CSE351 DESIGN PATTERNS

05. SINGLETON PATTERN

One of a Kind Objects

Developer: What use is that?
Guru: There are many objects we only need one of: thread pools, caches, dialog boxes, objects
that handle preferences and registry settings, objects used for logging, and objects that act as
device drivers to devices like printers and graphics cards. In fact, for many of these types of
objects, if we were to instantiate more than one we'd run into all sorts of problems like
incorrect program behavior, overuse of resources, or inconsistent results.
Developer: Okay, so maybe there are classes that should only be instantiated once, but do I
need a whole class for this? Can't I just do this by convention or by global variables? You know,
like in Java, I could do it with a static variable.
Guru: In many ways, the Singleton Pattern is a convention for ensuring one and only one object is instantiated for a given class.
If you've got a better one, the world would like to hear about it; but remember, like all patterns, the Singleton Pattern is a
time-tested method for ensuring only one object gets created. The Singleton Pattern also gives us a global point of access,
just like a global variable, but without the downsides.
Developer: What downsides?
Guru: Well, here's one example: if you assign an object to a global variable, then you have to create that object when your application
begins. Right? What if this object is resource intensive and your application never ends up using it? As you will see, with the Singleton
Pattern, we can create our objects only when they are needed.
Developer: This still doesn't seem like it should be so difficult.
Guru: If you've got a good handle on static class variables and methods as well as access modifiers, it's not. But, in either case, it is
interesting to see how a Singleton works, and, as simple as it sounds, Singleton code is hard to get right. Just ask yourself: how do I
prevent more than one object from being instantiated? It's not so obvious, is it?

2
The Little Singleton
How would you create a single object? new MyObject();

And, what if another object wanted to create a Yes, of course.

MyObject? Could it call new on MyObject again?

So as long as we have a class, can we always instantiate Yes. Well, only if it's a public class.
it one or more times?

And if not? Well, if it's not a public class, only classes in the
same package can instantiate it. But they can still
instantiate it more than once.

Hmm, interesting. No, I'd never thought of it, but I guess it makes
Did you know you could do this? sense because it is a legal definition.
public MyClass {
private MyClass() {}
}
3
The Little Singleton
What does it mean? I suppose it is a class that can't be instantiated
because it has a private constructor.

Well, is there ANY object that could use the private Hmm, I think the code in MyClass is the only code
constructor? that could call it. But that doesn't make much sense.

Why not? Because I'd have to have an instance of the class

to call it, but I can't have an instance because no
other class can instantiate it. It's a chicken and
egg problem: I can use the constructor from an
object of type MyClass, but I can never
instantiate that object because no other object
can use "new MyClass()".

4
The Little Singleton
Okay, it was just a thought. MyClass is a class with a static method. We
What does this mean? can call the static method like this:
public MyClass {
public static MyClass getInstance(){} [Link]();
}

Why did you use MyClass, instead of some object name? Well, getInstance() is a static method; in
other words, it is a CLASS method. You need to
use the class name to reference a static method.
Very interesting. What if we put things together. Wow; you sure can.
Now can I instantiate a MyClass?
public MyClass {
private MyClass() {}
public static MyClass getInstance(){
return new MyClass();
}
}
5
The Little Singleton
So, now can you think of a second way to [Link]();
instantiate an object?

Can you finish the code so that only ONE instance of Yes, I think so…
MyClass is ever created?

OK, LET'S FINISH THE CODE!

6
Dissecting the classic Singleton Pattern implementation

public class Singleton {

private static Singleton uniqueInstance;
// other useful instance variables here
private Singleton() { }
public static Singleton getInstance() {
if(uniqueInstance == null) {
uniqueInstance = new Singleton();
}
return uniqueInstance;
}
// other useful methods here
}
7
Code Up Close

8
public class ChocolateBoiler {
private boolean empty;
private boolean boiled;
public ChocolateBoiler() {
The Chocolate Factory
empty = true; Everyone knows that all modern
boiled = false;
} chocolate factories have computer
public void fill() { controlled chocolate boilers. The job
if (isEmpty()) {
empty = false;
of the boiler is to take in chocolate
boiled = false; and milk, bring them to a boil, and
// fill the boiler with a milk/chocolate mixture then pass them on to the next phase
}
}
of making chocolate bars.
public void drain() {
if (!isEmpty() && isBoiled()) {
// drain the boiled milk and chocolate
empty = true;
}
}
public void boil() {
if (!isEmpty() && !isBoiled()) {
// bring the contents to a boil
boiled = true;
}
Here's the controller class for Choc-O-Holic, Inc.'s
} industrial strength Chocolate Boiler. Check out the code;
public boolean isEmpty() { you'll notice they've tried to be very careful to ensure that
return empty;
} bad things don't happen, like draining 500 gallons of
public boolean isBoiled() { unboiled mixture, or filling the boiler when it's already full,
return boiled; or boiling an empty boiler!
}
}
9
Sharpen your pencil

private static ChocolateBoiler uniqueInstance;

private

public static ChocolateBoiler getInstance() {

Can you help Choc-O-Holic improve their if (uniqueInstance == null) {
ChocolateBoiler class by turning it into a }
uniqueInstance = new ChocolateBoiler();

Singleton? return uniqueInstance;

}

10
Singleton Pattern defined
No big surprises there.
But, let's break it down a bit more:
▪ What's really going on here? We're taking a class and letting it manage a single instance of itself. We're also preventing any other class
from creating a new instance on its own. To get an instance, you've got to go through the class itself.
▪ We're also providing a global access point to the instance: whenever you need an instance, just query the class and it will hand you back
the single instance. As you've seen, we can implement this so that the Singleton is created in a lazy manner, which is especially important
for resource intensive objects.

11
Houston, we have a problem…
ChocolateBoiler's fill() method was able to start
filling the boiler even though a batch of milk and
chocolate was already boiling! That's 500 gallons
of spilled milk (and chocolate)! What happened!?

Could the addition of threads have caused this? Isn't

it the case that once we've set the uniquelnstance
variable to the sole instance of ChocolateBoiler, all
calls to getlnstance() should return the same
instance? Right?

12
Be the JVM
We have two threads, each executing this
code. Your job is to play the JVM and
determine whether there is a case in which
two threads might get ahold of different
boiler objects.
Hint: you really just need to look at the
sequence of operations in the
getInstance() method and the value of
uniqueInstance to see how they might
overlap. Use the code Magnets to help, you
study how the code might interleave to
create two boiler objects.

13
Dealing with multithreading
public class Singleton {
private static Singleton uniqueInstance;
// other useful instance variables here

private Singleton() {}

public static synchronized Singleton getInstance() {

if (uniqueInstance == null) {
uniqueInstance = new Singleton();
}
return uniqueInstance;
} Good point, and it's actually a little worse than you
// other useful methods here make out the only time synchronization is relevant is
} the first time through this method. In other words,
once we've set the uniqueInstance variable to an
instance of Singleton, we have no further need to
synchronize this method. After the first time through,
synchronization is totally unneeded overhead!
14
Can we improve multithreading?
1. Do nothing if the performance of getInstance() isn’t critical to your application
• Synchronizing getInstance() is straightforward and effective
• Just keep in mind that synchronizing a method can decrease performance by a factor of 100,
so if a high traffic part of your code begins using the method, you may have to reconsider.

2. Move to an eagerly created instance rather than a lazily created one

• Using this approach, we rely on the JVM to create the unique instance of the Singleton when
the class is loaded. The JVM guarantees that the instance will be created before any thread
accesses the static uniquelnstance variable.
public class Singleton {
private static Singleton uniqueInstance = new Singleton();

private Singleton() {}

public static Singleton getInstance() {

return uniqueInstance;
}
}
15
Can we improve multithreading? continued…
3. Use “double-checked locking” to reduce the use of synchronization in getInstance()
• first check to see if an instance is created
• if not THEN synchronize
public class Singleton {
private volatile static Singleton uniqueInstance;

private Singleton() {}

public static Singleton getInstance() {

if (uniqueInstance == null) {
synchronized ([Link]) {
if (uniqueInstance == null) {
uniqueInstance = new Singleton(); If performance is an issue
} in use of getInstance()

}
}
}

return uniqueInstance; ! method then this method

can drastically reduce the
overhead.
}
16
Meanwhile, back at the Chocolate Factory
Sharpen your pencil
For each solution, describe its applicability to the problem of fixing the Chocolate Boiler code

Synchronize the getInstance() method

A straightforward technique that is guaranteed to work. We don’t seem to have any
_________________________________________________________________________________
performance concerns with the chocolate boiler, so this would be a good choice.
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

Use eager instantiation

We are always going to instantiate the chocolate boiler in our code, so statically initializing
_________________________________________________________________________________
the instance would cause no concerns. This solution would work as well as the synchronized
_________________________________________________________________________________
method, although perhaps be less obvious to a developer familiar with the standard pattern
_________________________________________________________________________________

Double-checked locking
Given we have no performance concerns, double-checked locking seems like overkill. In addition,
_________________________________________________________________________________
we’d have to ensure that we are running at least Java 5.
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

17
 there are no
Dumb Questions
Q: Such a simple pattern consisting of only one class, Q: What about class loaders? I heard there is a chance that
Singletons sure seem to have some problems. two class loaders could each end up with their own instance of
Singleton.
A: Well, you’re warned up front! But don't let the problems
discourage you; while implementing Singletons correctly can A: Yes, that is true as each class loader defines a namespace.
be tricky, after this class you are now well informed on the If you have two or more classloaders, you can load the same
techniques for creating Singletons and should use them class multiple times (once in each classloader). Now, if that
wherever you need to control the number of instances you class happens to be a Singleton, then since we have more than
are creating. one version of the class, we also have more than one instance
of the Singleton. So, if you are using multiple classloaders
Q: I just create a class in which all methods and variables are
and Singletons, be careful. One way around this problem is to
defined as static? Wouldn't that be the same as a Singleton?
specify the classloader yourself.
A: Yes, if your class is self-contained and doesn't depend on
complex initialization. However, because of the way static
initializations are handled in Java, this can get very messy,
especially if multiple classes are involved. Often this scenario
can result in subtle, hard to find bugs involving order of
initialization. Unless there is a compelling need to implement
your "singleton" this way, it is far better to stay in the
object world.

18
 there are no
Dumb Questions
Q: I've always been taught that a class should do one thing Q: I wanted to subclass my Singleton code, but I ran into
and one thing only. For a class to do two things is problems. Is it okay to subclass a Singleton?
considered bad 00 design. Isn't a Singleton violating this?
A: One problem with subclassing Singleton is that the
A: You would be referring to the "One Class, One constructor is private. You can't extend a class with a private
Responsibility" principle, and yes, you are correct, the constructor. So, the first thing you'll have to do is change
Singleton is not only responsible for managing its one your constructor so that it's public or protected. But then,
instance (and providing global access), it is also responsible it's not really a Singleton anymore, because other classes can
for whatever its main role is in your application. So, instantiate it. If you do change your constructor, there's
certainly it can be argued it is taking on two responsibilities. another issue. The implementation of Singleton is based on a
Nevertheless, it isn't hard to see that there is utility in a static variable, so if you do a straightforward subclass, all of
class managing its own instance; it certainly makes the your derived classes will share the same instance variable. This
overall design simpler. In addition, many developers are is probably not what you had in mind. So, for subclassing to
familiar with the Singleton pattern as it is in wide use. That work, implementing registry of sorts is required in the base
said, some developers do feel the need to abstract out the class. Before implementing such a scheme, you should ask
Singleton functionality. yourself what you are really gaining from subclassing a
Singleton. Like most patterns, the Singleton is not
necessarily meant to be a solution that can fit into a library. In
addition, the Singleton code is trivial to add to any existing
class.

19
 there are no
Dumb Questions
Q: I still don't totally understand why global variables are
worse than a Singleton.
A: In Java, global variables are basically static references to
objects. There are a couple of disadvantages to using global
variables in this manner. We've already mentioned one: the
issue of lazy versus eager instantiation. But we need to keep
in mind the intent of the pattern: to ensure only one
instance of a class exists and to provide global access. A
global variable can provide the latter, but not the former.
Global variables also tend to encourage developers to pollute
the namespace with lots of global references to small
objects. Singletons don't encourage this in the same way,
but can be abused nonetheless.

20
Tools for your Design Toolbox
Bullet Points
▪ The Singleton Pattern ensures you have at most one
instance of a class in your application.
▪ The Singleton Pattern also provides a global access point
to that instance.
▪ Java's implementation of the Singleton Pattern makes use
of a private constructor, a static method combined with a
static variable.
▪ Examine your performance and resource constraints and
carefully choose an appropriate Singleton implementation
for multithreaded applications (and we should consider all
applications multithreaded!).
▪ Beware of the double-checked locking implementation; it is
not thread-safe in versions before Java 2, version 5.
▪ Be careful, if you’re using multiple classloaders.

21