Singleton with Arguments in Java

Viewed 148516

I was reading the Singleton article on Wikipedia and I came across this example:

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;
    }
}

While I really like the way this Singleton behaves, I can't see how to adapt it to incorporate arguments to the constructor. What is the preferred way to do this in Java? Would I have to do something like this?

public class Singleton
{
    private static Singleton singleton = null;  
    private final int x;

    private Singleton(int x) {
        this.x = x;
    }

    public synchronized static Singleton getInstance(int x) {
        if(singleton == null) singleton = new Singleton(x);
        return singleton;
    }
}

Thanks!


Edit: I think I have started a storm of controversy with my desire to use Singleton. Let me explain my motivation and hopefully someone can suggest a better idea. I am using a grid computing framework to execute tasks in parallel. In general, I have something like this:

// AbstractTask implements Serializable
public class Task extends AbstractTask
{
    private final ReferenceToReallyBigObject object;

    public Task(ReferenceToReallyBigObject object)
    {
        this.object = object;
    }

    public void run()
    {
        // Do some stuff with the object (which is immutable).
    }
}

What happens is that even though I merely pass a reference to my data to all of the tasks, when the tasks are serialized, the data gets copied over and over. What I want to do is share the object among all of the tasks. Naturally, I might modify the class like so:

// AbstractTask implements Serializable
public class Task extends AbstractTask
{
    private static ReferenceToReallyBigObject object = null;

    private final String filePath;

    public Task(String filePath)
    {
        this.filePath = filePath;
    }

    public void run()
    {
        synchronized(this)
        {
            if(object == null)
            {
                ObjectReader reader = new ObjectReader(filePath);
                object = reader.read();
            }
        }

        // Do some stuff with the object (which is immutable).
    }
}

As you can see, even here I have the issue that passing a different file path means nothing after the first one is passed. This is why I like the idea for a store which was posted in the answers. Anyhow, rather than including the logic for loading the file in the run method, I wanted to abstract this logic into a Singleton class. I will not provide yet another example, but I hope you get the idea. Please let me hear your ideas for a more elegant way to accomplish what I am trying to do. Thank you again!

21 Answers

I'll make my point very clear: a singleton with parameters is not a singleton.

A singleton, by definition, is an object you want to be instantiated no more than once. If you are trying to feed parameters to the constructor, what is the point of the singleton?

You have two options. If you want your singleton to be initialized with some data, you may load it with data after instantiation, like so:

SingletonObj singleton = SingletonObj.getInstance();
singleton.init(paramA, paramB); // init the object with data

If the operation your singleton is performing is recurring, and with different parameters every time, you might as well pass the parameters to the main method being executed:

SingletonObj singleton = SingletonObj.getInstance();
singleton.doSomething(paramA, paramB); // pass parameters on execution

In any case, instantiation will always be parameter-less. Otherwise your singleton is not a singleton.

I think you need something like a factory to have objects with various parameters instantiated and reused. It could be implemented by using a synchronized HashMap or ConcurrentHashMap map a parameter (an Integer for an example) to your 'singleton' parameterizable class.

Although you might get to the point where you should use regular, non-singleton classes instead (for example needing 10.000 differently parametrized singleton).

Here is an example for such store:

public final class UsefulObjFactory {

    private static Map<Integer, UsefulObj> store =
        new HashMap<Integer, UsefulObj>();

    public static final class UsefulObj {
        private UsefulObj(int parameter) {
            // init
        }
        public void someUsefulMethod() {
            // some useful operation
        }
    }

    public static UsefulObj get(int parameter) {
        synchronized (store) {
            UsefulObj result = store.get(parameter);
            if (result == null) {
                result = new UsefulObj(parameter);
                store.put(parameter, result);
            }
            return result;
        }
    }
}

To push it even further, the Java enums can be also considered (or used as) parametrized singletons, although allowing only a fixed number static variants.

However, if you need a distributed1 solution, consider some lateral caching solution. For example: EHCache, Terracotta, etc.

1 in the sense of spanning multiple VMs on probably multiple computers.

You can add a configurable initialization method in order to separate instantiation from getting.

public class Singleton {
    private static Singleton singleton = null;
    private final int x;

    private Singleton(int x) {
        this.x = x;
    }

    public static Singleton getInstance() {
        if(singleton == null) {
            throw new AssertionError("You have to call init first");
        }

        return singleton;
    }

    public synchronized static Singleton init(int x) {
        if (singleton != null)
        {
            // in my opinion this is optional, but for the purists it ensures
            // that you only ever get the same instance when you call getInstance
            throw new AssertionError("You already initialized me");
        }

        singleton = new Singleton(x);
        return singleton;
    }

}

Then you can call Singleton.init(123) once to configure it, for example in your app startup.

Use getters and setters to set the variable and make the default constructor private. Then use:

Singleton.getInstance().setX(value);

The reason you can't make sense of how to accomplish what you're trying to do is probably that what you're trying to do doesn't really make sense. You want to call getInstance(x) with different arguments, but always return the same object? What behavior is it you want when you call getInstance(2) and then getInstance(5)?

If you want the same object but for its internal value to be different, which is the only way it's still a singleton, then you don't need to care about the constructor at all; you just set the value in getInstance() on the object's way out. Of course, you understand that all your other references to the singleton now have a different internal value.

If you want getInstance(2) and getInstance(5) to return different objects, on the other hand, you're not using the Singleton pattern, you're using the Factory pattern.

In your example you are not using a singleton. Notice that if you do the following (assuming that the Singleton.getInstance was actually static):

Singleton obj1 = Singleton.getInstance(3);
Singleton obj2 = Singleton.getInstance(4);

Then the obj2.x's values is 3, not 4. If you need to do this, make it a plain class. If the number of values is small and fixed, you can consider using an enum. If you are having problem with excessive object generation (which is usually not the case), then you can consider caching values (and check sources or get help with that, as it is obvious how to build caches without the danger of memory leaks).

You also might want to read this article as singletons can be very easily overused.

I'm scared to post this as an answer, but I don't understand why nobody think about this, maybe this answer was also given already I just didn't understand it.

public class example  {
    private volatile static example instance;

    private String string;
    private int iInt = -1; //any number you know you don't want to use here

  private example() {

    //In case someone uses the private method to create a new Instance
    if (instance != null){
      throw new RuntimeException("Use getInstance() method to get the single instance of this class.");
    }
  }

  public synchronized static example getIsntance(){
    if(instance == null){
      instance = new example();
    }
    return instance;
  }

public void methodDoingWork(){
    if(checkInit()){
      //DoSome
    }
  }

  private boolean checkInit(){
    boolean filled = (this.string != null) && (this.iInt != -1);
    return filled;
  }

  public void setString(String string) {
    if(this.string == null){
      this.string = string;
    }else{
      throw new RuntimeException("You try to override an already setValue"); 
    }
  }

  public void setiInt(int iInt) {
    if(this.iInt == -1){
      this.iInt = iInt;
    }else{
      throw new RuntimeException("You try to override an already setValue");
    }
  }
}

Since the getInstance() returns the same Instance everytime, I think this could work. If this is wrong to much I will delete it, I'm just interested in this topic.

Something to add, in case if want that the parameters should only be initialized once and must not be overwritten then just implement a check and throw exception if somebody tries to initialized them again. Ex.:

public class Service {

private String host = null;
private String port = null;

private Service() {
}

private static class ServiceSingletonHolder {

    private static final Service INSTANCE = new Service();
}

public static Service getInstance() {
    return ServiceSingletonHolder.INSTANCE;
}

public void initilize(String host, String port) {
    if (this.host != null && host != null) {
        throw new IllegalArgumentException("host can not be overwritten");
    }

    if (this.port != null && port != null) {
        throw new IllegalArgumentException("port can not be overwritten");
    }

    this.host = host;
    this.port = port;
}
}

Singletons are generally considered to be anti-patterns and shouldn't be used. They do not make code easy to test.

A singleton with an argument makes no sense anyway - what would happen if you wrote:

Singleton s = SingletonHolder.getInstance(1);
Singleton t = SingletonHolder.getInstance(2); //should probably throw IllegalStateException

Your singleton is also not thread-safe as multiple threads can make simultaneous calls to getInstance resulting in more than one instance being created (possibly with different values of x).

Singleton is, of course, an "anti-pattern" (assuming a definition of a static with variable state).

If you want a fixed set of immutable value objects, then enums are the way to go. For a large, possibly open-ended set of values, you can use a Repository of some form - usually based on a Map implementation. Of course, when you are dealing with statics be careful with threading (either synchronise sufficiently widely or use a ConcurrentMap either checking that another thread hasn't beaten you or use some form of futures).

Related