We Keep Coding

Singleton with static inner class and double-checked locking

I am reading about Singleton design pattern and evaluating different implementations. I have doubt with the below implementations:
A. Singleton Implementation with static inner class
public class SingletonWithStaticClass {
private SingletonWithStaticClass(){}
private static class SingletonInnerClass{
public static SingletonWithStaticClass INSTANCE = new SingletonWithStaticClass();
}
public static SingletonWithStaticClass getInstance(){
return SingletonInnerClass.INSTANCE;
}
}
B. Singleton double checked locking
public class SingletonWithDoubleCheck {
private static SingletonWithDoubleCheck INSTANCE = null;
private SingletonWithDoubleCheck(){
if(INSTANCE != null){
throw new RuntimeException("Accessing private constructor is prohibited. Use getInstance method instead");
}
}
public static SingletonWithDoubleCheck getInstance(){
if(INSTANCE == null){
synchronized (SingletonWithDoubleCheck.class) {
if(INSTANCE == null){
INSTANCE = new SingletonWithDoubleCheck();
}
}
}
return INSTANCE;
}
}
Which one is better?
I feel we can access the private constructor with Reflection in first implementation where as second implementation is safe (From Reflection attack).
However, I am not going to use any of these in my production code, I will use enum instead. But out of these two, isn't the first implementation is broken when considered Reflection attack?
Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.

Both are overly complicated. The first was the best option before Java 5.0, however the second was never a good option. It didn't work before Java 5.0, it requires a volatile field and after this version you could use enum
I prefer using an enum to define a class with exactly one instance. It is a final class, thread safe, lazy loaded, and has a private constructor.
enum Singleon {
INSTANCE;
}
The double locking singleton is only useful if you must provide configuration information in it's construction. In this case, I prefer to use Dependency Injection to provide/configure singletons and only have stateless Singletons which don't require configuration.

Neither are good - and attempting to compare them using different scales is counter-productive.
The first is unnecessarily complex and, as you say, is open to reflection hacking, but so is the other one, just slightly less so.
The second uses a synchronized which comes with a cost.

singleton public static final

I've been wondering about singletons in Java. By convention, a singleton is set up something like this:
private static MyClass instance = null;
public static MyClass getInstance(){
if (instance == null){
instance = new MyClass();
}
return instance;
}
private MyClass(){}
Recently I've switched to using the following:
public static final MyClass instance = new MyClass();
private MyClass(){}
This is a lot shorter, faster as there's no null-check, and typing MyClass.instance feels nicer to me than typing MyClass.getInstance(). Is there any reason why the second is not the mainstream way to do this?

The first version creates the instance the first time it is actually needed, while the second (the shorter) runs the constructor as soon as the class is initialized
A class or interface type T will be initialized immediately before the
first occurrence of any one of the following:
T is a class and an instance of T is created.
T is a class and a static method declared by T is invoked.
A static field declared by T is assigned.
A static field declared by T is used and the field is not a constant
variable (§4.12.4).
T is a top level class (§7.6), and an assert statement (§14.10)
lexically nested within T (§8.1.3) is executed. [...]
Invocation of certain reflective methods in class Class and in
package java.lang.reflect also causes class or interface initialization.
The initialization upon first usage is a performance improvement that may speed up the startup of the application if the code in the constructor makes expensive operations. On the other hand, the second version is straightforward to read and is automatically thread-safe.
Anyway, the state of the art is not creating singleton in either ways: for a bunch of KB you can get dependency injection libraries that make it working for you, and also handle more complex scenarios (for example look at Spring and AOP-backed injection).
Note: the first version is not thread safe in the pasted snippet

The way you have first described is known as lazy instantiation, i.e the object will only be created when it is first called. This method is not thread-safe as it is possible for a second thread to create a second instance.
If you read the following book:
Effective Java by Joshua Bloch
He explains that the best implementation of the singleton pattern is through the use of an Enum :
public enum Singleton {
INSTANCE;
public void doSomething() {
...
}
}
Then you would call your singleton through the Enum as follows:
public class Test {
public void test(){
Singleton.INSTANCE.doSomething();
}
}
This fits nicely with what you are saying in terms of it looks nicer and shorter to write but also guarantees there can never be a second instance.

I can think of two reasons:
The first is Encapsulation: you might have second thoughts about how and when your singleton is initialized, after your class has been exposed to client code. And an initialization method gives you more freedom as to changing your strategy later on. For example you might change your mind and decide to use two different constructors instead of one, according to another static variable's value at runtime. With your solution you're bound to using just one constructor at the time your class is loaded into memory, whereas with getInstance() you can change the initialization logic without affecting the interface to the client code.
The second is Lazy Initialization : with the conventional singleton implementation the MyClass object is loaded into memory only when needed by the client code for the first time. And if the client code doesn't need it at all, you save on the memory allocated by your application. Note that whether your singleton is needed or not might not be certain until the program runs. For example it might depend on the user interaction with the program.
However the Lazy Initialization is not something you might necessarily want. For example if you're programming an interactive system and the initialization of your singleton is time consuming, it might actually be better to initialize it when the program is loading rather than when the user is already interacting with it, cause the latter might cause a latency in your system response the first time getInstance() is called. But in this case you can just have your instance initialized with the public method as in:
private static MyClass instance = getInstance();

The best way to synchronize the threads is using Double Checked (to ensure that only one thread will enter the synchronized block at a time and to avoid obtaining the lock every time the code is executed).
public class DoubleCheckLocking {
public static class SearchBox {
private static volatile SearchBox searchBox;
// private attribute of this class
private String searchWord = "";
private String[] list = new String[]{"Stack", "Overflow"};
// private constructor
private SearchBox() {}
// static method to get instance
public static SearchBox getInstance() {
if (searchBox == null) { // first time lock
synchronized (SearchBox.class) {
if (searchBox == null) { // second time lock
searchBox = new SearchBox();
}
}
}
return searchBox;
}
}

Reflection: Reflection can be caused to destroy singleton
property of singleton class, as shown in following example:
// Java code to explain effect of Reflection
import java.lang.reflect.Constructor;
// Singleton class
class Singleton
{
// public instance initialized when loading the class
public static Singleton instance = new Singleton();
private Singleton()
{
// private constructor
}
}
public class GFG
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Singleton instance1 = Singleton.instance;
Singleton instance2 = null;
try
{
Constructor[] constructors =
Singleton.class.getDeclaredConstructors();
for (Constructor constructor : constructors)
{
// Below code will destroy the singleton pattern
constructor.setAccessible(true);
instance2 = (Singleton) constructor.newInstance();
break;
}
}
catch (Exception e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("instance1.hashCode():- "
+ instance1.hashCode()); //366712642
System.out.println("instance2.hashCode():- "
+ instance2.hashCode()); //1829164700
}
}

Singleton function description

I searched but didn't find any normal information for Java Singleton functions or classes , So can anybody explain why I need them? What is he difference from other functions?

Singleton pattern is used for classes that should only exist by one instance. The purpose of the singleton and its values should be consistent throughout the entire application.
Singletons are commonly used for special environment variables, database connections, factories and object pools.

Singleton is used to create only one instance of the Object
public class Singleton {
private static Singleton uniqueInstance;
// other stuff
private Singleton()
{
}
public static Singleton getInstance()
{
if(uniqueInstance == null)
{
uniqueInstance = new Singleton();
}
return uniqueInstance;
}
// other methods
}
This is the simple example to make you aware og the singleton pattern

Sometimes it's appropriate to have exactly one instance of a class: window managers, print spoolers, and filesystems are prototypical examples. Typically, those types of objects—known as Singletons
There is nothing like Singleton function , we usually use Singleton Classes
http://www.javapractices.com/topic/TopicAction.do?Id=46

ok this classes has only one object. for making a class Singleton, make the constructor private and define a static method to get the class object like this
public class yourclassname{
private yourclassname{}
public static yourclassname getMySongAlarmdb(Context c)
{
if (myobject == null){
myobject = new yourclassname;
}
return myobject;
}
}

Thread safety in Singleton

I understand that double locking in Java is broken, so what are the best ways to make Singletons Thread Safe in Java? The first thing that springs to my mind is:
class Singleton{
private static Singleton instance;
private Singleton(){}
public static synchronized Singleton getInstance(){
if(instance == null) instance = new Singleton();
return instance;
}
}
Does this work? if so, is it the best way (I guess that depends on circumstances, so stating when a particular technique is best, would be useful)

Josh Bloch recommends using a single-element enum type to implement singletons (see Effective Java 2nd Edition, Item 3: Enforce the singleton property with a private constructor or an enum type).
Some people think this is a hack, since it doesn't clearly convey intent, but it does work.
The following example is taken straight from the book.
public enum Elvis {
INSTANCE;
public void leaveTheBuilding() { ... }
}
Here is his closing arguments:
This approach [...] is more concise, provides the serialization machinery for free, and provides an ironclad guarantee against multiple instantiations, even in the face of sophisticated serialization or reflection attacks. While this approach has yet to be widely adopted, a single-element enum type is the best way to implement a singleton.
On enum constant singleton guarantee
JLS 8.9. Enums
An enum type has no instances other than those defined by its enum constants. It is a compile-time error to attempt to explicitly instantiate an enum type (§15.9.1).
The final clone method in Enum ensures that enum constants can never be cloned, and the special treatment by the serialization mechanism ensures that duplicate instances are never created as a result of deserialization. Reflective instantiation of enum types is prohibited. Together, these four things ensure that no instances of an enum type exist beyond those defined by the enum constants.
On lazy initialization
The following snippet:
public class LazyElvis {
enum Elvis {
THE_ONE;
Elvis() {
System.out.println("I'M STILL ALIVE!!!");
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("La-dee-daaa...");
System.out.println(Elvis.THE_ONE);
}
}
Produces the following output:
La-dee-daaa...
I'M STILL ALIVE!!!
THE_ONE
As you can see, THE_ONE constant is not instantiated through the constructor until the first time it's accessed.

I see no problem with your implementation (other than the fact that the lock for the singleton-monitor may be used by other methods, for other reasons, and thus, unnecessarily, prevent some other thread from getting the instance). This could be avoided by introducing an extra Object lock to lock on.
This Wikipedia article suggests another method:
public class Something {
private Something() {
}
private static class LazyHolder {
private static final Something INSTANCE = new Something();
}
public static Something getInstance() {
return LazyHolder.INSTANCE;
}
}
From the article:
This implementation is a well-performing and concurrent implementation valid in all versions of Java.
...
The implementation relies on the well-specified initialization phase of execution within the Java Virtual Machine (JVM); see section 12.4 of Java Language Specification (JLS) for details.

My preference is to just do:
class Singleton {
private static final INSTANCE = new Singleton();
private Singleton(){}
public Singleton instance(){
return INSTANCE;
}
}
It is rare that you need lazy initialization. You should always start with eager initialization and only change to lazy initialization if you see problems. Unless you have measured and pinpointed Singleton instantiation as the culprit of performance problem, just use eager initialization. It's simpler and more performant.
You could use enum for sure, but personally I don't bother because the benefit over normal eager instantiation is security (against reflection attack), and most of the time my code is vulnerable to such attacks anyways :p

Josh Bloch recommends 2 solutions:
1) worser:
class Singleton {
public static Singleton instance = new Singleton();
...
}
2) better:
public enum Singleton {
INSTANCE;
...
}

You can use this snippet of code from wiki
public class Singleton {
// Private constructor prevents instantiation from other classes
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 static final Singleton INSTANCE = new Singleton();
}
public static Singleton getInstance() {
return SingletonHolder.INSTANCE;
}
}

Simplified Singleton pattern in Java

The default way to implement singleton pattern is:
class MyClass {
private static MyClass instance;
public static MyClass getInstance() {
if (instance == null) {
instance = new MyClass();
}
return instance;
}
}
In an old project, I've tried to simplify the things writing:
class MyClass {
private static final MyClass instance = new MyClass();
public static MyClass getInstance() {
return instance;
}
}
But it sometimes fail. I just never knew why, and I did the default way.
Making a SSCCE to post here today, I've realized the code works.
So, I would like to know opinions..
Is this a aleatory fail code?
Is there any chance of the second approach return null?
Am I going crazy?
--
Although I don't know if is the right answer for every case, it's a really interesting answer by #Alfred:
I also would like to point out that singletons are testing nightmare and that according to the big guys you should use google's dependency injection framework.

The recommended (by Effective Java 2nd ed) way is to do the "enum singleton pattern":
enum MyClass {
INSTANCE;
// rest of singleton goes here
}
The key insight here is that enum values are single-instance, just like singleton. So, by making a one-value enum, you have just made yourself a singleton. The beauty of this approach is that it's completely thread-safe, and it's also safe against any kinds of loopholes that would allow people to create other instances.

The first solution is (I believe) not thread-safe.
The second solution is (I believe) thread-safe, but might not work if you have complicated initialization dependencies in which MyClass.getInstance() is called before the MyClass static initializations are completed. That's probably the problem you were seeing.
Both solutions allow someone to create another instance of your (notionally) singleton class.
A more robust solution is:
class MyClass {
private static MyClass instance;
private MyClass() { }
public synchronized static MyClass getInstance() {
if (instance == null) {
instance = new MyClass();
}
return instance;
}
}
In a modern JVM, the cost of acquiring a lock is miniscule, provided that there is no contention over the lock.
EDIT #Nate questions my statement about static initialization order possibly causing problems. Consider the following (pathological) example:
public ClassA {
public static ClassB myB = ClassB.getInstance();
public static ClassA me = new ClassA();
public static ClassA getInstance() {
return me;
}
}
public ClassB {
public static ClassA myA = ClassA.getInstance();
public static ClassB me = new ClassB();
public static ClassB getInstance() {
return me;
}
}
There are two possible initialization orders for these two classes. Both result in a static method being called before the method's classes static initialization has been performed. This will result in either ClassA.myB or ClassB.myA being initialized to null.
In practice, cyclic dependencies between statics are less obvious than this. But the fact remains that if there is a cyclic dependency: 1) the Java compiler won't be able to tell you about it, 2) the JVM will not tell you about it. Rather, the JVM will silently pick an initialization order without "understanding" the semantics of what you are trying to do ... possibly resulting in something unexpected / wrong.
EDIT 2 - This is described in the JLS 12.4.1 as follows:
As shown in an example in §8.3.2.3, the fact that initialization code is unrestricted allows examples to be constructed where the value of a class variable can be observed when it still has its initial default value, before its initializing expression is evaluated, but such examples are rare in practice. (Such examples can be also constructed for instance variable initialization; see the example at the end of §12.5). The full power of the language is available in these initializers; programmers must exercise some care. ...

The second example is preferable, since the first isn't thread safe (as pointed out in the comments). The first example uses a technique called lazy instantiation (or lazy initialization), which ensures that the Singleton instance isn't created unless it's actually needed. This isn't really necessary in Java because of the way Java handles class loading and static instance variable initialization.

I also would like to point out that singletons are testing nightmare and that according to the big guys you should use google's dependency injection framework.

Remember, you need to declare a private constructor to ensure the singleton property.
The second case could be even simpler with just
class MyClass {
public static final MyClass instance = new MyClass();
private MyClass() {
super()
}
}
`

As others have noted, the first is not thread-safe. Don't bother with it as the second is perfectly fine, and will instantiate the object only when MyClass is referenced. Further it makes the reference final which expresses the intent better.
Just make sure that the declaration
private static final MyClass INSTANCE = new MyClass();
is the first static declaration in your class to avoid risk of calls to getInstance() or INSTANCE before it is initialized.

Don't forget the SingletonHolder pattern. See this SO question.

I don't know the answers to your questions, but here is how I might structure the same thing.
class MyClass {
private static MyClass instance;
static {
instance = new MyClass();
}
private MyClass() { }
public static MyClass getInstance() {
return instance;
}
}