is widely used in the Cocoa frameworks (see for instance, NSApplication, NSColorPanel, NSFontPanel or NSWorkspace, to name but a few). Some may argue that this is not, strictly speaking, a Singleton, because it is possible to allocate more than one instance of the object. A common way around this is to use assertions or exceptions to prevent this double allocation. <source lang="objc"> @interface MySingleton : NSObject { } + (MySingletonnnn *)sharedSingleton; @end @implementation MySingleton static MySingleton *sharedSingleton; + (MySingleton *)sharedSingleton {
@synchronized(self)
{
if (!sharedSingleton)
[[MySingleton alloc] init];
return sharedSingleton;
}
} +(id)alloc {
@synchronized(self)
{
NSAssert(sharedSingleton == nil, @"Attempted to allocate a second instance of a singleton.");
sharedSingleton = [super alloc];
return sharedSingleton;
}
} @end </source> There are alternative ways to express the Singleton pattern in Objective-C, but they are not always as simple or as easily understood, not least because they may rely on the -init method returning an object other than self. Some of the Cocoa "Class Clusters" (e.g. NSString, NSNumber) are known to exhibit this type of behaviour. Note that @synchronized is not available in some Objective-C configurations, as it relies on the NeXT/Apple runtime. It is also comparatively slow, because it has to look up the lock based on the object in parentheses. Check the history of this page for a different implementation using an NSConditionLock.
C++
Here is a possible implementation in C++, using the Curiously Recurring Template Pattern. In this implementation, also known as the Meyers singleton [1], the singleton is a static local object. Because C++ provides no standard multithreading support, this solution is not thread-safe in general, though some compilers (e.g. gcc) generate thread-safe code in this case. <source lang="cpp">
- include <iostream>
template<typename T> class Singleton {
public:
static T& Instance()
{
static T theSingleInstance; // assumes T has a protected default constructor
return theSingleInstance;
}
};
class OnlyOne : public Singleton<OnlyOne> {
friend class Singleton<OnlyOne>;
int example_data;
public:
int Getexample_data() const {return example_data;}
protected:
OnlyOne(): example_data(42) {} // default constructor
};
- define ReferenceName OnlyOne::Instance()
/* This test case should print "42". */
- include <iostream>
int main() {
std::cout<< ReferenceName.Getexample_data()<<std::endl; return 0;
} </source>
C++ (using pthreads)
A common design pattern for thread safety with the singleton class is to use double-checked locking. However, due to the ability of modern processors to re-order instructions (as long as the result is consistent with their architecturally-specified memory model), and the absence of any consideration being given to multiple threads of execution in the language standard, double-checked locking is intrinsically prone to failure in C++. There is no model — other than runtime libraries (e.g. POSIX threads, designed to provide concurrency primitives) — that can provide the necessary execution order.[1] By adding a mutex to the singleton class, a thread-safe implementation may be obtained. <source lang="cpp">
- include <pthread.h>
- include <memory>
- include <iostream>
class Mutex {
public:
Mutex()
{ pthread_mutex_init(&m, 0); }
void lock()
{ pthread_mutex_lock(&m); }
void unlock()
{ pthread_mutex_unlock(&m); }
private:
pthread_mutex_t m;
}; class MutexLocker {
public:
MutexLocker(Mutex& pm): m(pm) { m.lock(); }
~MutexLocker() { m.unlock(); }
private:
Mutex& m;
}; class Singleton {
public:
static Singleton& Instance();
int example_data;
~Singleton() { }
protected:
Singleton(): example_data(42) { }
private:
static std::auto_ptr<Singleton> theSingleInstance;
static Mutex m;
};
Singleton& Singleton::Instance() {
MutexLocker obtain_lock(m);
if (theSingleInstance.get() == 0)
theSingleInstance.reset(new Singleton);
return *theSingleInstance;
} std::auto_ptr<Singleton> Singleton::theSingleInstance; Mutex Singleton::m;
int main() {
std::cout << Singleton::Instance().example_data << std::endl; return 0;
} </source> Note the use of the MutexLocker class in the Singleton::Instance() function. The MutexLocker is being used as an RAII object, also known as scoped lock, guaranteeing that the mutex lock will be relinquished even if an exception is thrown during the execution of Singleton::Instance(), since the language specification pledges that the destructors of automatically allocated objects are invoked during stack unwind. This implementation invokes the mutex-locking primitives for each call to Singleton::Instance(), even though the mutex is only needed once, the first time the method is called. To get rid of the extra mutex operations, the programmer can explicitly construct Singleton::theSingleInstance early in the program (say, in main); or, the class can be optimized (in this case, using pthread_once) to cache the value of the initialized pointer in thread-local storage. More code must be written if the singleton code is located in a static library, but the program is divided into DLLs. Each DLL that uses the singleton will create a new and distinct instance of the singleton. To avoid that, the singleton code must be linked in a DLL. Alternatively, the singleton can be rewritten to use a memory-mapped file to store theSingleInstance.
C#
This example is thread-safe with lazy initialization. <source lang="csharp"> /// <summary> /// Class implements singleton pattern. /// </summary> public class Singleton {
// Private constructor to avoid other instantiation
// This must be present otherwise the compiler provide
// a default public constructor
private Singleton()
{
}
/// <summary>
/// Return an instance of <see cref="Singleton"/>
/// </summary>
public static Singleton Instance
{
get
{
/// An instance of Singleton wont be created until the very first
/// call to the sealed class. This a CLR optimization that ensure that
/// we have properly lazy-loading singleton.
return SingletonCreator.CreatorInstance;
}
}
/// <summary>
/// Sealed class to avoid any heritage from this helper class
/// </summary>
private sealed class SingletonCreator
{
// Retrieve a single instance of a Singleton
private static readonly Singleton _instance = new Singleton();
/// <summary>
/// Return an instance of the class <see cref="Singleton"/>
/// </summary>
public static Singleton CreatorInstance
{
get { return _instance; }
}
}
} </source>
Python
According to influential Python programmer Alex Martelli, The Singleton design pattern (DP) has a catchy name, but the wrong focus—on identity rather than on state. The Borg design pattern has all instances share state instead.[2] A rough consensus in the Python community is that sharing state among instances is more elegant, at least in Python, than is caching creation of identical instances on class initialization. Coding shared state is nearly transparent: <source lang="python"> class Borg:
__shared_state = {}
def __init__(self):
self.__dict__ = self.__shared_state
# and whatever else you want in your class -- that's all!
</source> But with the new style class, this is a better solution, because only one instance is created: <source lang="python"> class Singleton (object):
instance = None
def __new__(cls, *args, **kargs):
if cls.instance is None:
cls.instance = object.__new__(cls, *args, **kargs)
return cls.instance
- Usage
mySingleton1 = Singleton() mySingleton2 = Singleton()
- mySingleton1 and mySingleton2 are the same instance.
assert mySingleton1 is mySingleton2 </source> Two caveats:
- The __init__-method is called every time you call Singleton().
- If you want to inherit from the Singleton-class, instance should probably be a dictionary belonging explicitly to the Singleton-class.
<source lang="python"> class InheritableSingleton (object):
instances = {}
def __new__(cls, *args, **kargs):
if InheritableSingleton.instances.get(cls) is None:
InheritableSingleton.instances[cls] = object.__new__(cls, *args, **kargs)
return InheritableSingleton.instances[cls]
</source> To create a singleton that inherits from a non-singleton, you must use multiple inheritance. <source lang="python"> class Singleton (NonSingletonClass, object):
instance = None
def __new__(cls, *args, **kargs):
if cls.instance is None:
cls.instance = object.__new__(cls, *args, **kargs)
return cls.instance
</source> Be sure to call the NonSingletonClass's __init__ function from the Singleton's __init__ function.
Ruby
In Ruby you just include Singleton in your class. <source lang="ruby"> require 'singleton' class Example
include Singleton
end </source>
Prototype-based singleton
In a prototype-based programming language, where objects but not classes are used, a "singleton" simply refers to an object without copies or that is not used as the prototype for any other object. Example in Io:
Foo := Object clone Foo clone := Foo
Example of use with the factory method pattern
The singleton pattern is often used in conjunction with the factory method pattern to create a system-wide resource whose specific type is not known to the code that uses it. An example of using these two patterns together is the Java Abstract Windowing Toolkit (AWT). java.awt.Toolkit is an abstract class that binds the various AWT components to particular native toolkit implementations. The Toolkit class has a Toolkit.getDefaultToolkit() factory method that returns the platform-specific subclass of Toolkit. The Toolkit object is a singleton because the AWT needs only a single object to perform the binding and the object is relatively expensive to create. The toolkit methods must be implemented in an object and not as static methods of a class because the specific implementation is not known by the platform-independent components. The name of the specific Toolkit subclass used is specified by the "awt.toolkit" environment property accessed through System.getProperties(). The binding performed by the toolkit allows, for example, the backing implementation of a java.awt.Window to bound to the platform-specific java.awt.peer.WindowPeer implementation. Neither the Window class nor the application using the window needs to be aware of which platform-specific subclass of the peer is used.
References
- ^ Alexandrescu, Andrei [2001]. Modern C++ Design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-201-70431-5.
- ^ Alex Martelli. Singleton? We don't need no stinkin' singleton: the Borg design pattern. ASPN Python Cookbook. Retrieved on 2006-09-07.
- "C++ and the Perils of Double-Checked Locking" Meyers, Scott and Alexandrescu, Andrei, September 2004.
- "The Boost.Threads Library" Kempf, B., Dr. Dobb's Portal, April 2003.
External links
- A Singleton Pattern
- A Pattern Enforcing Compiler™ that enforces the Singleton pattern amongst other patterns
- Description from the Portland Pattern Repository
- Singleton pattern discussion with 1-page examples by Vince Huston
- Implementing the Singleton Pattern in C# by Jon Skeet
- A Threadsafe C++ Template Singleton Pattern for Windows Platforms by O. Patrick Barnes
- Implementing the Inheritable Singleton Pattern in PHP5
- Singleton Pattern and Thread Safety
- PHP patterns
- Javascript implementation of a Singleton Pattern by Christian Schaefer
- Singletons Cause Cancer
- Singleton examples
- Article "Double-checked locking and the Singleton pattern" by Peter Haggar
- Article "Use your singletons wisely" by J. B. Rainsberger
- Article "Simply Singleton" by David Geary
- Article "Description of Singleton" by Aruna
- Article "Why Singletons Are Controversial"
- The Google Singleton Detector analyzes Java bytecode to detect singletons, so that their usefulness can be evaluated.
|
|
|---|
|
Creational: Abstract factory • Builder • Factory • Prototype • Singleton |
