We Keep Coding

Possible Valid Use of a Singleton?

I've got to the point in my design, where I am seriously considering a singleton.
As we all know, the "common" argument is "Never do it! It's terrible!", as if we'd littered our code with a bunch of goto statements.
ServiceStack is a wonderful framework. Myself and my team are sold on it, and we have a complicated web-service based infrastructure to implement. I have been encouraging an asynchronous design, and where possible - using SendAsync on the service-stack clients.
Given we have all these different systems doing different things, it occurred to me I'd like to have a common logger, (A web service in itself actually, with a fall-back to a local text file if the web service is not available - e.g. some demons are stalking the building). Whilst I am a big fan of Dependency Injection, it doesn't seem clean (at least, to me) to be passing a reference to a "use this logger client" to every single asynchronous request.
Given that ServiceStack's failure signature is a Func<TRESPONSE, Exception> (and I have no fault with this), I am not even sure that if the enclosing method that made the call in the first place would have a valid handle.
However, if we had a singleton logger at this point, it doesn't matter where we are in the world, what thread we are on, and what part of a myriad of anonymous functions we are in.
Is this an accepted valid case, or is it a non-argument - down with singletons?

Logging is one of the areas which makes sense to be a singleton, it should never have any side-effects to your code and you will almost always want the same logger to be used globally. The primary thing you should be concerned with when using Singletons is ThreadSafety, which in the case of most Loggers, they're ThreadSafe by default.
ServiceStack's Logging API allows you to both provide a substitutable Logging implementation by configuring it globally on App_Start with:
LogManager.LogFactory = new Log4NetFactory(configureLog4Net:true);
After this point every class now has access to Log4Net's logger defined in the Factory above:
class Any
{
static ILog log = LogManager.GetLogger(typeof(Any));
}
In all Test projects I prefer everything to be logged to the Console, so I just need to set it once with:
LogManager.LogFactory = new ConsoleLogFactory();
By default ServiceStack.Logging, logs to a benign NullLogger which ignores each log entry.

There's only one problem with classic implementation of a singleton -
it is easily accessible, and provokes direct use, which leads to strong coupling,
god objects, etc.
under classic implementation I mean this:
class Singleton
{
public static readonly Singleton Instance = new Singleton();
private Singleton(){}
public void Foo(){}
public void Bar(){}
}
If you use singleton only in terms of an object lifecycle strategy,
and let IoC framework manage this for you, maintaining loose coupling -
there is nothing wrong with having 'just one' instance of a class
for entire lifetime of application, as long as you make sure it is thread-safe.

If you are placing that common logging behind a static facade that application code calls, ask yourself how you would actually unit test that code. This is a problem that Dependency Injection tries to solve, but you are reintroducing it by letting application logic depend on a static class.
There are two other problems you might be having. To question I have for you is: Are you sure you don't log too much, and are you sure you aren't violating the SOLID principles.
I've written an SO answer a year back that discusses those two questions. I advice you to read it.

As always, I prefer to have a factory. This way I can change the implementation in future and maintain the client contract.
You could say that singleton's implmenentation could also change but factories are just more general. For example, the factory could implement arbitrary lifetime policy and change this policy over time or according to your needs. On the other hand, while this is technically possible to implement different lifetime policies for a singleton, what you get then should probably not be considered a "singleton" but rather a "singleton with specific lifetime policy". And this is probably just as bad as it sounds.
Whenever I am to use a singleton, I first consider a factory and most of the times, the factory just wins over singleton. If you really don't like factories, create a static class - a stateless class with static methods only. Chances are, you just don't need an object, just a set of methods.

Lazy Dependency Injection

I have a project where the Ninject is used as IoC container. My concern is that a lot of classes have such kind of constructors:
[Inject]
public HomeController(
UserManager userManager, RoleManager roleManager, BlahblahManager blahblahManager) {
_userManager = userManager;
_roleManager = roleManager;
_blahblahManager = blahblahManager;
}
What if I don't want to have all instances of these classes at once?
The way, when all this classes are wrapped by Lazy<T> and passed to constructor is not exactly what I need. The T instances are not created yet, but Lazy<T> instances are already stored in memory.
My colleague is suggesting me to use Factory pattern to have control over all instantiations, but I'm not sure that IoC have such great design bug.
Is there a workaround for this situation or IoC really have such big defect in it's design? Maybe I should use another IoC container?
Any suggestions?

Seems to me that you are doing premature optimization: don't do it.
The constructors of your services should do nothing more than storing the dependencies that it takes in private fields. In that case the creation of such an object is really light weight. Don't forget that object creation in .NET is really fast. In most cases, from a performance perspective, it just doesn't matter whether those dependencies get injected or not. Especially when comparing to the amount of objects the rest of your application (and the frameworks you use) are spitting out. The real costs is when you start using web services, databases or the file system (or I/O in general), because they cause a much bigger delay.
If the creation is really expensive, you should normally hide the creation behind a Virtual Proxy instead of injecting a Lazy<T> in every consumer, since this allows common application code to stay oblivious to the fact that there is a mechanism to delay the creation (both your application code and test code are becoming more complex when you do this).
Chapter 8 of Dependency Injection: Principle, Practices, Patterns contains a more detailed discussion about lazy and Virtual Proxies.
However, a Lazy<T> just consumes 20 bytes of memory (and another 24 bytes for its wrapped Func<T>, assuming a 32bit process), and the creation of a Lazy<T> instance is practically free. So there is no need to worry about this, except when you’re in an environment with really tight memory constraints.
And if memory consumption is a problem, try registering services with a lifetime that is bigger than transient. You could do a per request, per web request, or singleton. I would even say that when you're in an environment where creating new objects is a problem, you should probably only use singleton services (but it's unlikely that you're working on such an environment, since you're building a web app).
Do note that Ninject is one of the slower DI libraries for .NET. If that's troubling you, switch to a faster container. Some containers have performance that is near newing up object graphs by hand.
but by all means, do profile this, many developers switch DI libraries for the wrong reasons.
Do note that the use of Lazy<T> as dependency is a leaky abstraction (a violation of the Dependency Inversion Principle). Please read this answer for more information.

Steven is correct in saying that this looks like premature optimization. The construction of these object is very fast and is usually never the bottleneck.
However using Lazy to express a dependency you don't need right away is a common pattern in Dependency Injection frameworks. Actofac is one such container that has built in support for various wrapping types. I'm sure there is also an extension for Ninject as well, maybe take a look at this one, Ninject Lazy.

You can also inject into an action method with the syntax below. (I'm not sure exactly what version this was introduced).
Constructor is best practice, but I had to do this once deliberately when I had a service that was doing some expensive initialization - accidentally in fact - but it wasn't discovered for a while and it was just easiest to move it to the one method that did need it.
This can make for cleaner code if you only need to access a service from one action method - but bear in mind if you inject it to the method you'll have to pass it around everywhere because it will no longer be on this. Definitely don't go assigning to this.service in an action method - that's horrible.
public IActionResult About([FromServices] IDateTime dateTime)
{
ViewData["Message"] = "Currently on the server the time is " + dateTime.Now;
return View();
}
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/mvc/controllers/dependency-injection?view=aspnetcore-2.2#action-injection-with-fromservices

Singleton Service classes in c++

Coming from a .NET/C# Background and having solid exposure to PRISM, I really like the idea of having a CompositionContainer to get just this one instance of a class whenever it is needed.
As through the ServiceLocator this instance is also globally accessible this pretty much sums up to the Singleton Pattern.
Now, my current Project is in c++, and I'm at the point of deciding how to manage plugins (external dll loading and stuff like that) for the program.
In C# I'd create a PluginService, export it as shared and channel everything through that one instance (the members would basically only amount to one list, holding the plugins and a bunch of methods). In c++ obviously I don't have a CompositionContainer or a ServiceLocator.
I could probably realize a basic version of this, but whatever I imagine involves using Singletons or Global variables for that matter. The general concern about this seems to be though: DON'T EVER DO GLOBALS AND MUCH LESS SINGLETONS.
what am I to do?
(and what I'm also interested in: is Microsoft here giving us a bad example of how to code, or is this an actual case of where singletons are the right choice?)

There's really no difference between C# and C++ in terms of whether globals and singletons are "good" or "bad".
The solution you outline is equally bad (or good) in both C# and C++.
What you seem to have discovered is simply that different people have different opinions. Some C# developers like to use singletons for something like this. And some C++ programmers feel the same way.
Some C++ programmers think a singleton is a terrible idea, and... some C# programmers feel the same way. :)
Microsoft has given many bad examples of how to code. Never ever accept their sample code as "good practices" just because it says Microsoft on the box. What matters is the code, not the name behind it.
Now, my main beef with singletons is not the global aspect of them.
Like most people, I generally dislike and distrust globals, but I won't say they should never be used. There are situations where it's just more convenient to make something globally accessible. They're not common (and I think most people still overuse globals), but they exist.
But the real problem with singletons is that they enforce an unnecessary and often harmful constraint on your code: they prevent you from creating multiple instances of an object, as though you, when you write the class, know how it's going to be used better than the actual user does.
When you write a class, say, a PluginService as you mentioned in a comment, you certainly have some idea of how you plan it to be used. You probably think "an instance of it should be globally accessible (which is debatable, because many classes should not access the pluginservice, but let's assume that we do want it to be global for now). And you probably think "I can't imagine why I'd want to have two instances".
But the problem is when you take this assumption and actively prevent the creation of two instances.
What if, two months from now, you find a need for creating two PluginServices? If you'd taken the easy route when you wrote the class, and had not built unnecessary constraints into it, then you could also take the easy route now, and simply create two instances.
But if you took the difficult path of writing extra code to prevent multiple instances from being created, then you now again have to take the difficult path: now you have to go back and change your class.
Don't build limitations into your code unless you have a reason: if it makes your job easier, go ahead and do it. And if it prevents harmful misuse of the class, go ahead and do it.
But in the singleton case it does neither of those: you create extra work for yourself, in order to prevent uses that might be perfectly legitimate.
You may be interested in reading this blog post I wrote to answer the question of singletons.
But to answer the specific question of how to handle your specific situation, I would recommend one of two approaches:
the "purist" approach would be to create a ServiceLocator which is not global. Pass it to those who need to locate services. In my experience, you'll probably find that this is much easier than it sounds. You tend to find out that it's not actually needed in as many different places as you thought it'd be. And it gives you a motivation to decouple the code, to minimize dependencies, to ensure that only those who really have a genuine need for the ServiceLocator get access to it. That's healthy.
or there's the pragmatic approach: create a single global instance of the ServiceLocator. Anyone who needs it can use it, and there's never any doubt about how to find it -- it's global, after all. But don't make it a singleton. Let it be possible to create other instances. If you never need to create another instance, then simply don't do it. But this leaves the door open so that if you do end up needing another instance, you can create it.
There are many situations where you end up needing multiple instances of a class that you thought would only ever need one instance. Configuration/settings objects, loggers or wrappers around some piece of hardware are all things people often call out as "this should obviously be a singleton, it makes no sense to have multiple instances", and in each of these cases, they're wrong. There are many cases where you want multiple instances of just such classes.
But the most universally applicable scenario is simply: testing.
You want to ensure that your ServiceLocator works. So you want to test it.
If it's singleton, that's really hard to do. A good test should run in a pristine, isolated environment, unaffected by previous tests. But a singleton lives for the duration of the application, so if you have multiple tests of the ServiceLocator, they'll all run on the same "dirty" instance, so each test might affect the state seen by the next test.
Instead, the tests should each create a new, clean ServiceLocator, so they can control exactly which state it is in. And to do that, you need to be able to create instances of the class.
So don't make it a singleton. :)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with singletons when they're
appropriate. I have my doubts concerning CompositionContainer (but
I'm not sure I understand what it is actually supposed to do), but
ServiceLocator is the sort of thing that will generally be a singleton
in any well designed application. Having two or more ServiceLocator
will result in the program not functionning as it should (because a
service will be registered in one of them, and you'll be looking it up
in another); enforcing this programatically is positive, at least if you
favor robust programming. In addition, in C++, the singleton idiom is
used to control the order of initialization; unless you make
ServiceLocator a singleton, you can't use it in the constructor of any
object with static lifetime.
While there is a small group of very vocal anti-singleton fanatics,
within the larger C++ community, you'll find that the consensus favors
singletons, in certain very restricted cases. They're easily abused
(but then, so are templates, dynamic allocation and polymorphism), but
they do solve one particular problem very nicely, and it would be silly
to forgo them for some arbitrary dogmatic reason when they're the best
solution for the problem.

When to go for static classes?

Whenever I code a solution to something I tend to either use a lot of static classes or none at all. For example in a recent project I had to send a class with some string/bool/datetime data through a number of hoops and the only thing that wasn't static was this data-holding class. Everything else (3 pretty hefty classes with different processing responsibilities) were static.
I think what I'm asking for here is some input on when (and why) I should avoid using static classes for these "process X, output Y" cases. Is it ok to always use them as long as they work or am I shooting myself in the foot concerning scalability, plugin-support etc?
I hope this is an OK question to ask here. I'm not asking for an argument concerning whether or not static classes are "better" - just input on when I should avoid using them.

Most of the code i write:
Uses dependency injection/IoC
And needs to be mockable/testable
So i just use objects for almost everything.
I do still use statics for things like:
Extension methods
Constants
Helper/Utility methods (pre extension methods)
operator methods

Still the two questions remain a bit the same. My main concern on static classes is inheritance and accessability.
When using a static class (public in the worst case), everyone is able to access your processes and functions. Which is most of the time not what you want. It is too easy for some object to get to your functions and do some modifications. Therefore, dependency injection is nice to use. (Pass the object you want to modify in the parameters, which is in this case your process-object).
To prevent others from manipulating your process-object, why not try to use some kind of singleton pattern (or even an ex-singleton pattern), so there is actually a real object to talk to? You can pass the object into the parameters of your functions if something should be modified. And then you can just have one manager that holds your process-object. Others shouldn't get to the object.
Static classes are also hard to inherit. Overriding static methods seems a bit strange. So if you are sure that the process will not be the only process, and some more specific processes will be created by you, then a static class should be avoided as well.

Static classes are commonly used for small data containers and general methods. It should not contain large data until unless required. These classes are non-extensible.

I would recommend you to have a method as static if it has only one method. In this case creating an instance of the class hardly makes sense
You can have static properties in case you want a field to act somewhat like global variable. This is a design pattern which matches Singleton pattern
I use static properties for tracking state which needs to be consumed by the whole application.
For rest everything related to my work objects is the way to go (with minor exceptions obviously)

Making extensive use of statics is like puting your application into concrete. They should be avoided except for very particular situations like utility/helper methods that are very general. A nice list was posted in a previous answer by djeeg.

The main problem I see with using static classes as you describe is that the dependencies are hardwired. If class A needs to use features from class B, it must explicitly know about it, which results in tight coupling.
While this is not always a problem, as your code grows you might find it more difficult to alter the behavior of the program to accommodate new requirements. For example, if you want to make the behavior of the program configurable, it will be difficult because that will require explicit if / switch in the code. Otherwise, you could simply make a class depend on an interface and swap implementations.
In short, you are preventing yourself from using well known design patterns that are known good solutions to solve issues you will likely encounter.

I usually try to avoid using static methods in classes. If I need to access some data globally I would at least wrap a class in a singleton. For larger projects I would recommend using an Inversion of Control container to instantiate and inject your "global" instances in a Singleton way.

In what circumstances should I use a Singleton class?

Closed as exact duplicate of this question. But reopened, as the other Singleton questions are for general use and not use for DB access
I was thinking of making an internal data access class a Singleton but couldn't convince myself on the choice mainly because the class has no state except for local variables in its methods.
What is the purpose of designing such classes to be Singletons after all?
Is it warranting sequential access to the database which is not convincing since most modern databases could handle concurrency well?
Is it the ability to use a single connection repeatedly which could be taken care of through connection pooling?
Or Is it saving memory by running a single instance?
Please enlighten me on this one.

I've found that the singleton pattern is appropriate for a class that:
Has no state
Is full of basic "Service Members"
Has to tightly control its resources.
An example of this would be a data access class.
You would have methods that take in parameters, and return say, a DataReader, but you don't manipulate the state of the reader in the singleton, You just get it, and return it.
At the same time, you can take logic that could be spread among your project (for data access) and integrate it into a single class that manages its resources (database connections) properly, regardless of who is calling it.
All that said, Singleton was invented prior to the .NET concept of fully static classes, so I am on the fence on if you should go one way or or the other. In fact, that is an excellent question to ask.

From "Design Patterns: Elements Of Reusable Object-Oriented Software":
It's important for some classes to
ahve exactly one instance. Although
there can be many printers in a
system, there should only be one
printer spooler. There should only be
one file system and one window
manager. ...
Use the Singleton pattern when:
there must be exactly one instance of a class, and it must be accessible to clients from a well-known access point
the sole instance should be extensible by subclassing and clients should be able to use an extended instance without modifying their code
Generally speaking, in web development, the only things that should actually implement Singleton pattern are in the web framework itself; all the code you write in your app (generally speaking) should assume concurrency, and rely on something like a database or session state to implement global (cross-user) behaviors.

You probably wouldn't want to use a Singleton for the circumstances you describe. Having all connections to a DB go via a single instance of a DBD/DBI type class would seriously throttle your request throughput performance.

The Singleton is a useful Design Pattern for allowing only one instance of your class. The Singleton's purpose is to control object creation, limiting the number to one but allowing the flexibility to create more objects if the situation changes. Since there is only one Singleton instance, any instance fields of a Singleton will occur only once per class, just like static fields.
Source: java.sun.com

using a singleton here doesn't really give you anything, but limits flexibility
you WANT concurrency or you won't scale
worrying about connections and memory here is a premature optimization

As one example, object factories are very often good candidates to be singletons.

If a class has no state, there's no point in making it a singleton; all well-behaved languages will only create, at most, a single pointer to the vector table (or equivalent structure) for dispatching the methods.
If there is instance state that can vary among instances of the class, then a singleton pattern won't work; you need more than one instance.
It follows, then, by exhaustion, that the only cases in which Singleton should be used is when there is state that must be shared among all accessors, and only state that must be shared among all accessors.
There are several things that can lead to something like a singleton:
the Factory pattern: you construct
and return an object, using some
shared state.
Resource pools: you have a shared
table of some limited resources,
like database connections, that you
must manage among a large group of
users. (The bumpo version is where
there is one DB connection held by
a singleton.)
Concurrency control of an external
resource; a semaphore is generally
going to be a variant of singleton,
because P/V operations must
atomically modify a shared counter.

The Singleton pattern has lost a lot of its shine in recent years, mostly due to the rise of unit testing.
Singletons can make unit testing very difficult- if you can only ever create one instance, how can you write tests that require "fresh" instances of the object under test? If one test modifies that singleton in some way, any further tests against that same object aren't really starting with a clean slate.
Singletons are also problematic because they're effectively global variables. We had a threading issue a few weeks back at my office due to a Singleton global that was being modified from various threads; the developer was blinded by the use of a sanctioned "Pattern", not realizing that what he was really creating was a global variable.
Another problem is that it can be pathologically difficult to create true singletons in certain situations. In Java for example, it's possible to create multiple instances of your "singleton" if you do not properly implement the readResolve() method for Serializable classes.
Rather than creating a Singleton, consider providing a static factory method that returns an instance; this at least gives you the ability to change your mind down the road without breaking your API.
Josh Bloch has a good discussion of this in Effective Java.

You have a repository layer that you want created once, and that reference used everywhere else.
If you go with a standard singleton, there is a bad side effect. You basically kill testability. All code is tightly couple to the singleton instance. Now you cannot test any code without hitting the database (which greatly complicates unit testing).
My advice:
Find an IOC that you like and integrate it into your application (StructureMap, Unity, Spring.Net, Castle Windsor, Autofac, Ninject...pick one).
Implement an interface for you repository.
Tell the IOC to treat the repository as a singleton, and to return it when code is asking for the repository by the interface.
Learn about dependency injection.
This is a lot of work for a simple question. But you will be better off.

with c#, I would say that a singleton is rarely appropriate. Most uses for a singleton are better resolved with a static class. Being mindful of thread safety is extremely important though with anything static. For database access, you probably don't want a single connection, as mentioned above. Your best bet is to create a connection, and use the built in pooling. You can create a static method that returns a fresh connection to reduce code, if you like. However an ORM pattern/framework may be better still.
In c# 3.5 extension methods may be more appropriate than a static class.