I like how HTTPContext.Current works. Is there any way that I can implement a similar object that has no relations to HTTPContextBase? Basically, I would like to create a UserContext. Then in the DAL, I could simple query this UserContext for user-specific information. This object would have to be thread-safe and work in both an ASP.NET environment (so THREAD STATIC attribute won't work) and console/library environments.
HttpContext.Current is a Singleton. Thread safe implementation is like this:
using System;
public sealed class Singleton
{
private static volatile Singleton instance;
private static object syncRoot = new Object();
private Singleton() {}
public static Singleton Current
{
get
{
if (instance == null)
{
lock (syncRoot)
{
if (instance == null)
instance = new Singleton();
}
}
return instance;
}
}
}
However using Singleton pattern is not good idea. It is almost "anti-pattern". This obstructs unit testing. Instead of this better to use Dependency Injection Container. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_injection
Related
I have a Singleton in my Project looking like this:
//Create a Singleton
static MySingleton Instance;
private static readonly object Padlock = new object();
/// <summary>
/// Singelton Method, to make sure only one instance of this class exists at runtime.
/// </summary>
/// <returns></returns>
public static MySingleton GetInstance()
{
//Thread Safety
lock (Padlock)
{
if (Instance == null)
{
Instance = new MySingleton();
}
return Instance;
}
}
private MySingleton()
{
}
//[...]
The Singleton contains several other classes as Properties, which should never be null.
Normally I'd use DependencyInjection to gurantee each new object gets all necessary parameters on instantiation.
Like this:
IHelperClass Helper {get; set;}
IExectiveClass Executive {get; set;}
public NotMySingleton(IHelperclass helper, IExecutiveClass executive)
{
Helper = helper;
Executive = executive;
}
But I have no idea how to combine DependencyInjection with a Singleton Pattern.
Is there a way to use Singletons with DependenyInjection? What is common practice? What alternatives do I have (if this is not a suitable option)?
All DI frameworks provide a way to define the lifetime of objects instantiated by the DI container.
One lifetime scope is usually Singleton.
If you let the DI framework control the lifetime of your MySingleton, DI will just work.
One remark though, any class which gets injected into the singleton will also be a singleton, no matter how the scope of those dependencies was defined.
If you cannot use or don't want to use the DI framework to create your MySingleton instance, one way to achieve the same would be to make the DI container available and resolve whatever the instance needs from the DI container, manually.
Some might consider this an antipattern though.
Using a DI framework that provides a DI container would be the way to go, however for cases where this is not possible, perhaps one can use the GetInstance() method to inject the dependencies.
Something like this.
//Create a Singleton
static MySingleton Instance;
private static readonly object Padlock = new object();
//The method that would be used by production code to use the class.
public static MySingleton GetInstance()
{
if (Instance != null)
{
return Instance;
}
IDependentService srv = new ConcreteService();
return GetInstance(srv);
}
//The method that allows for injecting dependencies for unit testing.
public static MySingleton GetInstance(IDependentService service)
{
if (Instance == null)
{
lock (Padlock)
{
if (Instance == null)
{
Instance = new MySingleton(service);
}
}
return Instance;
}
private MySingleton(IDependentService service)
{
//...
}
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.
I am new to design patterns in C#. Can anyone please give me some instructions about the implementation of a Singleton class. I just implemented a tutorial but I am not able to understand use of singleton class with this "singleton means we can create only one instance of a class". Then why we don't access property which is written in the singleton class using two different instance of the class.
Please look at my code and give me instructions about the mistake I made.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Singleton instance = Singleton.getInstance();
instance.Message = "Text Message";
Singleton instance1 = Singleton.getInstance();
Console.WriteLine(instance.Message);
Console.WriteLine(instance1.Message);
Console.ReadKey();
}
class Singleton
{
private static Singleton singleton=null;
private Singleton(){}
public static Singleton getInstance()
{
if (singleton!=null)
{
return singleton;
}
return new Singleton();
}
public string Message{get; set;}
}
Your singleton is incorrect.
More correct version:
class Singleton
{
private static Singleton singleton = null;
private Singleton(){}
public static Singleton getInstance()
{
if (singleton!=null)
{
return singleton;
}
return (singleton = new Singleton()); //here is
}
public string Message{get; set;}
}
And very good solution:
class Singleton
{
private static Lazy<Singleton> singleton = new Lazy<Singleton>(()=> new Singleton());
private Singleton() { }
public static Singleton getInstance()
{
return singleton.Value;
}
public string Message { get; set; }
}
It has no problems with thread-safity and lazy initialization.
By default, all public and protected members of the Lazy class are
thread safe and may be used concurrently from multiple threads. These
thread-safety guarantees may be removed optionally and per instance,
using parameters to the type's constructors.
Your Singleton implementation is incorrect.
A Singleton is designed to only allow none or a single instance at all times.
This is where you went wrong:
public static Singleton getInstance()
{
// "singleton" will always be null.
if (singleton != null)
{
return singleton;
}
// Always returns new instance rather than existing one.
return new Singleton();
}
To fix it you should write:
public static Singleton getInstance()
{
// Return the instance we might have stored earlier.
if (singleton != null)
return singleton;
// Now we store the only instance that will ever be created.
singleton = new Singleton();
return singleton;
}
Note that this is not thread safe if called multiple times in parallel.
As a resource I can recommend Jon Skeet's post:
http://csharpindepth.com/Articles/General/Singleton.aspx
He explaines six different solutions (including thread-safety and the Lazy(T)) to the Singleton Pattern and how to code them.
Does two instance of singleton class has a same property value?
The answer to your question is yes, they has the same property value.
Important thing is understand why, and the reason is the core of what a singleton is. So, why?:
Because you are confusing two references with two instance.
There are no two instances, there are always one none or one instance of the singleton class.
In your code, singleton variable and singleton1 variable are pointing both to the same object, the singleton, and the reason is because of the implementation of the method getInstance(), is simple to understand :
If method is called for the very first time, then it creates for unique time the singleton object with method new.
If method is called after a first time, it will return the singleton object created in the first call of method.
So, no matter how many variables of type Singleton you have, you will always have only one Singleton created with the new method, the instance, the singleton instance.
I always see singletons implemented like this:
public class Singleton
{
static Singleton instance;
static object obj = new object();
public static Singleton Instance
{
get
{
lock (obj)
{
if (instance == null)
{
instance = new Singleton();
}
return instance;
}
}
}
protected Singleton() { }
}
Is there's something wrong with implementing it like this:
public class Singleton
{
static readonly Singleton instance = new Singleton();
public static Singleton Instance
{
get { return instance; }
}
protected Singleton() { }
}
? It gets lazy initialized on the very same moment as in the first implementation so I wonder why this isn't a popular solution?
It should be also faster because there's no need for a condition, locking and the field is marked as readonly which will let the compiler to do some optimisations
Let's not talk about the singleton (anti)pattern itself, please
The CLR will initialize the field upon the first use of that (or any other static) field. It promises to do so in a thread-safe manner.
The difference between your code is that the first bit of code supports thread-safe lazy initialization where the second doesn't. This means that when your code never accesses Singleton.Instance of the first code, no new Singleton() will ever be created. For the second class it will, as soon as you access Instance or (directly or indirect) any other static member of that class. Worse even - it may be initialized before that because you lack a static constructor.
Favoring shorter and more readable code, since .NET 4 you can use Lazy<T> to significantly shorten the first code block:
public class Singleton
{
static readonly Lazy<Singleton> instance =
new Lazy<Singleton>(() => new Singleton());
public static Singleton Instance
{
get { return instance.Value; }
}
static Singleton() { }
private Singleton() { }
}
As Lazy<T> also promises thread-safety. This will ensure new Singleton() is only called once, and only when Singleton.Instance is actually used.
On MSDN I found two approaches to creating a singleton class:
public class Singleton {
private static Singleton instance;
private Singleton() {}
public static Singleton Instance {
get {
if (instance == null)
instance = new Singleton();
return instance;
}
}
}
and
public sealed class Singleton {
private static readonly Singleton instance = new Singleton();
private Singleton(){}
public static Singleton Instance {
get { return instance; }
}
}
My question is: can we just use a static constructor that will make for us this object before first use?
Can you use the static constructor, sure. I don't know why you'd want to use it over just using the second example you've shown, but you certainly could. It would be functionally identical to your second example, but just requiring more typing to get there.
Note that your first example cannot be safely used if the property is accessed from multiple threads, while the second is safe. Your first example would need to use a lock or other synchronization mechanism to prevent the possibility of multiple instances being created.