In my application I need to have few singleton classes. Each of them has some fields of others singleton classes to use them. Below I reconstructed the issue on simple example:
public sealed class A
{
private B b = B.Instance;
private static readonly A instance = new A();
public static A Instance { get { return instance; } }
static A() { }
private A() { }
public void Do()
{
b.ToString();
}
}
public sealed class B
{
A a = A.Instance;
private static readonly B instance = new B();
public static B Instance { get { return instance; } }
static B() { }
private B() { }
public void Do()
{
a.ToString();
}
}
class Program
{
static B b = B.Instance;
static A a = A.Instance;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
b.Do();
a.Do();
}
}
Null reference exception coming because fields are null. So how can I initialize and use such interconnected singleton classes?
The constructors don't run in parallel so when the first is being created the second Singleton has not yet been created.
Instead of setting the property to the value directly you'd likely write something like this in class B:
private A AProp {
get {
if(a == null)
a = A.Instance;
return a;
}
}
You'd do the same the other way round in class A. So getting the value is delayed until first access and at that time the other Singleton has already been created.
In what scenario exactlly something like this is a good idea is another question. Especially given that instead of accessing it in a local field you could always just access it using A.Instance anyway (so the local field becomes kind of redundant at that point.
Related
I have been playing around with ways to implement Singletons. I have written a little management object that allows for a easier, less code approach to writing singleton classes.
I would never use something like this in a production system for a couple of reason which lead me to my question.
With the below code - I am assuming that this implementation would/could lead to both threading issues and memory leaks? Would I be correct?
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
public static class SingletonManager
{
private static readonly Dictionary<string, object> Objects;
static SingletonManager()
{
Objects = new Dictionary<string, object>();
}
public static T InstanceOf<T>(object[] ctorArgs = null)
where T : class
{
var name = typeof (T).FullName;
if (Objects.ContainsKey(name))
return Objects[name] as T;
var ctor = typeof (T).GetConstructors(
BindingFlags.Instance |
BindingFlags.NonPublic)[0];
var instance = ctor.Invoke(ctorArgs) as T;
Objects[name] = instance;
return instance as T;
}
public static void DisposeOf<T>()
where T : Singleton<T>
{
Dispose(typeof (T).FullName);
}
public static void DisposeOf(Type type)
{
Dispose(type.FullName);
}
private static void Dispose(string name)
{
if (!Objects.ContainsKey(name)) return;
var obj = Objects[name];
if (obj is IDisposable)
((IDisposable) Objects[name]).Dispose();
Objects.Remove(name);
}
}
public class Singleton<T>
where T : class
{
private static object ThreadLock = new object();
public static T Instance(object[] ctorArgs = null)
{
lock (ThreadLock)
{
return SingletonManager.InstanceOf<T>(ctorArgs);
}
}
}
public class SomeSingletonClass : Singleton<SomeSingletonClass>
{
public int Number;
private SomeSingletonClass(int i)
{
Number = i;
}
}
internal class Program
{
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
var instance1= SomeSingletonClass.Instance(new object[] {1});
var instance2 = SomeSingletonClass.Instance(new object[] { 2 });
//Is false
var updated = instance1.Number == 2;
instance2.Number = 99;
//Is true
var equals = instance1.Number == instance2.Number;
//Is true
var refEquals = ReferenceEquals(instance1, instance2);
Debugger.Break();
}
}
}
Classical singletons are very rarely a good idea. In most cases you're better off with simply creating a single instance which you pass to the code that needs it, instead of enforcing that there is only one. An IoC container will do most of that work for you.
An implementation of a classical singleton is quite compact, no need to simplify it further:
public class MySingleton
{
private static Lazy<MySingleton> _instance = new Lazy<MySingleton>(() => new MySingleton());
public static MySingleton Instance { get { return _instance.Value; } }
private MySingleton()
{
}
}
At best you can save two of these lines.
Yes, your code is not thread safe. You'd need to put most of it in lock statements to fix that.
The consumer determining the constructor parameters is very dubious. Unless all of them are identical, you'll end up with different instances, depending on which consumer runs first.
This violates the "single source of truth" principle and is a maintenance and debugging nightmare.
Your code relies on private reflection.
I have an object that only initializes itself with barebones data when constructed (fast), and loads itself for real (slow) when first accessed. The idea is that I'm creating a lot of these barebones objects at startup and hash them into a map, then fully load each object whenever it is individually accessed for the first time. The problem is that I cannot guarantee how clients will interact with this object, there are multiple public methods that might be invoked.
Is there a good pattern to support this kind of situation? The obvious (and my current) solution is to track state with an internal bool, check against that bool in every function that might be invoked, and load that way. But that requires code duplication of that behavior across all public functions, and is vulnerable to errors.
I can imagine a single point-of-entry method that then dishes out behaviors based on a client request type etc., but before I go consider going down that road I want to see if there's a commonly accepted approach/pattern that I might not be aware of. I'm doing this in C#, but any insight is appreciated.
If I understood what you want to achieve, you are looking for the Proxy Design Pattern, more specifically, a virtual Proxy.
Refer to http://www.dofactory.com/net/proxy-design-pattern
A small example would be something like:
public abstract class IObjectProvider
{
public abstract IObjectProvider Object{get;}
public abstract void doStuff();
}
public class RealObject : IObjectProvider
{
public RealObject()
{
//Do very complicated and time taking stuff;
}
public override IObjectProvider Object
{
get { return this; }
}
public override void doStuff()
{
//do this stuff that these objects normally do
}
}
public class ObjectProxy : IObjectProvider
{
private IObjectProvider objectInstance = null;
public override IObjectProvider Object
{
get
{
if (objectInstance == null)
objectInstance = new RealObject();
return objectInstance;
}
}
public override void doStuff()
{
if(objectInstance!=null)
objectInstance.doStuff();
}
}
public class SkeletonClass
{
public IObjectProvider Proxy1 = new ObjectProxy();
public IObjectProvider Proxy2 = new ObjectProxy();
}
static void Main(String[] args)
{
//Objects Not Loaded
SkeletonClass skeleton = new SkeletonClass();
//Proxy1 loads object1 on demand
skeleton.Proxy1.Object.doStuff();
//Proxy2 not loaded object2 until someone needs it
}
Here's an example of dynamic proxy approach.
using System;
using System.Diagnostics;
using Castle.DynamicProxy; //Remember to include a reference, too. It's nugettable package is Castle.Core
namespace ConsoleApp
{
public class ActualClass
{
//Have static instances of two below for performance
private static ProxyGenerator pg = new ProxyGenerator();
private static ActualClassInterceptor interceptor = new ActualClassInterceptor();
//This is how we get ActualClass items that are wrapped in the Dynamic Proxy
public static ActualClass getActualClassInstance()
{
ActualClass instance = new ActualClass();
return pg.CreateClassProxyWithTarget<ActualClass>(instance, interceptor);
}
//Tracking whether init has been called
private bool initialized = false;
//Will be used as evidence of true initialization, i.e. no longer null
private int? someValue = null;
public void Initialize()
{
if (!initialized)
{
//do some initialization here.
someValue = -1; //Will only get set to non-null if we've run this line.
initialized = true;
}
}
//Any methods you want to intercept need to be virtual!
public virtual int replaceValue(int value)
{
//below will blow up, if someValue has not been set to -1 via Initialize();
int oldValue = someValue.Value;
someValue = value;
return oldValue;
}
//block off constructor from public to enforce use of getActualClassInstance
protected ActualClass() { }
}
public class ActualClassInterceptor : ActualClass, IInterceptor
{
public void Intercept(IInvocation invocation)
{
//Call initialize before proceeding to call the intercepted method
//Worth noting that this is the only place we actually call Initialize()
((ActualClass)invocation.InvocationTarget).Initialize();
invocation.Proceed();
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ActualClass instance1 = ActualClass.getActualClassInstance();
ActualClass instance2 = ActualClass.getActualClassInstance();
int x1 = instance1.replaceValue(41);
int x2 = instance2.replaceValue(42);
int y1 = instance1.replaceValue(82);
Debug.Assert(y1 == 41);
int y2 = instance2.replaceValue(84);
Debug.Assert(y2 == 42);
var read = Console.ReadKey();
}
}
}
I have a static Class and within it I have multiple public static attributes. I treat this class as my global class.
However now I need to treat this class as a variable so that I can pass it to a method of another class for processing..
I can't instantiate this class.. So in effect I can only assign the variables inside this class.
Is my understanding correct or am I missing something?
public static class Global
{
public const int RobotMax = 2;
// GUI sync context
public static MainForm mainForm;
public static SynchronizationContext UIContext;
// Database
public static Database DB = null;
public static string localDBName = "local.db";
public static Database localDB = null;
public static Database ChangeLogDB = null;
public static string changeLogDBName = "ChangeLog.db";
}
Let say I have a class like this, and I need to somehow keep a copy of this in another class maybe
public static class Global_bk
{
public const int RobotMax = 2;
// GUI sync context
public static MainForm mainForm;
public static SynchronizationContext UIContext;
// Database
public static Database DB = null;
public static string localDBName = "local.db";
public static Database localDB = null;
public static Database ChangeLogDB = null;
public static string changeLogDBName = "ChangeLog.db";
}
I need to copy the contents from Global to Global_bk.
And after that I need to compare the contents of the two classes in a method like
static class extentions
{
public static List<Variance> DetailedCompare<T>(T val1, T val2)
{
List<Variance> variances = new List<Variance>();
FieldInfo[] fi = val1.GetType().GetFields();
foreach (FieldInfo f in fi)
{
Variance v = new Variance();
v.Prop = f.Name;
v.valA = f.GetValue(val1);
v.valB = f.GetValue(val2);
if (!v.valA.Equals(v.valB))
variances.Add(v);
}
return variances;
}
}
class Variance
{
string _prop;
public string Prop
{
get { return _prop; }
set { _prop = value; }
}
object _valA;
public object valA
{
get { return _valA; }
set { _valA = value; }
}
object _valB;
public object valB
{
get { return _valB; }
set { _valB = value; }
}
}
So on my main form, how do I go about calling the compare method and passing the static Global class inside?
example: extentions.DetailedCompare(Global, Global_bk) ? Of course this would give me an error because I cant pass a type as a variable.
Please help me, this is driving me nuts...
How about the singleton pattern ? You can pass reference to shared interface (IDoable in exable below) and still have just one instance.
I.E.:
public interface IDoable {
int Value { get; set; }
void Foo();
}
public static class DoableWrapper {
private MyDoable : IDoable {
public int Value { get;set; }
public void Foo() {
}
}
private static IDoable s_Doable = new MyDoable();
public static IDoable Instance {
get { return s_Doable; }
}
}
Singleton is the way to go here. You can do it like this:
internal class SomeClass
{
private static SomeClass singleton;
private SomeClass(){} //yes: private constructor
public static SomeClass GetInstance()
{
return singleton ?? new SomeClass();
}
public int SomeProperty {get;set;}
public void SomeMethod()
{
//do something
}
}
The GetInstance Method will return you a SomeClass object that you can edit and pass into whatever you need.
You can access the members with classname.membername.
internal static class SomeClass
{
public static int SomeProperty {get;set;}
public static void SomeMethod()
{
//do something
}
}
static void main()
{
SomeClass.SomeProperty = 15;
SomeClass.SomeMethod();
}
The only way you are going to obtain a variable with the "class" information is using reflection. You can get a Type object for the class.
namespace Foo {
public class Bar
{
}
}
Type type = Type.GetType("Foo.Bar");
Otherwise, if you are really describing a class "instance" then use an object and simply instantiate one.
C# offers no other notation for class variables.
What I need is to check the parameters passed to the constructor and prevent the instantiation of the specific object in case they are treated as invalid.
What I have found is that an exception can be thrown so the object reference will end up with "null" as expected.
For example, this class will be instantiated only if the integer passed to the constructor is non negative.
class MyClass
{
public MyClass(int a)
{
if (a < 0)
{
throw new Exception();
}
}
}
Although the above works fine, I bet that c# can provide a cleaner way to do this, avoiding the extra cost of the try/catch need, each time a new object is about to be constructed.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MyClass e1;
MyClass e2;
try
{
e1 = new MyClass(1);
}
catch(Exception) { }
try
{
e2 = new MyClass(-1);
}
catch(Exception) { }
}
In cases like this, you should consider using the Factory Pattern. You made the constructor private, and instead use a static method to return an instance.
public class Foo {
private Foo(int a) { ... }
public static Foo GetFoo(int a) {
if (a < 0) {
throw new Exception("No Foo for you!");
// or
return null;
}
return new Foo(a);
}
}
public class Program {
public static void Main() {
Foo f;
f = new Foo(); // Not allowed, ctor is private.
f = Foo.GetFoo(42); // Do this instead.
}
}
With this, you can do some pretty interesting stuff.
Here, we have a Foo class, with different sub-classes. By using the Factory Pattern, we can construct an instance of a particular Foo sub-class, without the outside world even knowing that any subclasses exist!
public abstract class Foo {
// Private implementations of Foo
// No one outside can ever construct one directly.
private class RedFoo : Foo { }
private class GreenFoo : Foo { }
private class BlueFoo : Foo { }
public static Foo GetColoredFoo(string color) {
switch (color.ToLower()) {
case "red": return new RedFoo();
case "green": return new GreenFoo();
case "blue": return new BlueFoo();
}
throw new Exception("No Foo for that color!");
}
}
public class Program {
public static void Main() {
Foo f;
f = new Foo(); // Not allowed; Foo is abstract
f = new RedFoo(); // Not allowed, RedFoo is private, inside of Foo
f = Foo.GetColoredFoo("red"); // Returns an instance of RedFoo
}
}
This moves the knowledge of "how to best construct the object you really need" into the definition of the class itself, and of course eliminates the try/catch. You could apply any logic you need inside of the static factory method.
You can go with the factory pattern, as suggested by MarcinJruaszek, by making the constructor private and add a static method:
public class myClass
{
private myClass(int a)
{
// constructor
}
public static myClass Create(int a){
if (a < 0)
{
return null;
}
return new myClass(a);
}
}
And do myClass.Create(1).
What I suggest you do is create a static method of your class that accepts the parameters you need to verify and have that return the object. I do not know of a way to abandon object creation during a constructor without throwing an Exception.
In my system I have 16 different classes alike used for statistics. They look like the following
public class myClass : myInheritage
{
private static myClass _instance;
public static myClass Instance
{
get { return _instance ?? (_instance = new myClass(); }
}
public static void Reset()
{
_instance = null;
}
}
They are all made into singletons
myInheritage looks like this:
public class myInheritage
{
int data = 0;
public myInheritage()
{
}
public int Data
{
get { return data; }
set { data+= value; }
}
}
The program is made, so the user chooses which class he wants to make statistics with.
Something like this is what I want
public void statistics(Object myObject, string name)
{
Object x = myObject;
x.Data = 10;
x.Data();
}
Called from another class
statistics(myClass.Instance, "myClass");
statistics(myClass2.Instance, "myClass2)";
So I want to dynamically change my instance in my statistics class.
Is that possible with .NET 2.0 ?
You could use reflection...
MethodInfo method = myObject.GetType().GetMethod("Reset");
if (method != null) method.Invoke(myObject, null);
If you can modify the classes themselves, a better approach might be to have each implement an interface (or base class) IResettable.
public interface IResettable
{
void Reset();
}
public class myClass : myInheritage, IResettable
{
public void Reset() { ... }
}
Then you could write the function against the interface:
public void statistics(IResettable myObject, string name)
{
myObject.Reset();
}
Yes. What you want here is a Strategy/Factory pattern. I name both as they could be used in conjunction for your case. There are great examples of these design patterns here and the following are detailed intros to the Strategy pattern and the Factory pattern. The former of the last two links also shows you how to combine the two to do exactly waht you require.
So in your case, you could set up the following interface
public interface IStatistics
{
// Some method used by all classes to impose statistics.
void ImposeStatistics();
}
Then in you singleton classes you could have
public class myClass : myInheritage, IStatistics
{
private static myClass _instance;
public static myClass Instance
{
get { return _instance ?? (_instance = new myClass()); }
}
public static void Reset()
{
_instance = null;
}
// You would also inherit from IStatistics in your other classes.
public void ImposeStatistics()
{
// Do stuff.
}
}
Then you would have a 'factory' class that imposes you stratgey at runtime.
public static class StatisticFactory
{
public static void ImposeStatistics(IStatistics statsType)
{
statsType.ImposeStatistics();
}
/// <summary>
/// Get the conversion type.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="col">The column to perform the conversion upon.</param>
public static IStatistics GetStatsType(string typeName)
{
switch (typeName)
{
case "BoseEinstein":
return new BoseEinsteinStats();
case "FermiDirac":
return new FermiDiracStats();
default:
return null;
}
}
}
You can then call this like
// Run stats.
IStatistics stats = StatisticFactory(GetStatsType("BoseEinstein"));
to get the statistics for the required class.
I hope this helps.