We Keep Coding

When should I use lazy Singletons over normal Singletons?

So far I have seen two examples of Singletons.
Normal Singletons,
public class Singleton {
private static Singleton instance;
static {
instance = new Singleton();
}
private Singleton() {
// hidden constructor
}
public static Singleton getInstance() {
return instance;
}
}
and Lazy Singletons,
public class Singleton {
private Singleton() {
// hidden constructor
}
private static class Holder {
static final Singleton INSTANCE = new Singleton();
}
public static Singleton getInstance() {
return Holder.INSTANCE;
}
}
Coding is from this thread and this user. I have just recently gotten into trying to learn Singletons as my previous methods have been
1.) Using static in order to create something like ...
static MyClass instance;
2.) I would attempt to pass an instance in a seemingly odd way,
MyClass instance;
#Override
public void onEnable() { instance = this; }
// Transition to different class - - -
public OtherClass(MyClass myClass) {
this.instance = myClass;
}
Lastly, what is my end goal? I am mainly using it in order to pass variables from my main class to other classes. I'm currently attempting to learn how to properly use Files and FileConfiguration, so I want to easily share them throughout my classes.
If I seem like a beginner, instead of going out of your way to tell me to learn Java, please provide a resource to help me with my problem first and foremost.

As to when, rather than how: I would use lazy instantiation of a singleton or of any other object when there is a fair chance of the object not being needed, and immediate instantiation when the likelihood of it being needed is high. In general, if instantiation were to fail, and the object is needed, it is better that it fail as early as possible.

This link explains it fairly well and even uses a similar example.
In software engineering, the initialization-on-demand holder (design pattern) idiom is a lazy-loaded singleton. In all versions of Java, the idiom enables a safe, highly concurrent lazy initialization with good performance.
Regarding why you should use this: if the creation of this instance is expensive, then this design pattern essentially delegates the expensive computation for when it is needed, rather than when the outer class, Singleton in your case, is first accessed.
Another reason is given by this other link. It states:
A singleton implementation may use lazy initialization, where the instance is created when the static method is first invoked. If the static method might be called from multiple threads simultaneously, measures may need to be taken to prevent race conditions that could result in the creation of multiple instances of the class.

Correct implementation of initialization-on-demand holder idiom

I have got two versions of "Initialization-on-demand holder idiom":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initialization-on-demand_holder_idiom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singleton_pattern#The_solution_of_Bill_Pugh
The major difference between above is that the first one declared INSTANCE as private, but the second one declared INSTANCE as public.
Please tell me which one should I use.
Sorry, I have not found the difference between using private and public in my application:
public class Singleton {
private int x;
public int getX() {
return x;
}
private Singleton () {}
private static class LazyHolder {
//both private and public works
private static final Singleton INSTANCE = new Singleton();
}
public static Singleton getInstance() {
return LazyHolder.INSTANCE;
}
}
The only thing I do is to call something like Singleton.getInsance().getX(), so both versions works.
Thus I want to know the situations for using them.

There are several things to explain about singletons and the initialization-on-demand holder idiom. Here we go:
1) The access modifier:
Normally you can't access fields and methods in another class if they are private. They must at least be package private (having no modifier, it is) if the accessing class is in the same package. So the correct way to implement it, would be:
public class Singleton {
...
private static class LazyHolder {
static final Singleton INSTANCE = new Singleton();
}
public static Singleton getInstance() {
return LazyHolder.INSTANCE;
}
}
However, JLS 6.6.1 explains:
Otherwise, if the member or constructor is declared private, then access is
permitted if and only if it occurs within the body of the top level class (§7.6)
that encloses the declaration of the member or constructor.
That means, declaring the field INSTANCE as private still allows the access from inside the top level class Singleton. But the compiler must do some tricks to get around the private modifier: It inserts package private methods for getting and setting such a field.
In fact, it does not matter, which modifier you place on it. If it is public, it still cannot be accessed from other classes than Singleton. However ... I think the package private access is the best. Making it public does not makes sense. Making it private forces the compiler to do some tricks. Making it package private reflects what you have: Access to a class member from another class.
2) How to implement a singleton:
If you ever want to consider serialization, the singleton implementation will get a bit difficult. Joshu Bloch wrote a great section in his book "Effective Java" about implementing singletons. At the end, he concluded to simply use an enum for this, as the Java enum specification provides every charecteristic that is needed in regards to singletons. Of course, that does not use the idiom anymore.
3) Considering design:
In most design decisions, singletons do not have their places anymore. In fact, it could indicate a design issue, if you must place a singleton into your program. Keep in mind: Singletons provide a global acess mechanism to some data or services. And this is not OOP.

private static class LazyHolder {
$VISIBILITY static final Singleton INSTANCE = new Singleton();
From a consumer's point of view it does not really matter if $VISIBILITY is public or private because the LazyHolder type is private. The variable is only accessible via the static method in both cases.

I use number 1 (private INSTANCE) because you generally try to use the narrowest scope as possible. But in this case since the Holder class is private it doesn't really matter. However, suppose someone later decided to make the Holder class public then number 2 could be problematic from an encapsulation perspective (callers could bypass the getInstance() method and access the static field directly).

Initialize-On-Demand idiom vs simple static initializer in Singleton implementation

Is the Initialize-On-Demand idiom really necessary when implementing a thread safe singleton using static initialization, or would a simple static declaration of the instance suffice?
Simple declaration of instance as static field:
class Singleton
{
private static Singleton instance=new Singleton();
private Singleton () {..}
public static Singleton getInstance()
{
return instance;
}
}
vs
class Singleton {
static class SingletonHolder {
static final Singleton INSTANCE = new Singleton();
}
private Singleton () {..}
public static Singleton getInstance() {
return SingletonHolder.INSTANCE;
}
}
I ask this because Brian Goetz recommends the 1st approach in this article:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-dcl/index.html
while he suggests the latter in this article
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-jtp03304/
Does the latter approach provide any benefits that the former doesn't?

Well what i can say These articles are 7-9 years old.
Now we have > Java 1.5 where we have power of enumeration enum. According to 'Josh Block' The best way to write a singleton is to write a Single Element enum
public enum MySingleton{
Singleton;
// rest of the implementation.
// ....
}
But for your question I guess there is no issue in using either of the implementations. I personaly prefer the first option because its straightforward, simple to understand.
But watch out for the loop holes that we can be able to create more objects of these class in the same JVM at the same time by serializing and deserializing the object or by making the clone of the object.
Also make the class final, because we can violate the singleton by extending the class.

In first approach your singleton will get created once you load Singleton class. In the other, it will get created once you call getInstance() method. Singleton class may have many reasons to get loaded before you call getInstance. So you will most likely initialize it much earlier when you actually use it and that defeats the purpose of lazy initialization. Whether you need lazy initialization is a separate story.

The simple declaration pattern constructs the singleton when when the class Singleton is loaded. The initialize-on-demand idiom constructs the singleton when Singeton.getInstance() is called -- i.e., when class SingetonHolder is loaded.
So these are the same except for time; the second option allows you delay initialization. When to choose one or the other depends on (among other things) how much work you are doing in Singleton's constructor. If it's a lot, you may see improved application startup time with initialization-on-demand.
That said, my advice is to try not to do too much there so that the simplest pattern works for you.
-dg

Java Singleton Design Pattern : Questions

I had an interview recently and he asked me about Singleton Design Patterns about how are they implemented and I told him that using static variables and static methods we can implement Singleton Design Patterns.
He seems to be half satisfied with the answer but I want to know
How many different ways we can
implement Singleton Design Pattern
in Java ?
What is the scope of Singleton Object and how does it actually work inside JVM ? I know we would always have one instance of Singleton Object but what is the actual scope of that object, is it in JVM or if there are multiple application running than it's scope is per context basis inside the JVM, I was really stumped at this and was unable to give satisfying explanation ?
Lastly he asked if it is possible to used Singleton Object with Clusters with explanation and is there any way to have Spring not implement Singleton Design Pattern when we make a call to Bean Factory to get the objects ?
Any inputs would be highly appreciated about Singleton and what are the main things to keep in mind while dealing with Singletons ?
Thanks.

There are a few ways to implement a Singleton pattern in Java:
// private constructor, public static instance
// usage: Blah.INSTANCE.someMethod();
public class Blah {
public static final Blah INSTANCE = new Blah();
private Blah() {
}
// public methods
}
// private constructor, public instance method
// usage: Woo.getInstance().someMethod();
public class Woo {
private static final Woo INSTANCE = new Woo();
private Woo() {
}
public static Woo getInstance() {
return INSTANCE;
}
// public methods
}
// Java5+ single element enumeration (preferred approach)
// usage: Zing.INSTANCE.someMethod();
public enum Zing {
INSTANCE;
// public methods
}
Given the examples above, you will have a single instance per classloader.
Regarding using a singleton in a cluster...I'm not sure what the definition of "using" is...is the interviewer implying that a single instance is created across the cluster? I'm not sure if that makes a whole lot of sense...?
Lastly, defining a non-singleton object in spring is done simply via the attribute singleton="false".

I disagree with #irreputable.
The scope of a Singleton is its node in the Classloader tree. Its containing classloader, and any child classloaders can see the Singleton.
It's important to understand this concept of scope, especially in the application servers which have intricate Classloader hierarchies.
For example, if you have a library in a jar file on the system classpath of an app server, and that library uses a Singleton, that Singleton is going to (likely) be the same for every "app" deployed in to the app server. That may or may not be a good thing (depends on the library).
Classloaders are, IMHO, one of the most important concepts in Java and the JVM, and Singletons play right in to that, so I think it is important for a Java programmer to "care".

I find it hard to believe that so many answers missed the best standard practice for singletons - using Enums - this will give you a singleton whose scope is the class loader which is good enough for most purposes.
public enum Singleton { ONE_AND_ONLY_ONE ; ... members and other junk ... }
As for singletons at higher levels - perhaps I am being silly - but my inclination would be to distribute the JVM itself (and restrict the class loaders). Then the enum would be adequate to the job .

Singleton is commonly implemented by having a static instance object (private SingletonType SingletonType.instance) that is lazily instantiated via a static SingletonType SingletonType.getInstance() method. There are many pitfalls to using singletons, so many, in fact, that many consider singleton to be a design anti-pattern. Given the questions about Spring, the interviewer probably was looking for an understanding not only of singletons but also their pitfalls as well as a workaround for these pitfalls known as dependency injection. You may find the video on the Google Guice page particularly helpful in understanding the pitfalls of singletons and how DI addresses this.

3: Lastly he asked if it is possible to used Singleton Object with Clusters with explanation and is there any way to have Spring not implement Singleton Design Pattern when we make a call to Bean Factory to get the objects ?
The first part of this question is hard to answer without a technological context. If the cluster platform includes the ability to make calls on remote objects as if they were local objects (e.g. as is possible with EJBs using RMI or IIOP under the hood) then yes it can be done. For example, the JVM resident singleton objects could be proxies for a cluster-wide singleton object, that was initially located / wired via JNDI or something. But cluster-wide singletons are a potential bottleneck because each call on one of the singleton proxies results in an (expensive) RPC to a single remote object.
The second part of the question is that Spring Bean Factories can be configured with different scopes. The default is for singletons (scoped at the webapp level), but they can also be session or request scoped, or an application can define its own scoping mechanism.

a static field can have multiple occurrences in one JVM - by using difference class loaders, the same class can be loaded and initialized multiple times, but each lives in isolation and JVM treat the result loaded classes as completely different classes.
I don't think a Java programmer should care, unless he's writing some frameworks. "One per VM" is a good enough answer. People often talk that way while strictly speaking they are saying "one per classloader".
Can we have one singleton per cluster? Well that's a game of concepts. I would not appreciate an interviewer word it that way.

There's the standard way, which you already covered. Also, most dependency-injection schemes have some way to mark a class as a singleton; this way, the class looks just like any other, but the framework makes sure that when you inject instances of that class, it's always the same instance.
That's where it gets hairy. For example, if the class is initialized inside a Tomcat application context, then the singleton instance's lifetime is bound to that context. But it can be hard to predict where your classes will be initialized; so it's best not to make any assumptions. If you want to absolutely make sure that there's exactly one instance per context, you should bind it as an attribute of the ServletContext. (Or let a dependency-injection framework take care of it.)
--
Not sure I understand the question - but if you're talking about having a singleton instance that's shared between several cluster nodes, then I think EJB makes this possible (by way of remote beans), though I've never tried it. No idea how Spring does it.

Singleton is a creational pattern and hence governs object instantiation. Creating singletons would mandate that you voluntarily or involuntarily give up control on creating the object and instead rely on some way of obtaining access to it.
This can be achieved using static methods or by dependency injection or using the factory pattern. The means is immaterial. In case of the normal protected constructor() approach, the consumer perforce needs to use the static method for accessing the singleton. In case of DI, the consumer voluntarily gives up control over the instantiation of the class and instead relies on a DI framework to inject the instance into itself.
As pointed out by other posters, the class loader in java would define the scope of the singleton. Singletons in clusters are usually "not single instances" but a collection of instances that exhibit similar behavior. These can be components in SOA.

The Following Code is from here
The Key point is you should Override the clone method...The Wikipedia example also is helpful.
public class SingletonObject
{
private SingletonObject()
{
// no code req'd
}
public static SingletonObject getSingletonObject()
{
if (ref == null)
// it's ok, we can call this constructor
ref = new SingletonObject();
return ref;
}
public Object clone()
throws CloneNotSupportedException
{
throw new CloneNotSupportedException();
// that'll teach 'em
}
private static SingletonObject ref;
}

Query 1:
Different ways of creating Singleton
Normal Singleton : static initialization
ENUM
Lazy Singleton : Double locking Singleton & : Initialization-on-demand_holder_idiom singleton
Have a look at below code:
public final class Singleton{
private static final Singleton instance = new Singleton();
public static Singleton getInstance(){
return instance;
}
public enum EnumSingleton {
INSTANCE;
}
public static void main(String args[]){
System.out.println("Singleton:"+Singleton.getInstance());
System.out.println("Enum.."+EnumSingleton.INSTANCE);
System.out.println("Lazy.."+LazySingleton.getInstance());
}
}
final class LazySingleton {
private LazySingleton() {}
public static LazySingleton getInstance() {
return LazyHolder.INSTANCE;
}
private static class LazyHolder {
private static final LazySingleton INSTANCE = new LazySingleton();
}
}
Related SE questions:
What is an efficient way to implement a singleton pattern in Java?
Query 2:
One Singleton instance is created per ClassLoader. If you want to avoid creation of Singleton object during Serializaiton, override below method and return same instance.
private Object readResolve() {
return instance;
}
Query 3:
To achieve a cluster level Singleton among multiple servers, store this Singleton object in a distributed caches like Terracotta, Coherence etc.

Singleton is a creational design pattern.
Intents of Singleton Design Pattern :
Ensure a class has only one instance, and provide a global point of
access to it.
Encapsulated "just-in-time initialization" or "initialization on
first use".
I'm showing three types of implementation here.
Just in time initialization (Allocates memory during the first run, even if you don't use it)
class Foo{
// Initialized in first run
private static Foo INSTANCE = new Foo();
/**
* Private constructor prevents instantiation from outside
*/
private Foo() {}
public static Foo getInstance(){
return INSTANCE;
}
}
Initialization on first use (or Lazy initialization)
class Bar{
private static Bar instance;
/**
* Private constructor prevents instantiation from outside
*/
private Bar() {}
public static Bar getInstance(){
if (instance == null){
// initialized in first call of getInstance()
instance = new Bar();
}
return instance;
}
}
This is another style of Lazy initialization but the advantage is, this solution is thread-safe without requiring special language constructs (i.e. volatile or synchronized). Read More at SourceMaking.com
class Blaa{
/**
* Private constructor prevents instantiation from outside
*/
private Blaa() {}
/**
* BlaaHolder is loaded on the first execution of Blaa.getInstance()
* or the first access to SingletonHolder.INSTANCE, not before.
*/
private static class BlaaHolder{
public static Blaa INSTANCE = new Blaa();
}
public static Blaa getInstance(){
return BlaaHolder.INSTANCE;
}
}

mocking a singleton class

I recently read that making a class singleton makes it impossible to mock the objects of the class, which makes it difficult to test its clients. I could not immediately understand the underlying reason. Can someone please explain what makes it impossible to mock a singleton class? Also, are there any more problems associated with making a class singleton?

Of course, I could write something like don't use singleton, they are evil, use Guice/Spring/whatever but first, this wouldn't answer your question and second, you sometimes have to deal with singleton, when using legacy code for example.
So, let's not discuss the good or bad about singleton (there is another question for this) but let's see how to handle them during testing. First, let's look at a common implementation of the singleton:
public class Singleton {
private Singleton() { }
private static class SingletonHolder {
private static final Singleton INSTANCE = new Singleton();
}
public static Singleton getInstance() {
return SingletonHolder.INSTANCE;
}
public String getFoo() {
return "bar";
}
}
There are two testing problems here:
The constructor is private so we can't extend it (and we can't control the creation of instances in tests but, well, that's the point of singletons).
The getInstance is static so it's hard to inject a fake instead of the singleton object in the code using the singleton.
For mocking frameworks based on inheritance and polymorphism, both points are obviously big issues. If you have the control of the code, one option is to make your singleton "more testable" by adding a setter allowing to tweak the internal field as described in Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Singleton (you don't even need a mocking framework in that case). If you don't, modern mocking frameworks based on interception and AOP concepts allow to overcome the previously mentioned problems.
For example, Mocking Static Method Calls shows how to mock a Singleton using JMockit Expectations.
Another option would be to use PowerMock, an extension to Mockito or JMock which allows to mock stuff normally not mock-able like static, final, private or constructor methods. Also you can access the internals of a class.

The best way to mock a singleton is not to use them at all, or at least not in the traditional sense. A few practices you might want to look up are:
programming to interfaces
dependency injection
inversion of control
So rather than having a single you access like this:
Singleton.getInstance().doSometing();
... define your "singleton" as an interface and have something else manage it's lifecycle and inject it where you need it, for instance as a private instance variable:
#Inject private Singleton mySingleton;
Then when you are unit testing the class/components/etc which depend on the singleton you can easily inject a mock version of it.
Most dependency injection containers will let you mark up a component as 'singleton', but it's up to the container to manage that.
Using the above practices makes it much easier to unit test your code and lets you focus on your functional logic instead of wiring logic. It also means your code really starts to become truly Object Oriented, as any use of static methods (including constructors) is debatably procedural. Thus your components start to also become truly reusable.
Check out Google Guice as a starter for 10:
http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/
You could also look at Spring and/or OSGi which can do this kind of thing. There's plenty of IOC / DI stuff out there. :)

A Singleton, by definition, has exactly one instance. Hence its creation is strictly controlled by the class itself. Typically it is a concrete class, not an interface, and due to its private constructor it is not subclassable. Moreover, it is found actively by its clients (by calling Singleton.getInstance() or an equivalent), so you can't easily use e.g. Dependency Injection to replace its "real" instance with a mock instance:
class Singleton {
private static final myInstance = new Singleton();
public static Singleton getInstance () { return myInstance; }
private Singleton() { ... }
// public methods
}
class Client {
public doSomething() {
Singleton singleton = Singleton.getInstance();
// use the singleton
}
}
For mocks, you would ideally need an interface which can be freely subclassed, and whose concrete implementation is provided to its client(s) by dependency injection.
You can relax the Singleton implementation to make it testable by
providing an interface which can be implemented by a mock subclass as well as the "real" one
adding a setInstance method to allow replacing the instance in unit tests
Example:
interface Singleton {
private static final myInstance;
public static Singleton getInstance() { return myInstance; }
public static void setInstance(Singleton newInstance) { myInstance = newInstance; }
// public method declarations
}
// Used in production
class RealSingleton implements Singleton {
// public methods
}
// Used in unit tests
class FakeSingleton implements Singleton {
// public methods
}
class ClientTest {
private Singleton testSingleton = new FakeSingleton();
#Test
public void test() {
Singleton.setSingleton(testSingleton);
client.doSomething();
// ...
}
}
As you see, you can only make your Singleton-using code unit testable by compromising the "cleanness" of the Singleton. In the end, it is best not to use it at all if you can avoid it.
Update: And here is the obligatory reference to Working Effectively With Legacy Code by Michael Feathers.

It very much depends on the singleton implementation. But it mostly because it has a private constructor and hence you can't extend it. But you have the following option
make an interface - SingletonInterface
make your singleton class implement that interface
let Singleton.getInstance() return SingletonInterface
provide a mock implementation of SingletonInterface in your tests
set it in the private static field on Singleton using reflection.
But you'd better avoid singletons (which represent a global state). This lecture explains some important design concepts from testability point of view.

It's not that the Singleton pattern is itself pure evil, but that is massively overused even in situations where it is inapproriate. Many developers think "Oh, I'll probably only ever need one of these so let's make it a singleton". In fact you should be thinking "I'll probably only ever need one of these, so let's construct one at the start of my program and pass references where it is needed."
The first problem with singleton and testing is not so much because of the singleton but due to laziness. Because of the convenience of getting a singleton, the dependency on the singleton object is often embedded directly into the methods which makes it very difficult to change the singleton to another object with the same interface but with a different implementation (for example, a mock object).
Instead of:
void foo() {
Bar bar = Bar.getInstance();
// etc...
}
prefer:
void foo(IBar bar) {
// etc...
}
Now you can test function foo with a mocked bar object which you can control. You've removed the dependency so that you can test foo without testing bar.
The other problem with singletons and testing is when testing the singleton itself. A singleton is (by design) very difficult to reconstruct, so for example you can only test the singleton contructor once. It's also possible that the single instance of Bar retains state between tests, causing success or failure depending on the order that the tests are run.

There is a way to mock Singleton. Use powermock to mock static method and use Whitebox to invoke constructor YourClass mockHelper = Whitebox
.invokeConstructor(YourClass.class);
Whitebox.setInternalState(mockHelper, "yourdata",mockedData);
PowerMockito.mockStatic(YourClass.class);
Mockito.when(YourClass.getInstance()).thenReturn(mockHelper);
What is happening is that the Singleton byte code is changing in run-time .
enjoy