We Keep Coding

C# Unity > Static instance member not causing constructor to be called

I have noticed a rather weird behaviour in my application I am creating;
I have a class I defined that has a static "instance" variable of the class type.
I would assume that (as per code attached) the constructor would be called.
Alas, it is not, unless I use the Void.get in a non-static field anywhere in my code.
public class Void : TilePrototype {
public static Tile get = new Tile((int)TileEntities.Void);
public static Void instance = new Void();
public Void() {
Debug.Log("created");
id = (int)TileEntities.Void;
isBlocking = true;
register();
}
public override RenderTile render(Tile tile){
return new RenderTile(0, new Color(0, 0, 0, 0));
}
So when I have something like :
public static TileStack empty = new TileStack(Void.get, Void.get);
the Void class constructor never gets called. But, if I have:
Tile t = Void.get;
Anywhere in my code it will be called.
Why?
Thanks.

This is a really really subtle and nuanced area of C#; basically, you've stumbled into "beforefieldinit" and the difference between a static constructor and a type initializer. You can reasonably ask "when does a static constructor run?", and MSDN will tell you:
It is called automatically before the first instance is created or any static members are referenced.
Except... public static TileStack empty = new TileStack(Void.get, Void.get); isn't a static constructor! It is a static field initializer. And that has different rules, which basically are "I'll run when I must, no later, possibly sooner". To illustrate with an example: the following will not (probably) run your code, because it doesn't have to - there isn't anything demanding the field:
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
GC.KeepAlive(new Foo());
}
}
public class Foo
{
public static TileStack empty = new TileStack(Void.get, Void.get);
}
However, if we make a tiny tweak:
public class Foo
{
public static TileStack empty = new TileStack(Void.get, Void.get);
static Foo() { } // <=== added this
}
Now it has a static constructor, so it must obey the "before the first instance is created" part, which means it needs to also run the static field initializers, and so on and so on.
Without this, the static field initializer can be deferred until something touches the static fields. If any of your code actually touches empty, then it will run the static field initializer, and the instance will be created. Meaning: this would also have this effect:
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
GC.KeepAlive(Foo.empty);
}
}
public class Foo
{
public static TileStack empty = new TileStack(Void.get, Void.get);
}
This ability to defer execution of the static initialization until the static fields are actually touched is called "beforefieldinit", and it is enabled if a type has a static field initializer but no static constructor. If "beforefieldinit" isn't enabled, then the "before the first instance is created or any static members are referenced" logic applies.

Thanks to Marc Gravell's aswer I came up with this contraption (and admittedly I do like the new solution more than the old one, so thanks again!)
Modifications done to the Void class:
public class Void : TilePrototype {
public static Void instance = new Void();
public static Tile get {
get {
return new Tile(instance.id);
}
}
public Void() {
isBlocking = true;
}
public override RenderTile render(Tile tile){
return new RenderTile(0, new Color(0, 0, 0, 0));
}
}
So as You can see I made the "get" variable a property, so that it's evaluated later, when you actually need the tile, not on construction.
I've changed all "get"s this way.
Second change is in the TilePrototype:
public class TilePrototype {
public static Dictionary<int, TilePrototype> tilePrototypeDictionary = new Dictionary<int, TilePrototype>();
public static void registerPrototype(int id, TilePrototype tp){
tp.id = id;
tilePrototypeDictionary.Add(id, tp);
}
public static bool registered = false;
public static void registerAll(){
if( registered ) return;
registerPrototype(0, Void.instance);
registerPrototype(1, Air.instance);
registerPrototype(2, Floor.instance);
registerPrototype(3, Wall.instance);
(...)
Here I've added the registerPrototype and registerAll functions.
This gives me easy access to all the registered type ids (by say Wall.instance.id) as well as the other way around (from id to instance via the Dictionary)
I also have all registered things in one place, with the possibility of runtime adding more
Overall, much neater, and here I assure that all tiles are registered properly and assigned proper IDs.
Change of ID is simple and in one place and everywhere else, access to this ID is done via a short .instance.id
Thanks again for the help :)

When using a singleton pattern, should my public class return the private or public instance?

I have a singleton defined like this:
public partial class MoonDataManager
{
static MoonDataManager _singletonInstance;
public static MoonDataManager SingletonInstance
{
get
{
return _singletonInstance;
}
private set
{
_singletonInstance = value;
}
}
I have a function that safely creates the instance:
public static async Task<MoonDataManager> CreateSingletonAsync()
{
_singletonInstance = new MoonDataManager();
Should I:
return _singletonInstance; (field)
or
return SingletonInstance; (property)
I'm concerned with Garbage Collection, especially in iOS or Android within Xamarin.
Also if there are naming patterns for this in C# let me know if I deviated from a standard.
Update:
Now I think I really got myself stuck with threading and async methods. Here are the objects and their goals:
MoonDataManager : Run the RegisterTable<Models.IssuerKey> once per table. This is a generic method that essentially runs (new MobileServiceSQLiteStore).DefineTable<T>()
OfflineStore : This is a MobileServiceSQLiteStore.
MobileClient : This is a MobileServiceClient.
MoonDataManager Dependencies: The MoonDataManager requires OfflineStore and MobileClient to finish initialization. Specifically, it does a MobileServiceClient.SyncContext.InitializeAsync(OfflineStore)
I'm not sure how to make sense of this spaghetti of dependencies... or how to make the code look nice, and be thread safe.
Here is the new iteration of the code:
private readonly Lazy<MobileServiceClient> lazyMobileClient =
new Lazy<MobileServiceClient>(() => new MobileServiceClient(Constants.ApplicationURL), true); // true for thread safety
public MobileServiceClient MobileClient { get { return lazyMobileClient.Value; } }
private readonly Lazy< MobileServiceSQLiteStore> offlineDB =
new Lazy<MobileServiceSQLiteStore>(() => new MobileServiceSQLiteStore(Constants.OfflineDBName), true ); // true for thread safety
private MobileServiceSQLiteStore OfflineStore { get { return offlineDB.Value; } }
private static readonly Lazy<MoonDataManager> lazy = new Lazy<MoonDataManager>(() => new MoonDataManager(), true); // true for thread safety
public static MoonDataManager Instance { get { return lazy.Value; } }
private MoonDataManager()
{
MoonDataManager.Instance.RegisterTable<Models.IssuerKey>();
// Initialize file sync
// todo: investigate FileSyncTriggerFactory overload.
//Was present on Mar 30, 2016 Channel9 https://channel9.msdn.com/events/Build/2016/P408
MoonDataManager.Instance.MobileClient.InitializeFileSyncContext
(new IssuerKeyFileSyncHandler(Instance), Instance.OfflineStore);
// NOTE THE ASYNC METHOD HERE (won't compile)
await MoonDataManager.Instance.MobileClient
.SyncContext.InitializeAsync(MoonDataManager.Instance.OfflineStore,
StoreTrackingOptions.NotifyLocalAndServerOperations);
}

For .NET 4 or higher, you can use the Lazy<T> and create it like this.
public sealed class Singleton
{
private static readonly Lazy<Singleton> lazy =
new Lazy<Singleton>(() => new Singleton(), true); // true for thread safety
public static Singleton Instance { get { return lazy.Value; } }
private Singleton()
{
}
}
It will be created only if it is accessed and only the first time and it is threadsafe.

The definition
static MoonDataManager _singletonInstance;
ensures that the instance of MoonDataManager is a GC root, and it will not be collected until the application domain ends, because it is a static value.
I'd return the private singleton and forego the auto property that you have.
public partial class MoonDataManager
{
private static readonly Lazy<MoonDataManager> _manager =
new Lazy<MoonDataManager>(() => new MoonDataManager());
public static MoonDataManager SingletonInstance => _manager.Value;
}
When MoonDataManager.Value is accessed for the first time, it is initialized using the Func<MoonDataManager> that was passed to the constructor for Lazy<T>. On subsequent accesses, the same instance is returned.

A Singleton creates itself the first time it's accessed, in a way that ensures only one instance will get created, even if a second thread tries to access it while it's still being instantiated
your CreateSingletonAsync() violates this, and looks like it'd allow for multi-thread nastiness
You want something like:
public static MoonDataManager SingletonInstance
{
get
{
if (_singletonInsatnce != null)
return _singletonInstance;
lock (lockobject)
{
// check for null again, as new one may have been created while a thread was waiting on the lock
if (_singletonInsatnce != null)
return _singletonInstance;
else
// create new one here.
}
}
// no setter, because by definition no other class can instantiate the singleton
}
All this is just to ensure that two threads asking for one object don't end up creating two objects, or the second thread getting a half-created object if the first thread's one is still being created.
NB: Singletons have become unfashionable.
NB: If you can be sure that you've got time to create your object before it's ever accessed, you can just use a static member and create it on application start.
Your question "should I return the property or field" doesn't make sense -- you're already returning the field from the property getter, which is standard practise. Where else are you wanting to return something?

You should return the private instance. You can read more about the singleton pattern on MSDN. The standard singleton implementation is as follows:
public class Singleton
{
private static Singleton instance;
private Singleton() {}
public static Singleton Instance
{
get
{
if (instance == null)
{
instance = new Singleton();
}
return instance;
}
}
}
Although, normally, you don't have a setter for the property. This pattern has already previously been discussed on SO.

How to recreate singleton instance in c#

I have a singleton class, it is reading config file.
public sealed class SettingsHelper
{
private static readonly SettingsHelper _Instance = new SettingsHelper();
static SettingsHelper()
{
}
public static SettingsHelper Instance
{
get
{
return _Instance;
}
}
private NameValueCollection _SettingsSection = null;
public SettingsHelper()
{
_SettingsSection = new NameValueCollection(ConfigurationManager.AppSettings);
}
.....
}
}
But if config file getting changed the singleton do not picking up the change.
Is there any way to recreate the instance of singleton(call its constructor) or i should create separate method which will be reinitiating the instance of singleton?

You're trying to throw away the very first purpose of singleton pattern. A singleton is there, just to prevent any other code from instantiating a new instance of that class. To make a singleton class, you should not have public constructors at all. You already have a public constructor.
I encourage you to read the first line, just the first line of this Wikipedia article about Singleton Pattern.
What you're trying to do, is called cache dependency in C#. You're trying to cache Web.config's app settings and you are dependent on Web.config's change. You should search that.

Recreating a singleton is abad idea - references to the 'old' singleton will stay.
So it's no longer a singelton!
In your case I would create new settings. Why not make a public method LoadSettings() and call that?
public sealed class SettingsHelper
{
private static readonly SettingsHelper _Instance = new SettingsHelper();
private NameValueCollection _SettingsSection = null;
// ...
private SettingsHelper()
{
LoadSettings()
}
public void LoadSettings()
{
_SettingsSection = new NameValueCollection(ConfigurationManager.AppSettings);
}
.....
}
}
BTW: make SettingsHelper() private...

It will be better to create a separate method inside your singleton class to read the settings again. Obviously, with this approach, you will have to call this method from your code.

How and when are c# Static members disposed?

I have a class with extensive static members, some of which keep references to managed and unmanaged objects.
For instance, the static constructor is called as soon as the Type is referenced, which causes my class to spin up a blockingQueue of Tasks. This happens when one of the static methods is called, for example.
I implemented IDisposable, which gives me methods to handle disposal on any instance objects I created. However, these methods are never called if the consumer doesn't create any instance objects from my class.
How and where do I put code to dispose of references maintained by the static portion of my class? I always thought that disposal of static-referenced resources happened when the last instance object was released; this is the first time I've ever created a class where no instances may ever be created.

The static variable of your class are not garbage collected until the app domain hosting your class is unloaded. The Dispose() method will not be called, because it is an instance method, and you said that you wouldn't create any instances of your class.
If you would like to make use of the Dispose() method, make your object a singleton, create one instance of it, and dispose of it explicitly when your application is about to exit.
public class MyClass : IDisposable {
public IList List1 {get; private set;}
public IDictionary<string,string> Dict1 {get; private set;}
public void Dispose() {
// Do something here
}
public static MyClass Instance {get; private set;}
static MyClass() {
Instance = new MyClass();
}
public static void DisposeInstance() {
if (Instance != null) {
Instance.Dispose();
Instance = null;
}
}
}

public class Logger : IDisposable
{
private string _logDirectory = null;
private static Logger _instance = null;
private Logger() : this(ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["LogDirectory"])
{
AppDomain.CurrentDomain.ProcessExit += CurrentDomain_ProcessExit;
}
private Logger(string logDirectory)
{
}
public static Logger Instance
{
get
{
if (_instance == null)
_instance = new Logger();
return _instance;
}
}
private void CurrentDomain_ProcessExit(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Dispose();
}
public void Dispose()
{
// Dispose unmanaged resources
}
}

You should dispose this objects manually, there is no way to create a "finalizer" for static resources.

If you really want to have static members which keep references to unmanaged objects
just create a method for disposing the unmanaged objects and "force" consumer to use it on exit.
By "force" I mean document your class with a paragraph that states "when" and "why" to use this "dispose" method.
Do it either if you are the sole consumer (or your code...) or you plan to distribute your class.
Also try to use a somehow descriptive name (to that "dispose" method) such as "DisposeStatics", "AlwaysDispose", "DisposeAtEnd" etc.

how to destroy a Static Class in C#

I am using .net 1.1. I have a session class in which I have stored many static variables that hold some data to be used by many classes.
I want to find a simple way of destroying this class instead of resetting every variable one by one. For example if there is a static class MyStatic, I would have liked to destroy/remove this class from the memory by writing MyStatic = null, which is not currently possible,
Additional question.
The idea of singleton is good, but I have the following questions:
If singleton is implemented, the 'single' object will still remain in the memory. In singleton, we are only checking if an instance is already existing. how can i make sure that this instance variable also gets destroyed.
I have a main class which initializes the variable in the static class. Even if I plan to implement a Rest() method, I need to call it from a method, for eg, the destructor in the main class. But this destructor gets called only when GC collects this main class object in the memory, which means the Reset() gets called very late
thanks
pradeep

Don't use a static class to store your variables. Use an instance (and make it a singleton if you only want one instance at any given time.) You can then implement IDisposible, and just call Dispose() when you want to destroy it.
For more information check out this site: http://csharpindepth.com/Articles/General/Singleton.aspx
EDIT
The object is still subject to garbage collection, so unless you are using lots of unmanaged resources, you should be fine. You can implement IDisposible to clean up any resources that need to be cleaned up as well.

Instead of a static class, have a static instance of a class:
class Foo
{
public int Something;
public static Foo Instance = new Foo();
public void Reset()
{
Instance = new Foo();
}
}
void test
{
int i = Foo.Instance.Something;
}
You can also delegate to an instance of the class:
class Foo
{
public int Something
{
get { return instance.something; }
}
private int something;
private static Foo instance = new Foo();
public void Reset()
{
instance = new Foo();
}
}
void test
{
int i = Foo.Something;
}

There's no way to destroy a static unless it resides in a separate AppDomain in which case you can get rid of it by unloading the AppDomain. However it is usually better to avoid statics.
EDIT: Additional question
When the singleton is no longer referenced it will be collected just as everything else. In other words, if you want it collected you must make sure that there are no references to it. It goes without saying that if you store a static reference to your singleton, you will have the same problem as before.

Use a Singleton like ktrauberman said, and have an initialization method or a reset method. You only have to write the code once and call the method.

You destroy objects, not classes. There's nothing wrong with static classes--C# provides them for a reason. Singletons are just extra overhead, unless you actually need an object, e.g. when you have to pass the object as a parameter.
Static classes contain only static variables. These variables tend to last for the lifetime of the app, in which case you don't have to worry about disposing referenced objects, unless you have a mild case of OCD. That just leaves the case where your static class allocates and releases resources throughout its lifetime. Dispose of these objects in due course as you usually would (e.g., "using...").

The best way in your condition is to have an Reset() method built-in as well, which can reset the values of the class.

class myclass
{
private static myclass singleobj = null;
private myclass(){}
public static myclass CreateInstance()
{
if(singleobj == null)
singleobj = new myclass();
return singleobj
}
}

Building on Ahemd Said's answer: (and props to him!)
class Singleton
{
private static Singleton instance = null;
private Singleton(){} // private constructor: stops others from using
public static Singleton Instance
{
get { return instance ?? (instance = new Singleton()); }
set {
if (null != value)
{ throw new InvalidValueException(); }
else
{ instance = null; }
}
}
}
void SampleUsage()
{
Singleton myObj = Singleton.Instance;
// use myObj for your work...
myObj.Instance = null; // The set-operator makes it ready for GC
}
(untested... but mostly right, I think)
You could also add in usage of the IDispose interface for more cleanup.

You can create a method in the static class which resets the values of all properties.
Consider you have a static class
public static class ClassA
{
public static int id=0;
public static string name="";
public static void ResetValues()
{
// Here you want to reset to the old initialized value
id=0;
name="";
}
}
Now you can use any of the below approaches from any other class to reset value of a static class
Approach 1 - Calling directly
ClassA.ResetValues();
Approach 2 - Invoking method dynamically from a known namespace and known class
Type t1 = Type.GetType("Namespace1.ClassA");
MethodInfo methodInfo1 = t1.GetMethod("ResetValues");
if (methodInfo1 != null)
{
object result = null;
result = methodInfo1.Invoke(null, null);
}
Approach 3 - Invoking method dynamically from an assembly/set of assemblies
foreach (var Ass in AppDomain.CurrentDomain.GetAssemblies())
{
// Use the above "If" condition if you want to filter from only one Dll
if (Ass.ManifestModule.FullyQualifiedName.EndsWith("YourDll.dll"))
{
List<Type> lstClasses = Ass.GetTypes().Where(t => t.IsClass && t.IsSealed && t.IsAbstract).ToList();
foreach (Type type in lstClasses)
{
MethodInfo methodInfo = type.GetMethod("ResetValues");
if (methodInfo != null)
{
object result = null;
result = methodInfo.Invoke(null, null);
}
}
break;
}
}

Inject the objects into the static class at startup from a non static class that implements IDisposable, then when your non static class is destroyed so are the objects the static class uses.
Make sure to implement something like "Disable()" so the static class is made aware it's objects have just been set to null.
Eg I have a logger class as follows:
public static class Logger
{
private static Action<string, Exception, bool> _logError;
public static void InitLogger(Action<string, Exception, bool> logError)
{
if(logError != null) _logError = logError;
}
public static void LogError(string msg, Exception e = null, bool sendEmailReport = false)
{
_logError?.Invoke(msg, e, sendEmailReport);
}
In my constructor of my Form I call the following to setup the logger.
Logger.InitLogger(LogError);
Then from any class in my project I can do the following:
Logger.LogError("error",new Exception("error), true);