Develop Reference

Is this a good reason to use a Singleton?

I'm making an Android app that will have the timetables of a local bus.
There are more than one timetable, the one that will be use depends on the day.
If it's a holiday I must use a special timetable, so I want to know when is a holiday and when is not.
The thing is that I'm creating a class that will handle this, it will try to retrieve information from memory or from a web api. Then some other classes will be able to communicate with this class, but it doesn't seem necessary to me to have more than one instance of this class, I could create just one instance and share it with the rest of the classes.
Could this class be a Singleton or it would be better if I create a normal class ?

In your case (retrieving info from memory), definitely avoid using a singleton class because it will highly likely be tied to your Activity context.
Your class will have a static reference to a class, therefore
it will be kept in memory when not needed.
singleton may be reinstantiated, or may use obsolete instance, with new instations of activities. You will lose control of the current variables.
diffent instances of the same activity class are highly likely to conflict with this class.
Examples of the same activity class several instantiation:
Change device orientation.
Running app from the webbrowser's, Google Play, file browser intent.
Besides, at some point, when you add functionality based on user reviews, your app will grow, you are likely want to refactor your class, break it into subclasses, put some of its methods into separate threads. It will no longer be easy to do.
It might seem fun while the app is small, and untested, but later, in Android specifically, you will run into a nightmite with unpredictable and hard to detect errors.
Because of Android's special way to recreate activity class, through onCreate, onResume etc. you will run into a nightmare, when the app will start living its own life.
You will no longer be able to rely on the assumption that the current singleton instantiation actually belongs to your current activity.
You may swap between orientations or run your app from different entry points (launcher, recent apps, google play), and it may reuse the variables actually prepared for a different activity instantiation.
If you need only one instance of the class, just create one instance of the class in the onCreate method - and that will make the app much more manageable.

One of the main advantages a Singleton class brings you is the fact that you are sure to have one and only one instance of an object doing some thing, and that it is instantiated only once (preferably at a specific point of your application, for instance at startup or only after certain other operations have been performed)
An example could be for instance a cache implementation: you want to make sure that all classes that need a certain cache read and write from the same object, that maybe is created and filled with information at startup time.
Your does not seem to be the case, unless you fetch the information you need when your application starts and then you keep them memorized for some reason: in this case you want to make sure your information is fetched one and only one time, to avoid wasting memory and elaboration time. Also, a Singleton is fine if you need to do some kind of operation when your class is instantiated, like opening a connection that then stays open.
On the other hand, if you just need a class with some method to call some external apis or database and you don't need to memorize any information in it, there is no reason to initialize a singleton.
If this is your case, why don't you try some static class/methods? They can be called like normal methods directly on the class with no need to instantiate objects or keeping a state, saving memory and avoiding side effects.

Is it bad design using static variables for core parts instances?

Developing a jogl application, this is (a part of) our core class structure
main jFrame
viewer (for rendering)
inputListener
viewpole (for camera/projection control)
graph (holds nodes/meshes)
icon handler (to expand/collapse a node with children)
So if I want to call methodX() in the icon handler(that is basically the texture representing the handler, it is the same for all the nodes), I have to call:
Main.instance.getViewer().getGraph().getIconHandler().methodX()
where instance is a static variable holding the instance of the main jFrame
Given they are all:
1) instantiated once
2) at the begin
3) are supposed to be there for the whole time
4) in theory, no problem of race conditions, we are using java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock at lower level when we add/read/modify/delete nodes
is it dangerous/bad design assigning the instance of each class to a static variable inside each corresponding class?
so that if I want to access the same methodX() I would just call
IconHandler().instance.methodX()
Ps: I read some of the other questions regarding static variables() but I found them quite generic, mine regards the core parts.

As long as you know that you'll only ever need one instance of each class, this is okay. This is called a singleton and is a pretty well-known design pattern.
The problem is that you probably can't guarantee that you only need one instance of your classes. Singletons are good for things like data connections or file readers, where there is a built-in limit to the number of instances that should access the data.
You're misusing the static keyword as a lazy way to gain access to an instance of a class, and it's going to come back and bite you when you expand your program to include multiple instances of those classes. And if you think you'll only ever need one instance- you can't guarantee that will never change.

A better way to call static methods in user-submitted code?

I have a large data set. I am creating a system which allows users to submit java source files, which will then be applied to the data set. To be more specific, each submitted java source file must contain a static method with a specific name, let's say toBeInvoked(). toBeInvoked will take a row of the data set as an array parameter. I want to call the toBeInvoked method of each submitted source file on each row in the data set. I also need to implement security measures (so toBeInvoked() can't do I/O, can't call exit, etc.).
Currently, my implementation is this: I have a list of the names of the java source files. For each file, I create an instance of the custom secure ClassLoader which I coded, which compiles the source file and returns the compiled class. I use reflection to extract the static method toBeInvoked() (e.g. method = c.getMethod("toBeInvoked", double[].class)). Then, I iterate over the rows of the data set, and invoke the method on each row.
There are at least two problems with my approach:
it appears to be painfully slow (I've heard reflection tends to be slow)
the code is more complicated than I would like
Is there a better way to accomplish what I am trying to do?

There is no significantly better approach given the constraints that you have set yourself.
For what it is worth, what makes this "painfully slow" is compiling the source files to class files and loading them. That is many orders of magnitude slower than the use of reflection to call the methods.
(Use of a common interface rather than static methods is not going to make a measurable difference to speed, and the reduction in complexity is relatively small.)
If you really want to simplify this and speed it up, change your architecture so that the code is provided as a JAR file containing all of the compiled classes.

Assuming your #toBeInvoked() could be defined in an interface rather than being static (it should be!), you could just load the class and cast it to the interface:
Class<? extends YourInterface> c = Class.forName("name", true, classLoader).asSubclass(YourInterface.class);
YourInterface i = c.newInstance();
Afterwards invoke #toBeInvoked() directly.
Also have a look into java.util.ServiceLoader, which could be helpful for finding the right class to load in case you have more than one source file.

Personally, I would use an interface. This will allow you to have multiple instance with their own state (useful for multi-threading) but more importantly you can use an interface, first to define which methods must be implemented but also to call the methods.
Reflection is slow but this is only relative to other options such as a direct method call. If you are scanning a large data set, the fact you have to pulling data from main memory is likely to be much more expensive.

I would suggest following steps for your problem.
To check if the method contains any unwanted code, you need to have a check script which can do these checks at upload time.
Create an Interface having a method toBeInvoked() (not a static method).
All the classes which are uploaded must implement this interface and add the logic inside this method.
you can have your custom class loader scan a particular folder for new classes being added and load them accordingly.
When a file is uploaded and successfully validated, you can compile and copy the class file to the folder which class loader scans.
You processor class can lookup for new files and then call toBeInvoked() method on loaded class when required.
Hope this help. (Note that i have used a similar mechanism to load dynamically workflow step classes in Workflow Engine tool which was developed).

java - how to persist variable in JVM

I have an odd situation where i want to be able to be able to persist a variable in memory.. like a global variable I can pin in the JVM.
Is this possible? I remember doing something similar in college, but can't find it by googling. I have a logic problem that has some artificial constraints that make this the best possible solution.
EDIT 1:
I will need to update the value of the variable.
EDIT 2 :
I appreciate the responses guys. I'm a .net programmer and hadn't used java since college. Thanks again.

Yes, using a static field:
public class GlobalVariableHolder {
public static int globalVariable;
}
Note, however, that this is considered a bad practice and can lead to unexpected results that are hard to debug. The way to not use a global variable is to pass it around as an argument or methods where you need it.
If you are still sure you need this, in order to guard yourself as much as possible, use synchronization. Even better, if the variable is going to be primitive (int, long, etc), you can use AtomicInteger's getAndAdd() or addAndGet() method.

Usually you will end up storing these things in some kind of a global class--a class that is accessible from anywhere and has a controlled number of instances.
Singletons are commonly used for this. If you look up the pattern for a singleton and store your variable in that singleton (add a setter and a getter) you are on your way.
Doing this (as opposed to a public static variable) will give you some level of access control and traceability--for instance you can put debug statements in the getter if you find you are getting unpredictable results.
In the long run setters and getters and singletons are all bad code smells but no where near as bad as a settable public variable.
Later you may want to move the code that manipulates that variable into the singleton object and possibly convert the singleton to something you can fetch via IOC, but having a singleton is a much better place to start than with a public static.

Do you mean something that will exist across multiple invocations of java.exe, or do you mean a single variable that will be the same location in memory regardless of which thread within java.exe access it? Or do you mean a variable that can only be accessed if you're using JRockit? Or maybe just the JVM on your dev machine, but not on another system?
In the first case, you'd need another way to store it, like a config file.
In the second case, like Bozho says, use the static keyword.
In the third case, you'd probably need to use the System class and determine the JVM manufacturer (Assuming that's available from System - I'm not sure off the top of my head, and you'll learn more by looking up the API yourself).
In the fourth case, you're pretty much back to a config file.

Its not going to win any awards but this should work:
package mypackage;
public class MyGlobal {
public static String MY_GLOBAL_VAR = "my variable";
}
Any class within that JVM instance would be able to access MyGlobal.MY_GLOBAL_VAR.
Updated to allow update.

In Java, how can I construct a "proxy wrapper" around an object which invokes a method upon changing a property?

I'm looking for something similar to the Proxy pattern or the Dynamic Proxy Classes, only that I don't want to intercept method calls before they are invoked on the real object, but rather I'd like to intercept properties that are being changed. I'd like the proxy to be able to represent multiple objects with different sets of properties. Something like the Proxy class in Action Script 3 would be fine.
Here's what I want to achieve in general:
I have a thread running with an object that manages a list of values (numbers, strings, objects) which were handed over by other threads in the program, so the class can take care of creating regular persistent snapshots on disk for the purpose of checkpointing the application. This persistor object manages a "dirty" flag that signifies whether the list of values has changed since the last checkpoint and needs to lock the list while it's busy writing it to disk.
The persistor and the other components identify a particular item via a common name, so that when recovering from a crash, the other components can first check if the persistor has their latest copy saved and continue working where they left off.
During normal operation, in order to work with the objects they handed over to the persistor, I want them to receive a reference to a proxy object that looks as if it were the original one, but whenever they change some value on it, the persistor notices and acts accordingly, for example by marking the item or the list as dirty before actually setting the real value.
Edit: Alternatively, are there generic setters (like in PHP 5) in Java, that is, a method that gets called if a property doesn't exist? Or is there a type of object that I can add properties to at runtime?

If with "properties" you mean JavaBean properties, i.e. represented bay a getter and/or a setter method, then you can use a dynamic proxy to intercept the set method.
If you mean instance variables, then no can do - not on the Java level. Perhaps something could be done by manipulations on the byte code level though.
Actually, the easiest way to do it is probably by using AspectJ and defining a set() pointcut (which will intercept the field access on the byte code level).

The design pattern you are looking for is: Differential Execution. I do believe.
How does differential execution work?
Is a question I answered that deals with this.
However, may I suggest that you use a callback instead? You will have to read about this, but the general idea is that you can implement interfaces (often called listeners) that active upon "something interesting" happening. Such as having a data structure be changed.
Obligitory links:
Wiki Differential execution
Wiki Callback
Alright, here is the answer as I see it. Differential Execution is O(N) time. This is really reasonable, but if that doesn't work for ya Callbacks will. Callbacks basically work by passing a method by parameter to your class that is changing the array. This method will take the value changed and the location of the item, pass it back by parameter to the "storage class" and change the value approipriately. So, yes, you have to back each change with a method call.
I realize now this is not what you want. What it appears that you want is a way that you can supply some kind of listener on each variable in an array that would be called when that item is changed. The listener would then change the corresponding array in your "backup" to refect this change.
Natively I can't think of a way to do this. You can, of course, create your own listeners and events, using an interface. This is basically the same idea as the callbacks, though nicer to look at.
Then there is reflection... Java has reflection, and I am positive you can write something using it to do this. However, reflection is notoriously slow. Not to mention a pain to code (in my opinion).
Hope that helps...

I don't want to intercept method calls before they are invoked on the real object, but
rather I'd like to intercept properties that are being changed
So in fact, the objects you want to monitor are no convenient beans but a resurgence of C structs. The only way that comes to my mind to do that is with the Field Access call in JVMTI.

I wanted to do the same thing myself. My solution was to use dynamic proxy wrappers using Javassist. I would generate a class that implements the same interface as the class of my target object, wrap my proxy class around original class, and delegate all method calls on proxy to the original, except setters which would also fire the PropertyChangeEvent.
Anyway I posted the full explanation and the code on my blog here:
http://clockwork-fig.blogspot.com/2010/11/javabean-property-change-listener-with.html