Are there any viable alternatives to the GOF Singleton Pattern

design-patternssingleton

Let's face it. The Singleton Pattern is highly controversial topic with hordes programmers on both sides of the fence. There are those who feel like the Singleton is nothing more then a glorified global variable, and others who swear by pattern and use it incessantly. I don't want the Singleton Controversy to lie at the heart of my question, however. Everyone can have a tug-of-war and battle it out and see who wins for all I care. What I'm trying to say is, I don't believe there is a single correct answer and I'm not intentionally trying inflame partisan bickering. I am simply interested in singleton-alternatives when I ask the question:

Are their any specific alternatives to the GOF Singleton Pattern?

For example, many times when I have used the singleton pattern in the past, I am simply interested in preserving the state/values of one or several variables. The state/values of variables, however, can be preserved between each instantiation of the class using static variables instead of using the singleton pattern.

What other idea's do you have?

EDIT: I don't really want this to be another post about "how to use the singleton correctly." Again, I'm looking for ways to avoid it. For fun, ok? I guess I'm asking a purely academic question in your best movie trailer voice, "In a parallel universe where there is no singleton, what could we do?"

Best Answer

To understand the proper way to workaround Singletons, you need to understand what is wrong with Singletons (and global state in general):

Singletons hide dependencies.

Why is that important?

Because If you hide the dependencies you tend to lose track of the amount of coupling.

You might argue that

void purchaseLaptop(String creditCardNumber, int price){
  CreditCardProcessor.getInstance().debit(creditCardNumber, amount);
  Cart.getInstance().addLaptop();
}

is simpler than

void purchaseLaptop(CreditCardProcessor creditCardProcessor, Cart cart, 
                    String creditCardNumber, int price){
  creditCardProcessor.debit(creditCardNumber, amount);
  cart.addLaptop();
}

but at least the second API makes it clear exactly what the method's collaborators are.

So the way to workaround Singletons is not to use static variables or service-locators, but to change the Singleton-classes into instances, which are instantiated in the scope where they make sense and injected into the components and methods that need them. You might use a IoC-framework to handle this, or you might do it manually, but the important thing is to get rid of your global state and make the dependencies and collaborations explicit.

Model-View-Presenter

In MVP, the Presenter contains the UI business logic for the View. All invocations from the View delegate directly to the Presenter. The Presenter is also decoupled directly from the View and talks to it through an interface. This is to allow mocking of the View in a unit test. One common attribute of MVP is that there has to be a lot of two-way dispatching. For example, when someone clicks the "Save" button, the event handler delegates to the Presenter's "OnSave" method. Once the save is completed, the Presenter will then call back the View through its interface so that the View can display that the save has completed.

MVP tends to be a very natural pattern for achieving separated presentation in WebForms. The reason is that the View is always created first by the ASP.NET runtime. You can find out more about both variants.

Two primary variations

Passive View: The View is as dumb as possible and contains almost zero logic. A Presenter is a middle man that talks to the View and the Model. The View and Model are completely shielded from one another. The Model may raise events, but the Presenter subscribes to them for updating the View. In Passive View there is no direct data binding, instead, the View exposes setter properties that the Presenter uses to set the data. All state is managed in the Presenter and not the View.

Pro: maximum testability surface; clean separation of the View and Model
Con: more work (for example all the setter properties) as you are doing all the data binding yourself.

Supervising Controller: The Presenter handles user gestures. The View binds to the Model directly through data binding. In this case, it's the Presenter's job to pass off the Model to the View so that it can bind to it. The Presenter will also contain logic for gestures like pressing a button, navigation, etc.

Pro: by leveraging data binding the amount of code is reduced.
Con: there's a less testable surface (because of data binding), and there's less encapsulation in the View since it talks directly to the Model.

Model-View-Controller

In the MVC, the Controller is responsible for determining which View to display in response to any action including when the application loads. This differs from MVP where actions route through the View to the Presenter. In MVC, every action in the View correlates with a call to a Controller along with an action. In the web, each action involves a call to a URL on the other side of which there is a Controller who responds. Once that Controller has completed its processing, it will return the correct View. The sequence continues in that manner throughout the life of the application:

    Action in the View
        -> Call to Controller
        -> Controller Logic
        -> Controller returns the View.

One other big difference about MVC is that the View does not directly bind to the Model. The view simply renders and is completely stateless. In implementations of MVC, the View usually will not have any logic in the code behind. This is contrary to MVP where it is absolutely necessary because, if the View does not delegate to the Presenter, it will never get called.

Presentation Model

One other pattern to look at is the Presentation Model pattern. In this pattern, there is no Presenter. Instead, the View binds directly to a Presentation Model. The Presentation Model is a Model crafted specifically for the View. This means this Model can expose properties that one would never put on a domain model as it would be a violation of separation-of-concerns. In this case, the Presentation Model binds to the domain model and may subscribe to events coming from that Model. The View then subscribes to events coming from the Presentation Model and updates itself accordingly. The Presentation Model can expose commands which the view uses for invoking actions. The advantage of this approach is that you can essentially remove the code-behind altogether as the PM completely encapsulates all of the behavior for the view. This pattern is a very strong candidate for use in WPF applications and is also called Model-View-ViewModel.

There is a MSDN article about the Presentation Model and a section in the Composite Application Guidance for WPF (former Prism) about Separated Presentation Patterns

Php – Creating the Singleton design pattern in PHP5

/**
 * Singleton class
 *
 */
final class UserFactory
{
    /**
     * Call this method to get singleton
     *
     * @return UserFactory
     */
    public static function Instance()
    {
        static $inst = null;
        if ($inst === null) {
            $inst = new UserFactory();
        }
        return $inst;
    }

    /**
     * Private ctor so nobody else can instantiate it
     *
     */
    private function __construct()
    {

    }
}

To use:

$fact = UserFactory::Instance();
$fact2 = UserFactory::Instance();

$fact == $fact2;

But:

$fact = new UserFactory()

Throws an error.

See http://php.net/manual/en/language.variables.scope.php#language.variables.scope.static to understand static variable scopes and why setting static $inst = null; works.

Best Answer

Related Solutions

What are MVP and MVC and what is the difference

Model-View-Presenter

Two primary variations

Model-View-Controller

Presentation Model

Php – Creating the Singleton design pattern in PHP5

Related Topic