We Keep Coding

Singleton without sealed class and thread safety issues

I was asked to write Singleton in the interview today. I wrote the below, please note, I used "property set" method to set and then I returned the instance using "get" method. But I see in internet that most places they use only get, meaning, what I did below is wrong? Sorry I dont have VS ide with me to verify it now, so posting it here.
Also, some used sealed class including with private constructor. Why sealed with private cons?
public class Singleton
{
private static readonly Singleton instance;
private Singleton() {}
public static Singleton Instance
{
set
{
if(instance == null){
instance = new Singleton();
}
}
get
{
return instance;
}
}
}

My advice is to try to compile and run the code yourself. It's by far the easiest way to understand how it works.
If you would try to build your code you would get the following error :
Error CS0198 A static readonly field cannot be assigned to (except in a static constructor or a variable initializer)
In other words, you should instantiate your instance inside the constructor.
Regarding your question, a private constructor is needed to prevent access from outside your class and also it is enough to make sure that other classes cannot inherit from your class. You don't really need the sealed.
You can find a really good summary regarding the singleton pattern # https://csharpindepth.com/articles/singleton

#Learner Since its a interview question and mostly in India they ask to write to Psuedo code to evaluate the candidate coding skills, I try to fit myself in the candidate shoes to give the answer.
Well design patterns has evolved over a period of time with advancements in the programming language and Singleton is not a exception. There are many ways that we can create a Singleton class using C#. I would like to showcase few of the flavors that I can able to recollect
1. Plain vanilla Singleton without Thread-Safety
public sealed class Singleton
{
private Singleton()
{
}
private static Singleton instance = null;
public static Singleton Instance
{
get
{
if (instance == null)
{
instance = new Singleton();
}
return instance;
}
}
}
2. Singleton with Thread Saftey
public sealed class Singleton_ThreadLock
{
Singleton_ThreadLock()
{
}
private static readonly object padlock = new object();
private static Singleton_ThreadLock instance = null;
public static Singleton_ThreadLock Instance
{
get
{
// Uses the lock to avoid another resource to create the instance in parallel
lock (padlock)
{
if (instance == null)
{
instance = new Singleton_ThreadLock();
}
return instance;
}
}
}
}
3. Singleton - Double Thread Safe
public sealed class Singleton_DoubleThreadSafe
{
Singleton_DoubleThreadSafe()
{
}
private static readonly object padlock = new object();
private static Singleton_DoubleThreadSafe instance = null;
public static Singleton_DoubleThreadSafe Instance
{
get
{
if (instance == null)
{
lock (padlock)
{
if (instance == null)
{
instance = new Singleton_DoubleThreadSafe();
}
}
}
return instance;
}
}
}
4. Singleton - Early Initialization
public sealed class Singleton_EarlyInitialization
{
private static readonly Singleton_EarlyInitialization instance = new Singleton_EarlyInitialization();
// Explicit static constructor to tell C# compiler
// not to mark type as beforefieldinit
static Singleton_EarlyInitialization()
{
}
private Singleton_EarlyInitialization()
{
}
public static Singleton_EarlyInitialization Instance
{
get
{
return instance;
}
}
}
5. Singleton - Lazy Initialization using .Net 4.0+ Framework
public sealed class Singleton
{
private Singleton()
{
}
private static readonly Lazy<Singleton> lazy = new Lazy<Singleton>(() => new Singleton());
public static Singleton Instance
{
get
{
return lazy.Value;
}
}
}
Caveats:
Well there are few people who create instance of the class using reflection (I did in one of my framework) but his can also be avoided. There are few samples in net that can show how to avoid it
Its always best practice to make the Singleton class as sealed as it will restrict developers from inheriting the class.
There are lots of IOC's in the market that can create Singleton instance of a normal class without following the above Singleton implementation.

Why don't pre-create instance before return in Singleton pattern

I've seen many people write singleton like this
public class Singleton
{
private static Singleton _instance = null;
public static Singleton Instance
{
get
{
if (_instance == null)
{
_instance = new Singleton();
}
return _instance;
}
}
}
What is the difference from this code
public class Singleton
{
private static Singleton _instance = new Singleton();
public static Singleton Instance
{
get { return _instance; }
}
}
Nowaday(C# 6), we have Getter-only auto-properties, is this difference from above(I prefer to write it like this)
public class Singleton
{
public static Singleton Instance { get; } = new Singleton();
}
From what I've known, static field is guaranteed to be ready before I access it for the first time, so it's nothing different, only thing that different is in the first case, I will know when instance is created.
Is there anything more than this or I misunderstand everything?

It is called "Lazy" which postpones the creation of value to first request.
Create the object at the very beginning.
Simplified version of 2.
Or, you can simply use "Lazy" class which many people neglect.
public class Singleton
{
private static Lazy<Singleton> instance = new Lazy<Singleton>();
public static Singleton Instance => instance.Value;
}
"Lazy" is good for large programs.
Reduce startup time since creation is postponed.
Save resource if eventually class is not used.

c# Singleton Pattern vs Static Property

When I tried to use 2 different versions of the same class , they act actually the same.
I searched but can't find a satisfied answer for this question
What are the differences between Singleton and static property below 2 example, it is about initialization time ? and how can i observe differences ?
Edit : I don't ask about differences static class and singleton. Both of them non static, only difference is, first one initialized in Instance property, second one initialized directly
public sealed class Singleton
{
private static Singleton instance;
private Singleton()
{
}
public static Singleton Instance
{
get
{
if (instance == null)
{
instance = new Singleton();
}
return instance;
}
}
}
public sealed class Singleton2
{
private static Singleton2 instance = new Singleton2();
private Singleton2()
{
}
public static Singleton2 Instance
{
get
{
return instance;
}
}
}

Your first singleton implementation isn't thread safe; if multiple threads try to create a singleton at the same time it's possible for two instances to end up being created. Your second implementation doesn't have that flaw.
Other than that, they're functionally the same.

The instance of the Singleton class will be created the first time it is requested by the Singleton.Instance method.
The instance of Singleton2 will be created on initialization of its type which can be caused by several mechanisms. It will certainly be created before accessing any property or method on the Singleton2 class

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);