This question already has answers here:
How to instantiate a Singleton multiple times?
(9 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I have created a Singleton class using lazy initialization method. That is the getInstance method is synchronized. But without changing the design pattern is there a way to create multiple instances of the Singleton class. Because changing the Singleton pattern will take lot of architectural changes. Please advice a way to create multiple instances. Please help in Java.
Singleton patten means only one instance is allowed. So there is no question of creating multiple instances.
Though there are some hacks and workarounds like Serializing the Object and De Serializing it back or using different Class loaders but again it violates the basic principle why Singleton pattern is created for.
EDIT: I don't have the required reputation to add it as a comment hence adding it as an answer - as pointed out in the comments, it's a possible duplicate.
A little research and there you have it:
Reference this link
Code
class MySingleton {
private MySingleton() {
}
}
class Test {
public void test() throws Exception {
Constructor<MySingleton> constructor = MySingleton.class.getConstructor();
constructor.setAccessible(true);
MySingleton otherSingleton = constructor.newInstance();
}
}
You want to have multiple instances of a class which can only have one instance by design.
You can, but it is no longer a singleton. Treat it as a normal object which have multiple instances and the restriction is lifted. How you do that depends on your use case.
It will depend on the class behaviour. If the instance is well encapsulated, you can recreate what getInstance method does using reflection, I guess.
I am reading a book about Java and it says that you can declare the whole class as final. I cannot think of anything where I'd use this.
I am just new to programming and I am wondering if programmers actually use this on their programs. If they do, when do they use it so I can understand it better and know when to use it.
If Java is object oriented, and you declare a class final, doesn't it stop the idea of class having the characteristics of objects?
First of all, I recommend this article: Java: When to create a final class
If they do, when do they use it so I can understand it better and know when to use it.
A final class is simply a class that can't be extended.
(It does not mean that all references to objects of the class would act as if they were declared as final.)
When it's useful to declare a class as final is covered in the answers of this question:
Good reasons to prohibit inheritance in Java?
If Java is object oriented, and you declare a class final, doesn't it stop the idea of class having the characteristics of objects?
In some sense yes.
By marking a class as final you disable a powerful and flexible feature of the language for that part of the code. Some classes however, should not (and in certain cases can not) be designed to take subclassing into account in a good way. In these cases it makes sense to mark the class as final, even though it limits OOP. (Remember however that a final class can still extend another non-final class.)
In Java, items with the final modifier cannot be changed!
This includes final classes, final variables, and final methods:
A final class cannot be extended by any other class
A final variable cannot be reassigned another value
A final method cannot be overridden
One scenario where final is important, when you want to prevent inheritance of a class, for security reasons. This allows you to make sure that code you are running cannot be overridden by someone.
Another scenario is for optimization: I seem to remember that the Java compiler inlines some function calls from final classes. So, if you call a.x() and a is declared final, we know at compile-time what the code will be and can inline into the calling function. I have no idea whether this is actually done, but with final it is a possibility.
The best example is
public final class String
which is an immutable class and cannot be extended.
Of course, there is more than just making the class final to be immutable.
If you imagine the class hierarchy as a tree (as it is in Java), abstract classes can only be branches and final classes are those that can only be leafs. Classes that fall into neither of those categories can be both branches and leafs.
There's no violation of OO principles here, final is simply providing a nice symmetry.
In practice you want to use final if you want your objects to be immutable or if you're writing an API, to signal to the users of the API that the class is just not intended for extension.
Relevant reading: The Open-Closed Principle by Bob Martin.
Key quote:
Software Entities (Classes, Modules,
Functions, etc.) should be open for
Extension, but closed for
Modification.
The final keyword is the means to enforce this in Java, whether it's used on methods or on classes.
The keyword final itself means something is final and is not supposed to be modified in any way. If a class if marked final then it can not be extended or sub-classed. But the question is why do we mark a class final? IMO there are various reasons:
Standardization: Some classes perform standard functions and they are not meant to be modified e.g. classes performing various functions related to string manipulations or mathematical functions etc.
Security reasons: Sometimes we write classes which perform various authentication and password related functions and we do not want them to be altered by anyone else.
I have heard that marking class final improves efficiency but frankly I could not find this argument to carry much weight.
If Java is object oriented, and you declare a class final, doesn't it
stop the idea of class having the characteristics of objects?
Perhaps yes, but sometimes that is the intended purpose. Sometimes we do that to achieve bigger benefits of security etc. by sacrificing the ability of this class to be extended. But a final class can still extend one class if it needs to.
On a side note we should prefer composition over inheritance and final keyword actually helps in enforcing this principle.
final class can avoid breaking the public API when you add new methods
Suppose that on version 1 of your Base class you do:
public class Base {}
and a client does:
class Derived extends Base {
public int method() { return 1; }
}
Then if in version 2 you want to add a method method to Base:
class Base {
public String method() { return null; }
}
it would break the client code.
If we had used final class Base instead, the client wouldn't have been able to inherit, and the method addition wouldn't break the API.
A final class is a class that can't be extended. Also methods could be declared as final to indicate that cannot be overridden by subclasses.
Preventing the class from being subclassed could be particularly useful if you write APIs or libraries and want to avoid being extended to alter base behaviour.
In java final keyword uses for below occasions.
Final Variables
Final Methods
Final Classes
In java final variables can't reassign, final classes can't extends and final methods can't override.
Be careful when you make a class "final". Because if you want to write an unit test for a final class, you cannot subclass this final class in order to use the dependency-breaking technique "Subclass and Override Method" described in Michael C. Feathers' book "Working Effectively with Legacy Code". In this book, Feathers said, "Seriously, it is easy to believe that sealed and final are a wrong-headed mistake, that they should never have been added to programming languages. But the real fault lies with us. When we depend directly on libraries that are out of our control, we are just asking for trouble."
If the class is marked final, it means that the class' structure can't be modified by anything external. Where this is the most visible is when you're doing traditional polymorphic inheritance, basically class B extends A just won't work. It's basically a way to protect some parts of your code (to extent).
To clarify, marking class final doesn't mark its fields as final and as such doesn't protect the object properties but the actual class structure instead.
TO ADDRESS THE FINAL CLASS PROBLEM:
There are two ways to make a class final. The first is to use the keyword final in the class declaration:
public final class SomeClass {
// . . . Class contents
}
The second way to make a class final is to declare all of its constructors as private:
public class SomeClass {
public final static SOME_INSTANCE = new SomeClass(5);
private SomeClass(final int value) {
}
Marking it final saves you the trouble if finding out that it is actual a final, to demonstrate look at this Test class. looks public at first glance.
public class Test{
private Test(Class beanClass, Class stopClass, int flags)
throws Exception{
// . . . snip . . .
}
}
Unfortunately, since the only constructor of the class is private, it is impossible to extend this class. In the case of the Test class, there is no reason that the class should be final. The Test class is a good example of how implicit final classes can cause problems.
So you should mark it final when you implicitly make a class final by making it's constructor private.
One advantage of keeping a class as final :-
String class is kept final so that no one can override its methods and change the functionality. e.g no one can change functionality of length() method. It will always return length of a string.
Developer of this class wanted no one to change functionality of this class, so he kept it as final.
The other answers have focused on what final class tells the compiler: do not allow another class to declare it extends this class, and why that is desirable.
But the compiler is not the only reader of the phrase final class. Every programmer who reads the source code also reads that. It can aid rapid program comprehension.
In general, if a programmer sees Thing thing = that.someMethod(...); and the programmer wants to understand the subsequent behaviour of the object accessed through the thing object-reference, the programmer must consider the Thing class hierarchy: potentially many types, scattered over many packages. But if the programmer knows, or reads, final class Thing, they instantly know that they do not need to search for and study so many Java files, because there are no derived classes: they need study only Thing.java and, perhaps, it's base classes.
Yes, sometimes you may want this though, either for security or speed reasons. It's done also in C++. It may not be that applicable for programs, but moreso for frameworks.
http://www.glenmccl.com/perfj_025.htm
think of FINAL as the "End of the line" - that guy cannot produce offspring anymore. So when you see it this way, there are ton of real world scenarios that you will come across that requires you to flag an 'end of line' marker to the class. It is Domain Driven Design - if your domain demands that a given ENTITY (class) cannot create sub-classes, then mark it as FINAL.
I should note that there is nothing stopping you from inheriting a "should be tagged as final" class. But that is generally classified as "abuse of inheritance", and done because most often you would like to inherit some function from the base class in your class.
The best approach is to look at the domain and let it dictate your design decisions.
As above told, if you want no one can change the functionality of the method then you can declare it as final.
Example: Application server file path for download/upload, splitting string based on offset, such methods you can declare it Final so that these method functions will not be altered. And if you want such final methods in a separate class, then define that class as Final class. So Final class will have all final methods, where as Final method can be declared and defined in non-final class.
Let's say you have an Employee class that has a method greet. When the greet method is called it simply prints Hello everyone!. So that is the expected behavior of greet method
public class Employee {
void greet() {
System.out.println("Hello everyone!");
}
}
Now, let GrumpyEmployee subclass Employee and override greet method as shown below.
public class GrumpyEmployee extends Employee {
#Override
void greet() {
System.out.println("Get lost!");
}
}
Now in the below code have a look at the sayHello method. It takes Employee instance as a parameter and calls the greet method hoping that it would say Hello everyone! But what we get is Get lost!. This change in behavior is because of Employee grumpyEmployee = new GrumpyEmployee();
public class TestFinal {
static Employee grumpyEmployee = new GrumpyEmployee();
public static void main(String[] args) {
TestFinal testFinal = new TestFinal();
testFinal.sayHello(grumpyEmployee);
}
private void sayHello(Employee employee) {
employee.greet(); //Here you would expect a warm greeting, but what you get is "Get lost!"
}
}
This situation can be avoided if the Employee class was made final. Just imagine the amount of chaos a cheeky programmer could cause if String Class was not declared as final.
Final class cannot be extended further. If we do not need to make a class inheritable in java,we can use this approach.
If we just need to make particular methods in a class not to be overridden, we just can put final keyword in front of them. There the class is still inheritable.
Final classes cannot be extended. So if you want a class to behave a certain way and don't someone to override the methods (with possibly less efficient and more malicious code), you can declare the whole class as final or specific methods which you don't want to be changed.
Since declaring a class does not prevent a class from being instantiated, it does not mean it will stop the class from having the characteristics of an object. It's just that you will have to stick to the methods just the way they are declared in the class.
Android Looper class is a good practical example of this.
http://developer.android.com/reference/android/os/Looper.html
The Looper class provides certain functionality which is NOT intended to be overridden by any other class. Hence, no sub-class here.
I know only one actual use case: generated classes
Among the use cases of generated classes, I know one: dependency inject e.g. https://github.com/google/dagger
Object Orientation is not about inheritance, it is about encapsulation. And inheritance breaks encapsulation.
Declaring a class final makes perfect sense in a lot of cases. Any object representing a “value” like a color or an amount of money could be final. They stand on their own.
If you are writing libraries, make your classes final unless you explicitly indent them to be derived. Otherwise, people may derive your classes and override methods, breaking your assumptions / invariants. This may have security implications as well.
Joshua Bloch in “Effective Java” recommends designing explicitly for inheritance or prohibiting it and he notes that designing for inheritance is not that easy.
Is there any method to check whether any instance of a class is running?
I have a GUI and I don't want open another instance of it, if a one is already running.
I know about including a counter in constructor. Any method except that?
Thanks in advance!!
Use the singleton pattern.
Here is a simple implementation in java of a singleton:
public class MyClass {
private static MyClass INSTANCE = new MyClass();
private MyClass() { // private constructor prevents creation outside class
}
public static MyClass getInstance() {
return INSTANCE;
}
}
Note that this is not "bulletproof" (there are "hacks" you can use via reflection to circumvent this and create two instances), however if you're the only user of the code it will be fine.
Is there any method to check whether any instance of a class is running?
The simple answer is No.
The normal way to deal with this problem is to use the Singleton design pattern. The idea of the pattern is that you write the code to remove the possibility of creating multiple instance of the class.
In Java you typically do this by declaring the class constructor to be private, and providing access to the singleton instance via a static method. Depending on your precise requirements, the singleton can be created eagerly or lazily.
Bohemian's answer provides a good example of this approach.
(In Java 5 or later, it is also possible to use enum types to implement singletons.)
Use Enum as recommended by J. Bloch (Effective Java Programming 2nd Ed., Addison Wesley)
Back couple of months ago I attended a presentation hosted by two representative of an independent software development company. It was mainly about good software design and practices.
The two guys were talking mainly about Java and I remember them saying, that in some circumstances it is very good practice to use getInstanceOf() instead of the constructor. It had something to do with making always calling getInstanceOf() from different classes rather than constructor and how it was it is much better approach on larger scale projects.
As you can see I cannot remember much from it now :/ but I remember that the arguments that they used were really convincing. I wonder if any of you ever came across such a design and when, would you say, is it useful? Or do you think it isn't at all?
Consider static factory methods instead of constructors—Joshua Bloch
They were probably talking about the static factory method pattern (and not the reflection API method for dynamically creating objects).
There at several advantages of a method such as getInstanceOf() over a constructor and using new. The static factory method can...
Choose to create a different sub-class of the main class if that is desirable in certain cases (based on environmental conditions, such as properties and other objects/singletons, or method parameters).
Choose to return an existing object instead of creating one. For an example of this, see Boolean.valueOf(boolean) in the Java API.
Do the same thing as the constructor - just return a new instance of the class itself.
Provide many different kinds of ways to construct a new object and name those methods so they are less confusing (e.g. try this with constructors and you soon have many different overloads). Sometimes this is not even possible with constructors if you need to be able to create an instance two different ways but only need the same type of parameters. Example:
// This class will not compile!
public class MyClass {
public MyClass(String name, int max) {
//init here
}
public MyClass(String name, int age) {
// init here
}
}
// This class will compile.
public class MyClass2 {
private MyClass2() {
}
public static MyClass2 getInstanceOfMax(String name, int max) {
MyClass2 m2 = new MyClass2();
// init here
return m2;
}
public static MyClass2 getInstanceOfAge(String name, int age) {
MyClass2 m2 = new MyClass2();
// init here
return m2;
}
}
Do any combination of the above.
And, on top of all that it hides the detail of instantiating an instance from other classes and so can be varied in the future (construction encapsulation).
A constructor can only ever create a new instance of an object of the exact type requested. It cannot be varied later.
Some disadvantages of this pattern are:
The factory methods are static so cannot be inherited in sub-classes; a parent constructor is easily accessible to sub-classes.
The factory method names can vary widely and this could be confusing for some (new) developers.
You also asked for personal experience. Yes, I frequently use both patterns. For most classes constructor but when there are much more advanced needs then I use the static factory. I also work on projects in other languages (proprietary, but similar to Java) where this form of construction is mandated.
I suspect you mean the newInstance method on the Class class. You would invoke it like this: MyClass foo = MyClass.newInstance();
This form of object instantiation is popular in creational patterns; it's useful when you want to specify the concrete, runtime type of an object externally, such as in a properties or XML file.
If Drew is right, newInstance() is part of the Java Reflection API. So it is not as natural as using a constructor.
Why it would be recommended to use it on a large project may come with the fact that it leads to Java Bean programming style and clearly makes the creation of the object something particular. On large project, creating object shouldn't be a cross-cutting concern but rather a clearly identified responsibility, often from one source / factory. But IMHO, you get all of those advantages and many more with IoC pattern.
I commonly find myself extracting common behavior out of classes into helper/utility classes that contain nothing but a set of static methods. I've often wondered if I should be declaring these classes as abstract, since I can't really think of a valid reason to ever instantiate these?
What would the Pros and Cons be to declaring such a class as abstract.
public [abstract] class Utilities{
public static String getSomeData(){
return "someData";
}
public static void doSomethingToObject(Object arg0){
}
}
You could just declare a private constructor that does nothing.
The problem with declaring the class "abstract" is that the abstract keyword usually means that class is intended to be subclassed and extended. That's definitely not what you want here.
Don't bother making them abstract, but include a private parameterless constructor to prevent them from ever being instantiated.
Point of comparison for those interested: in C# you would declare the class to be static, making it abstract and sealed (Java's final) in the compiled form, and without any instance constructor at all. That also makes it a compile-time error to declare a parameter, variable, array etc of that type. Handy.
I don't declare utility classes abstract, I declare them final and make the constructor private. That way they can't be subclassed and they can't be instantiated.
public final class Utility
{
private Utility(){}
public static void doSomethingUseful()
{
...
}
}
I would add more step beyond the private constructor:
public class Foo {
// non-instantiable class
private Foo() { throw new AssertionError(); }
}
Throwing the AssertionError prevents methods in the same class from instantiating the class (well, they can try). This isn't normally a problem but in a team environment you never know what someone will do.
As regards the "abstract" keyword, I have noticed utilities classes subclassed in numerous instances:
public class CoreUtils { ... }
public class WebUtils extends CoreUtils { ... }
public class Foo { ... WebUtils.someMethodInCoreUtils() ... }
I believe this is done so that people don't have to remember which utility class to include. Are there any downsides to this? Is this an anti-pattern?
Regards,
LES
By declaring them as abstract, you are in effect indicating to other coders that you intended for these classes to be derived from. Really, you're right, that there's not much difference, but the semantics here are really more about the interpretation of other people who look at your code.
As others stated, make a private parameter-less constructor. No-one can create an instance of it, apart from the class itself.
As others have shown how it is done with other languages, here comes how you do it in the next C++ version, how to make a class non-instantiable:
struct Utility {
static void doSomething() { /* ... */ }
Utility() = delete;
};
I think it's better to declare utility classes final with a private no-args constructor. Moreover all members of this class should be static.
An easy way to do all this in one statement is to use the #UtilityClass annotation of Lombok:
#UtilityClass
public class Utilities{
public String getSomeData() {
return "someData";
}
public void doSomethingToObject(Object arg0) {
}
}
If you use the #UtilityClass annotation you can skip the static keywords as in the example above since Lombok adds them automatically during compilation.
No, but if your language supports it, there's a strong argument to be made that in most cases they should (can) be declared as 'static'... Static tells the compiler that they cannot be instantiated, and that all methods in them must be static.
Abstract is for classes that DO have instance-based implementation details, which WILL be used by instances of derived classes...
someone mentioned that in C# 3.0 you could accomplish this via extension methods. I'm not a C# guy, did some back in the 1.5/2.0 days, but have not used it since then. Based on a very cursory understanding I think something similar can be accomplished in java with static imports. I realize its not at all the same thing, but if the goal is to just make these utility methods seem a bit more "native"(for lack of a better term) to the calling class, I think it will do the trick. Assuming the Utilities class I declared in my original question.
import static Utilities.getSomeData;
public class Consumer {
public void doSomething(){
String data = getSomeData();
}
}
Might I offer some constructive advice?
If you are doing a lot of this, there are two problems you will run into.
First of all, a static method that takes a parameter should often be a part of the object that is that parameter. I realize this doesn't help for objects like String, but if it takes objects you've defined, you could almost certainly improve the object by including your helper as a method of that object.
If it takes all native values, you probably could define an object that it's a method of. See if you can find any grouping of those native values and group them as an object. If you just try that, you'll find a lot of other uses for that little mini-object, and before you know it it will be amazingly useful.
Another thing, if you have a utility class with a bunch of semi-related static methods and static variables, you almost always want it to be a singleton. I found this out by trial and error, but when you find out you need more than 1 (eventually you will), it's MUCH easier to make a singleton into a multipleton(?) then to try to change a static class into a multipleton(okay, so I'm making words up now).
Good luck. This stuff was mostly trial and error for me--figured it out like 5 years ago though, and I've never found an instance where I regretted not having static class/methods.
Helper / Utility methods are just fine. Don't worry about adding them to a library inside your application or Framework. Most frameworks that I have seen use them in many varieties.
That being said, if you want to get really crafty about them you should look into extension methods in C# 3.0. Using extension method will make your Utilities a little more of a "holistic" part of your framework which it seems like what you're trying to do by considering to make them abstract. Not to mention extension method are a lot of fun to write!