I try to manage Firebase Authentification into a custom class where everything about Authentification will be done. First I try to create an instance of this in the MainActivity.cs by calling
AuthService.GetInstance();
But it crash on runtime with this error :
Unable to find the default constructor on type AuthService. Please provide the missing constructor.
Here is my class AuthService which I try to initialise my singleton. What is wrong with this constructor ? Is this because my class inherit of Java.Lang.Object and singleton won't work as it always worked before ?
public class AuthService : Java.Lang.Object,
IOnSuccessListener,
IOnFailureListener
{
public User CurrentUser;
private FirebaseAuth firebaseAuth;
private static AuthService _instance = null;
private static System.Object _mutex = new object();
public IntPtr Handle {get;}
public static AuthService GetInstance()
{
if (_instance == null)
{
lock (_mutex) // now I can claim some form of thread safety...
{
if (_instance == null)
{
_instance = new AuthService();
}
}
}
return _instance;
}
private AuthService()
{
Initialise();
}
private void Initialise()
{
this.firebaseAuth = FirebaseAuth.Instance;
if (FirebaseAuth.Instance.CurrentUser != null)
{
this.CurrentUser = User.GetInstance();
}
}
}
}
Thanks for the help!
To correctly implement the singleton pattern, you must avoid making your constructor public. Therefore, you should avoid Java.Lang.Object which seems to force you to have a public constructor.
Your Default Constructor is private (which is all sorts of curious), make it public
public AuthService()
{
...
Private Constructors (C# Programming Guide)
A private constructor is a special instance constructor. It is
generally used in classes that contain static members only. If a class
has one or more private constructors and no public constructors, other
classes (except nested classes) cannot create instances of this class.
I have implemented an interface IService that inherits functionality from a series of other interfaces and serves as a common ground for many different services.
Each of these services is being described by an interface, for example:
public interface IServiceOne : IService
{
//...
}
public class ServiceOne : IServiceOne
{
//...
}
Everything up to that point works as expected:
IServiceOne serviceOne = new ServiceOne();
IServiceTwo serviceTwo = new ServiceTwo();
What I have to do now is to add a big list of constants (public variables) to each of these services which will however be different as per service type (for example, IServiceOne will have different constants than IServiceTwo, there will be constants in IServiceOne that will not exist in IServiceTwo, etc).
What I'm trying to achieve is something like that:
IServiceOne serviceOne = new ServiceOne();
var someConstantValue = serviceOne.Const.SomeConstant;
Just because the variables will differ as of service type I decided to implement an extra interface for each of them:
public interface IServiceOneConstants
{
//...
}
and then broaden my IService definition:
public interface IServiceOne : IService, IServiceOneConstants
{
//...
}
public class ServiceOne : IServiceOne
{
//...
}
The problem I have now is that I don't know how to implement the concrete class for IServiceOneConstants. Obviously by the time one of its variables (we called them constants here) will be called it has to be instantiated, so initially I though of a static class but then you cannot expose a static class's functionality through an interface. I then tried to do it with a singleton and expose its instance via a public non-static wrapper:
public class Singleton : IServiceOneConstants
{
private static Singleton _instance;
private Singleton()
{
SomeConstant = "Some value";
}
public static Singleton Instance
{
get
{
if (_instance == null)
{
_instance = new Singleton();
}
return _instance;
}
}
public String SomeConstant { get; set; }
public Singleton Const
{
get
{
return Instance;
}
}
}
I then adjusted the IServiceOneConstants like that:
public interface IServiceOneConstants
{
Singleton Const { get; }
}
but when I call this:
IServiceOne serviceOne = new ServiceOne();
var someConstantValue = serviceOne.Const.SomeConstant;
I get a null reference exception, as .Const is null.
What am I missing here?
You really helped yourself to get confused as possible, by naming different stuff same name ;)
So, first...
what you're trying to do is to access singleton instance through instance property:
public Singleton Const
{
get
{
return Instance;
}
}
then you are using it like:
serviceOne.Const
but that variable was never assigned. In order to assign it, you should make an instance of Singleton class, assign it to serviceOne.Const property and then you might use it.
What you need is probably something like this:
public class ServiceOne : IServiceOne
{
public Singleton Const
{
get
{
return Singleton.Instance;
}
}
}
You need to check to see if the singleton has been instantiated in ServiceOne.Const.SomeConstants` getter. If it's not, you need to instantiate it. Then return the value of the constant.
I want to implement a class whose instance is global but whose property is to be initialized only once during the run time.
Also the initialization is to be done as an assignment from a result of function during execution.
Basically I want to do something like this
public class Configuration
{
public string param1 { get ; set; }
public int param2 { get; set; }
}
public static class AppConfig
{
public static readonly configuration;
}
public class Initialize
{
public void InitConfig()
{
AppConfig.configuration = GetParamsFromDB();
}
}
But I am unable to figure out how to implement it. Please ignore the above incorrect representation. It is just to present what is required.
EDIT
Also there is a need of seperate class Initialize because classes Configuration and AppConfig are in dll BO. GetParamsFromDB() is in DAL. DAL references BO hence
BO cannot refere DAL hence GetParamsFromDB() cannot be used within AppConfig class
All you need to do is initialize it inline:
public static class AppConfig
{
public static readonly configuration = GetParamsFromDB();
}
The C# runtime will automatically ensure that the parameter isn't initialized until the class is accessed for the first time, giving you your desired behvaior.
Note that your configuration type is mutable, which if you want to ensure these values aren't changed, is a bad thing. You should refactor your configuration class to accept the two values in its constructor and not provide public setters for the properties.
It looks like you want a singleton.
See: Implementing the Singleton Pattern in C#
public static class AppConfig
{
private static readonly Lazy<Configuration> _configuration = new Lazy<Configuration>(() => new Configuration());
public static Configuration Instance { get { return _configuration.Value; } }
}
However, you should consider changing your design as singletons are often overused.
Consider something that can be used with dependency injection and inversion of control.
Dependency injection is a pattern that increases code reuse and minimize dependencies through interfaces.
Inversion of control is a pattern that binds objects together at runtime typically using an assembler object.
Example:
public interface IAppConfig
{
Configuration Configuration { get; }
}
public sealed class AppConfig : IAppConfig
{
private readonly Configuration _configuration;
public AppConfiguration()
{
_configuration = new Configuration { };
}
public Configuration Configuration { get { return _configuration; } }
}
This can be used together with an IoC Container to provide configuration to all the objects that need it.
What you are trying to do is kind of Singleton Pattern, It can be implemented as follows,
public sealed class Configuration
{
private static volatile Configuration instance;
private static object syncRoot = new Object();
private Configuration() {}
public static Configuration Instance
{
get
{
if (instance == null)
{
lock (syncRoot)
{
if (instance == null)
instance = new Configuration();
}
}
return instance;
}
}
}
I use more than one class and I need a... lets say Global storage for all the class and method.
Is it the right way to create a static class for storage?
public static class Storage
{
public static string filePath { get; set; }
}
Or is there other ways to do it?
If you really need to make your example a singleton then here is how you do it.
public class StorageSingleton
{
private static readonly StorageSingleton instance;
static StorageSingleton() {
instance = new Singleton();
}
// Mark constructor as private as no one can create it but itself.
private StorageSingleton()
{
// For constructing
}
// The only way to access the created instance.
public static StorageSingleton Instance
{
get
{
return instance;
}
}
// Note that this will be null when the instance if not set to
// something in the constructor.
public string FilePath { get; set; }
}
The way to call and set the singleton is the following:
// Is this is the first time you call "Instance" then it will create itself
var storage = StorageSingleton.Instance;
if (storage.FilePath == null)
{
storage.FilePath = "myfile.txt";
}
Alternatively you can add into the constructor the following to avoid null reference exception:
// Mark constructor as private as no one can create it but itself.
private StorageSingleton()
{
FilePath = string.Empty;
}
Word of warning; making anything global or singleton will break your code in the long run. Later on you really should be checking out the repository pattern.
You could consider using the Singleton design pattern:
Implementing Singleton in c#
eg.
using System;
public class Singleton
{
private static Singleton instance;
private Singleton() {}
public static Singleton Instance
{
get
{
if (instance == null)
{
instance = new Singleton();
}
return instance;
}
}
}
You should have a look at the repository pattern:
http://martinfowler.com/eaaCatalog/repository.html
One way of implementing this pattern is through the use of ORM's s.a. NHibernate:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110503184234/http://blogs.hibernatingrhinos.com/nhibernate/archive/2008/10/08/the-repository-pattern.aspx
Applying Singleton to your original class:
public class Storage
{
private static Storage instance;
private Storage() {}
public static Storage Instance
{
get
{
if (instance == null)
{
instance = new Storage();
}
return instance;
}
}
public string FilePath { get; set; }
}
usage:
string filePath = Storage.Instance.FilePath;
I love seeing that implementation of singleton in C#.
public class Singleton
{
public static readonly Singleton instance;
static Singleton()
{
instance = new Singleton();
}
private Singleton()
{
//constructor...
}
}
C# guarantees that your instance wont be overriden and your static constructor guarantees that you WILL have your static property instantiated before the first time it's used.
Bonus: It's threadsafe as per language design for static constructors, no double checked locking :).
I have the following C# singleton pattern, is there any way of improving it?
public class Singleton<T> where T : class, new()
{
private static object _syncobj = new object();
private static volatile T _instance = null;
public static T Instance
{
get
{
if (_instance == null)
{
lock (_syncobj)
{
if (_instance == null)
{
_instance = new T();
}
}
}
return _instance;
}
}
public Singleton()
{ }
}
Preferred usage example:
class Foo : Singleton<Foo>
{
}
Related:
An obvious singleton implementation for .NET?
According to Jon Skeet in Implementing the Singleton Pattern in C# the code you posted is actually considered as bad code, because it appears broken when checked against the ECMA CLI standard.
Also watch out: everytime you instantiate your object with a new type of T, it becomes another instance; it doesn't get reflected in your original singleton.
This code won't compile, you need "class" constraint on T.
Also, this code requires public constructor on target class, which is not good for singleton, because you can't control at compile time that you obtain (single) instance only via Instance property (or field). If you don't have any other static members except Instance, you are ok to go with just this:
class Foo
{
public static readonly Instance = new Foo();
private Foo() {}
static Foo() {}
}
It is thread safe (guaranteed by CLR) and lazy (instance is created with first access to type). For more discussion about BeforeFieldInit and why we need static constructor here, see https://csharpindepth.com/articles/BeforeFieldInit.
If you want to have other public static members on type, but create object only on access to Instance, you may create nested type, like in https://csharpindepth.com/articles/Singleton
Courtesy of Judith Bishop, http://patterns.cs.up.ac.za/
This singleton pattern implementation ensures lazy initialisation.
// Singleton PatternJudith Bishop Nov 2007
// Generic version
public class Singleton<T> where T : class, new()
{
Singleton() { }
class SingletonCreator
{
static SingletonCreator() { }
// Private object instantiated with private constructor
internal static readonly T instance = new T();
}
public static T UniqueInstance
{
get { return SingletonCreator.instance; }
}
}
This is my point using .NET 4
public class Singleton<T> where T : class, new()
{
Singleton (){}
private static readonly Lazy<T> instance = new Lazy<T>(()=> new T());
public static T Instance { get { return instance.Value; } }
}
I don't think that you really want to "burn your base class" so that you can save 2 lines of code. You don't really need a base class to implement singleton.
Whenever you need a singleton, just do this:
class MyConcreteClass
{
#region Singleton Implementation
public static readonly Instance = new MyConcreteClass();
private MyConcreteClass(){}
#endregion
/// ...
}
More details on this answer on a different thread : How to implement a singleton in C#?
However the thread doesn't use generic.
public sealed class Singleton
{
private static readonly Singleton instance = new Singleton();
private Singleton(){}
public static Singleton Instance
{
get
{
return instance;
}
}
}
There's no ambiguity in .NET around initialization order; but this raises threading issues.
:/ The generic "singleton" pattern by Judith Bishop seems kinda flawed, its always possible to create several instances of type T as the constructor must be public to use it in this "pattern". In my opinion it has absolutely nothing to do with singleton, its just a kind of factory, which always returns the same object, but doesn't make it singleton... as long as there can be more than one instance of a class it can't be a singleton. Any reason this pattern is top-rated?
public sealed class Singleton
{
private static readonly Singleton _instance = new Singleton();
private Singleton()
{
}
public static Singleton Instance
{
get
{
return _instance;
}
}
}
Static initializers are considered thread-safe.. I don't know but you shouldn't use idioms of singleton at all, if you wrap my code above its not more than 3 lines... and inheriting from a singleton doesn't make any sense either.
I was looking for a better Singleton pattern and liked this one. So ported it to VB.NET, can be useful for others:
Public MustInherit Class Singleton(Of T As {Class, New})
Public Sub New()
End Sub
Private Class SingletonCreator
Shared Sub New()
End Sub
Friend Shared ReadOnly Instance As New T
End Class
Public Shared ReadOnly Property Instance() As T
Get
Return SingletonCreator.Instance
End Get
End Property
End Class
As requested, cross posting from my original answer to another question.
My version uses Reflection, works with non-public constructors in the derived class, is threadsafe (obviously) with lazy instantiation (according to the article I found linked below):
public class SingletonBase<T> where T : class
{
static SingletonBase()
{
}
public static readonly T Instance =
typeof(T).InvokeMember(typeof(T).Name,
BindingFlags.CreateInstance |
BindingFlags.Instance |
BindingFlags.Public |
BindingFlags.NonPublic,
null, null, null) as T;
}
I picked this up a few years ago, not sure how much is mine, but googling on the code might find the original source of the technique if it wasn't me.
This is the oldest source of the code that I can find that was not me posting it.
Try this generic Singleton class implementing the Singleton design pattern in a thread safe and lazy way (thx to wcell).
public abstract class Singleton<T> where T : class
{
/// <summary>
/// Returns the singleton instance.
/// </summary>
public static T Instance
{
get
{
return SingletonAllocator.instance;
}
}
internal static class SingletonAllocator
{
internal static T instance;
static SingletonAllocator()
{
CreateInstance(typeof(T));
}
public static T CreateInstance(Type type)
{
ConstructorInfo[] ctorsPublic = type.GetConstructors(
BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public);
if (ctorsPublic.Length > 0)
throw new Exception(
type.FullName + " has one or more public constructors so the property cannot be enforced.");
ConstructorInfo ctorNonPublic = type.GetConstructor(
BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.NonPublic, null, new Type[0], new ParameterModifier[0]);
if (ctorNonPublic == null)
{
throw new Exception(
type.FullName + " doesn't have a private/protected constructor so the property cannot be enforced.");
}
try
{
return instance = (T)ctorNonPublic.Invoke(new object[0]);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
throw new Exception(
"The Singleton couldnt be constructed, check if " + type.FullName + " has a default constructor", e);
}
}
}
}
The Double-Check Locking [Lea99] idiom provided by Microsoft here is amazingly similar to your provided code, unfortunately, this fails the ECMA CLI standard for a puritan view of thread-safe code and may not work correctly in all situations.
In a multi-threaded program, different threads could try to instantiate a class simultaneously. For this reason, a Singleton implementation that relies on an if statement to check whether the instance is null will not be thread-safe. Don't write code like that!
A simple, yet effective means of creating a thread-safe singleton is to use a nested class to instantiate it. The following is an example of a lazy instantiation singleton:
public sealed class Singleton
{
private Singleton() { }
public static Singleton Instance
{
get
{
return SingletonCreator.instance;
}
}
private class SingletonCreator
{
static SingletonCreator() { }
internal static readonly Singleton instance = new Singleton();
}
}
Usage:
Singleton s1 = Singleton.Instance;
Singleton s2 = Singleton.Instance;
if (s1.Equals(s2))
{
Console.WriteLine("Thread-Safe Singleton objects are the same");
}
Generic Solution:
public class Singleton<T>
where T : class, new()
{
private Singleton() { }
public static T Instance
{
get
{
return SingletonCreator.instance;
}
}
private class SingletonCreator
{
static SingletonCreator() { }
internal static readonly T instance = new T();
}
}
Usage:
class TestClass { }
Singleton s1 = Singleton<TestClass>.Instance;
Singleton s2 = Singleton<TestClass>.Instance;
if (s1.Equals(s2))
{
Console.WriteLine("Thread-Safe Generic Singleton objects are the same");
}
Lastly, here is a somewhat releated and usefull suggestion - to help avoid deadlocks that can be caused by using the lock keyword, consider adding the following attribute to help protect code in only public static methods:
using System.Runtime.CompilerServices;
[MethodImpl (MethodImplOptions.Synchronized)]
public static void MySynchronizedMethod()
{
}
References:
C# Cookbook (O'Reilly), Jay Hilyard & Stephen Teilhet
C# 3.0 Design Patterns (O'Reilly), Judith Bishop
CSharp-Online.Net - Singleton design pattern: Thread-safe Singleton
I quite liked your original answer - the only thing missing (according to the link posted by blowdart) is to make the _instance variable volatile, to make sure it has actually been set in the lock.
I actually use blowdarts solution when I have to use a singleton, but I dont have any need to late-instantiate etc.
My contribution for ensuring on demand creation of instance data:
/// <summary>Abstract base class for thread-safe singleton objects</summary>
/// <typeparam name="T">Instance type</typeparam>
public abstract class SingletonOnDemand<T> {
private static object __SYNC = new object();
private static volatile bool _IsInstanceCreated = false;
private static T _Instance = default(T);
/// <summary>Instance data</summary>
public static T Instance {
get {
if (!_IsInstanceCreated)
lock (__SYNC)
if (!_IsInstanceCreated)
_Instance = Activator.CreateInstance<T>();
return _Instance;
}
}
}
pff... again... :)
My contribution for ensuring on demand creation of instance data:
/// <summary>Abstract base class for thread-safe singleton objects</summary>
/// <typeparam name="T">Instance type</typeparam>
public abstract class SingletonOnDemand<T> {
private static object __SYNC = new object();
private static volatile bool _IsInstanceCreated = false;
private static T _Instance = default(T);
/// <summary>Instance data</summary>
public static T Instance {
get {
if (!_IsInstanceCreated)
lock (__SYNC)
if (!_IsInstanceCreated) {
_Instance = Activator.CreateInstance<T>();
_IsInstanceCreated = true;
}
return _Instance;
}
}
}
public static class LazyGlobal<T> where T : new()
{
public static T Instance
{
get { return TType.Instance; }
}
private static class TType
{
public static readonly T Instance = new T();
}
}
// user code:
{
LazyGlobal<Foo>.Instance.Bar();
}
Or:
public delegate T Func<T>();
public static class CustomGlobalActivator<T>
{
public static Func<T> CreateInstance { get; set; }
}
public static class LazyGlobal<T>
{
public static T Instance
{
get { return TType.Instance; }
}
private static class TType
{
public static readonly T Instance = CustomGlobalActivator<T>.CreateInstance();
}
}
{
// setup code:
// CustomGlobalActivator<Foo>.CreateInstance = () => new Foo(instanceOf_SL_or_IoC.DoSomeMagicReturning<FooDependencies>());
CustomGlobalActivator<Foo>.CreateInstance = () => instanceOf_SL_or_IoC.PleaseResolve<Foo>();
// ...
// user code:
LazyGlobal<Foo>.Instance.Bar();
}
Saw one a while ago which uses reflection to access a private (or public) default constructor:
public static class Singleton<T>
{
private static object lockVar = new object();
private static bool made;
private static T _singleton = default(T);
/// <summary>
/// Get The Singleton
/// </summary>
public static T Get
{
get
{
if (!made)
{
lock (lockVar)
{
if (!made)
{
ConstructorInfo cInfo = typeof(T).GetConstructor(BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic, null, new Type[0], null);
if (cInfo != null)
_singleton = (T)cInfo.Invoke(new object[0]);
else
throw new ArgumentException("Type Does Not Have A Default Constructor.");
made = true;
}
}
}
return _singleton;
}
}
}
I submit this to the group. It seems to be thread-safe, generic and follows the pattern. You can inherit from it. This is cobbled together from what others have said.
public class Singleton<T> where T : class
{
class SingletonCreator
{
static SingletonCreator() { }
internal static readonly T Instance =
typeof(T).InvokeMember(typeof(T).Name,
BindingFlags.CreateInstance |
BindingFlags.Instance |
BindingFlags.Public |
BindingFlags.NonPublic,
null, null, null) as T;
}
public static T Instance
{
get { return SingletonCreator.Instance; }
}
}
Intended implementation:
public class Foo: Singleton<Foo>
{
private Foo() { }
}
Then:
Foo.Instance.SomeMethod();
As in wikipedia:
the singleton pattern is a design pattern that restricts the
instantiation of a class to one object
I beleave that there is no guaranteed way to do it using generics, if you have restricted the instantiation of the singleton itself, how to restrict the instantiation of the main class, I think it is not possible to do that, and implementing this simple pattern is not that hard, take this way using the static constructor and private set:
public class MyClass
{
private MyClass()
{
}
static MyClass()
{
Instance = new MyClass();
}
public static MyClass Instance { get; private set; }
}
OR:
public class MyClass
{
private MyClass()
{
}
static MyClass()
{
Instance = new MyClass();
}
private static MyClass instance;
public static MyClass Instance
{
get
{
return instance;
}
private set
{
instance = value;
}
}
}
This works for me:
public static class Singleton<T>
{
private static readonly object Sync = new object();
public static T GetSingleton(ref T singletonMember, Func<T> initializer)
{
if (singletonMember == null)
{
lock (Sync)
{
if (singletonMember == null)
singletonMember = initializer();
}
}
return singletonMember;
}
}
Usage:
private static MyType _current;
public static MyType Current = Singleton<MyType>.GetSingleton(ref _current, () => new MyType());
Consume the singleton:
MyType.Current. ...
No Matter which exmaple you choose, always check for concurrency using Parallel.For!
( loop in which iterations may run in parallel)
put in Singleton C'tor :
private Singleton ()
{
Console.WriteLine("usage of the Singleton for the first time");
}
put in Main :
Parallel.For(0, 10,
index => {
Thread tt = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Singleton.Instance.SomePrintMethod));
tt.Start();
});
In many solutions today, people use service lifetime of singleton with dependency injection, as .NET offers this out of the box. If you still want to create a generic singleton pattern in your code where you might also consider initializing the type T to a initialized singleton object, 'settable once' and thread safe, here is a possible way to do it.
public sealed class Singleton<T> where T : class, new()
{
private static Lazy<T> InstanceProxy
{
get
{
if (_instanceObj?.IsValueCreated != true)
{
_instanceObj = new Lazy<T>(() => new T());
}
return _instanceObj;
}
}
private static Lazy<T>? _instanceObj;
public static T Instance { get { return InstanceProxy.Value; } }
public static void Init(Lazy<T> instance)
{
if (_instanceObj?.IsValueCreated == true)
{
throw new ArgumentException($"A Singleton for the type <T> is already set");
}
_instanceObj = instance ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(instance));
}
private Singleton()
{
}
}
The class is sealed and with a private constructor, it accepts types which are classes and must offer a public parameterless constructor 'new'. It uses the Lazy to achieve built in thread safety. You can init also the type T Singleton object for convenience. It is only allowed if a Singleton is not first set. Obviously, you should only init a Singleton of type T early on in your program, such as when the application or service / API starts up. The code will throw an ArgumentException if the Init method is called twice or more times for the type T.
You can use it like this :
Some model class :
public class Aeroplane
{
public string? Model { get; set; }
public string? Manufacturer { get; set; }
public int YearBuilt { get; set; }
public int PassengerCount { get; set; }
}
Usage sample :
var aeroplane = new Aeroplane
{
Manufacturer = "Boeing",
Model = "747",
PassengerCount = 350,
YearBuilt = 2005
};
var aeroPlane3 = Singleton<Aeroplane>.Instance;
var aeroPlane4 = Singleton<Aeroplane>.Instance;
Console.WriteLine($"Aeroplane3 and aeroplane4 is same object? {Object.ReferenceEquals(aeroPlane3, aeroPlane4)}");
Outputs 'true'.
Trying to re-init type T Singleton to another object fails :
var aeroplane2 = new Aeroplane
{
Manufacturer = "Sopwith Aviation Company",
Model = "Sophwith Camel",
PassengerCount = 1,
YearBuilt = 1917
};
Singleton<Aeroplane>.Init(new Lazy<Aeroplane>(aeroplane2));
You can of course just access the Singleton with initing it - it will call the default public constructor. Possible you could have a way of setting a custom constructor here instead of passing an object as a sort of 'factory pattern'.
var aeroplaneDefaultInstantiated = Singleton<Aeroplane>.Instance;
Default instantiation - calls the parameterless public constructor of type T.
You don't need all that, C# already has a good singleton pattern built-in.
static class Foo
If you need anything more interesting than that, chances are your new singleton is going to be just different enough that your generic pattern is going to be useless.
EDIT: By "anything more interesting" I'm including inheritance. If you can inherit from a singleton, it isn't a singleton any more.