Singleton Pattern: getInstance() vs Passing the singleton object?

user_10531361 0
Viewed 1199

What is the right / most popular way to utilize the Singleton Pattern.

  1. Limit the no. of calls to getInstance(), preferably call it only once, and pass the object around to other classes during their instantiation?
class SingletonClass {
// Implementataion
}

class MainClass {
    private SingletonClass singletonClassObject;

    public MainClass() {
        singletonClassObject = SingletonClass.getInstance();
        new SomeClass(singletonClassObject).doSomething();
        new SomeOtherClass(singletonClassObject).doSomethingElse();
    }
}

class SomeClass {
    private SingletonClass singletonClassObject;

    public SomeClass(SingletonClass singletonClassObject) {
        this.singletonClassObject = singletonClassObject;
    }

    public void doSomething() {
        System.out.println(singletonClassObject.getStuff());
    }
}

class SomeOtherClass {
    private SingletonClass singletonClassObject;

    public SomeOtherClass(SingletonClass singletonClassObject) {
        this.singletonClassObject = singletonClassObject;
    }

    public void doSomethingElse() {
        System.out.println(singletonClassObject.getStuff());
    }
}
  1. Don't pass the singleton object around. Rather call get the object reference in each class and save the reference as an instance variable and use it wherever required.
class SingletonClass {
// Implementataion
}

class MainClass {
    public MainClass() {
        new SomeClass().doSomething();
        new SomeOtherClass().doSomethingElse();
    }
}

class SomeClass {
    private SingletonClass singletonClassObject;

    public SomeClass() {
        singletonClassObject = SingletonClass.getInstance();
    }

    public void doSomething() {
        System.out.println(singletonClassObject.getStuff());
    }
}

class SomeOtherClass {
    private SingletonClass singletonClassObject;

    public SomeOtherClass() {
        singletonClassObject = SingletonClass.getInstance();
    }

    public void doSomethingElse() {
        System.out.println(singletonClassObject.getStuff());
    }
}
  1. Don't even save the reference as an instance variable, rather use SingletonClass.getInstance() everywhere you need the object.
class SingletonClass {
// Implementataion
}

class MainClass {
    public MainClass() {
        new SomeClass().doSomething();
        new SomeOtherClass().doSomethingElse();
    }
}

class SomeClass {
    public SomeClass() {
    }

    public void doSomething() {
        System.out.println(SingletonClass.getInstance().getStuff());
    }
}

class SomeOtherClass {
    public SomeOtherClass() {
    }

    public void doSomethingElse() {
        System.out.println(SingletonClass.getInstance().getStuff());
    }
}

How do these approaches compare with each other w.r.t. better design, testability etc? Which is better and why?

oop singleton design-patterns java
2 Answers

If we assume for a moment that SingletonClass is not a singleton and we do not get an instance by calling static method we face another problem, how to link these classes together. This problem is solved by Dependency Injection and this concept is well described here:

After reading above it should be easy to choose option .1 where all classes get in constructor references to required dependencies. You can even create an interface for a behaviour you need and implement it in SingletonClass. Now you see, that a fact that class implements Singleton pattern does not make it special and we should inject them like other classes. All benefits from using DI you can apply to your class.

Just compare it with .3 and you need to write a test where you need mock something. It would be more unpleasant task then in case of .1.

user_515910

Look at it this way: you're questioning the compiler's ability to recognize that a static final reference can be compiled as an inline reference.

I would guess the compiler converts the getInstance() to an inline reference. I would be less confident that the compiler would recognize that you're intentionally creating extra work for yourself when you pass a reference by value, and that it would create an extra reference on the stack when you passed it around.

My guess is that getInstance() would be more efficient.

user_23590100
Related