Related
I'm in a situation where I need all my child classes to implement a common abstract method of a parent class...statically. But apparently Java does not allow abstract static methods...
So, what is an alternative design of such implementation in Java? Below is the code that describes the situation I am in:
Parent class
public abstract class ParentFactory {
/**
* This is a factory class that provides static init method
**/
public abstract static void init();
}
Child class
public class ChildFactory extends ParentFactory {
#Override
public static void init() {
// each child factory has own implementation of init
}
}
EDIT
FYI, I am not asking why this is not valid in Java, I realise the concept of a static method, I know why it is not allowed in Java.
Instead I am asking for help with an alternative design pattern regarding my approach above. Thanks!
If you create a static method, then that method can be accessed with the class itself, i.e. without creating an instance of that class. Therefore, a static method can't be abstract.
I think your problem is in the understanding of the factory pattern. The typical answer to your question would be "use the factory pattern". Because in a factory you could call init on the concrete instance. If you are not using dependency injection and making use of loose coupling through inversion of control, a factory is typically implemented as a singleton. This is to get it from anywhere and there should only be one instance of a factory.
In short, if you want to initialize a factory because you want to subclass the factory (which doesn't make much sense IMHO), you need to create a factory that creates your factory.
If a method is static overriding it makes no sense because inheritance does not apply... that is the reason...
Static code is code related to a class and not to an object or an instance.
you need to modify your code...
You might implement ChildFactory as singleton.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singleton_pattern
What real (i.e. practical) difference exists between a static class and a singleton pattern?
Both can be invoked without instantiation, both provide only one "Instance" and neither of them is thread-safe. Is there any other difference?
What makes you say that either a singleton or a static method isn't thread-safe? Usually both should be implemented to be thread-safe.
The big difference between a singleton and a bunch of static methods is that singletons can implement interfaces (or derive from useful base classes, although that's less common, in my experience), so you can pass around the singleton as if it were "just another" implementation.
The true answer is by Jon Skeet, on another forum here.
A singleton allows access to a single
created instance - that instance (or
rather, a reference to that instance)
can be passed as a parameter to other
methods, and treated as a normal
object.
A static class allows only static
methods.
Singleton objects are stored in Heap, but static objects are stored in stack.
We can clone (if the designer did not disallow it) the singleton object, but we can not clone the static class object
.
Singleton classes follow the OOP (object oriented principles), static classes do not.
We can implement an interface with a Singleton class, but a class's static methods (or e.g. a C# static class) cannot.
The Singleton pattern has several advantages over static classes. First, a singleton can extend classes and implement interfaces, while a static class cannot (it can extend classes, but it does not inherit their instance members). A singleton can be initialized lazily or asynchronously while a static class is generally initialized when it is first loaded, leading to potential class loader issues. However the most important advantage, though, is that singletons can be handled polymorphically without forcing their users to assume that there is only one instance.
static classes are not for anything that needs state. It is useful for putting a bunch of functions together i.e Math (or Utils in projects). So the class name just gives us a clue where we can find the functions and nothing more.
Singleton is my favorite pattern and I use it to manage something at a single point. It's more flexible than static classes and can maintain it's state. It can implement interfaces, inherit from other classes and allow inheritance.
My rule for choosing between static and singleton:
If there is a bunch of functions that should be kept together, then static is the choice.
Anything else which needs single access to some resources, could be implemented as a singleton.
Static Class:-
You cannot create the instance of static class.
Loaded automatically by the .NET Framework common language runtime (CLR) when the program or namespace containing the class is loaded.
We cannot pass the static class to method.
We cannot inherit Static class to another Static class in C#.
A class having all static methods.
Better performance (static methods are bonded on compile time)
Singleton:-
You can create one instance of the object and reuse it.
Singleton instance is created for the first time when the user requested.
You can create the object of singleton class and pass it to method.
Singleton class does not say any restriction of Inheritance.
We can dispose the objects of a singleton class but not of static class.
Methods can be overridden.
Can be lazy loaded when need (static classes are always loaded).
We can implement interface(static class can not implement interface).
A static class is one that has only static methods, for which a better word would be "functions". The design style embodied in a static class is purely procedural.
Singleton, on the other hand, is a pattern specific to OO design. It is an instance of an object (with all the possibilities inherent in that, such as polymorphism), with a creation procedure that ensures that there is only ever one instance of that particular role over its entire lifetime.
In singleton pattern you can create the singleton as an instance of a derived type, you can't do that with a static class.
Quick Example:
if( useD3D )
IRenderer::instance = new D3DRenderer
else
IRenderer::instance = new OpenGLRenderer
To expand on Jon Skeet's Answer
The big difference between a singleton and a bunch of static methods is that singletons can implement interfaces (or derive from useful base classes, although that's less common IME), so you can pass around the singleton as if it were "just another" implementation.
Singletons are easier to work with when unit testing a class. Wherever you pass singletons as a parameter (constructors, setters or methods) you can instead substitute a mocked or stubbed version of the singleton.
Here's a good article:
http://javarevisited.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/difference-between-singleton-pattern-vs-static-class-java.html
Static classes
a class having all static methods.
better performance (static methods are bonded on compile time)
can't override methods, but can use method hiding. (What is method hiding in Java? Even the JavaDoc explanation is confusing)
public class Animal {
public static void foo() {
System.out.println("Animal");
}
}
public class Cat extends Animal {
public static void foo() { // hides Animal.foo()
System.out.println("Cat");
}
}
Singleton
an object that can only be instantiated once.
methods can be overridden (Why doesn't Java allow overriding of static methods?)
easier to mock then static methods
better at maintaining state
In summary, I would only use static classes for holding util methods, and using Singleton for everything else.
Edits
static classes are lazy loaded as well. Thanks #jmoreno
(When does static class initialization happen?)
method hiding for static classes. Thanks #MaxPeng.
Another advantage of a singleton is that it can easily be serialized, which may be necessary if you need to save its state to disc, or send it somewhere remotely.
I'm not a great OO theorist, but from what I know, I think the only OO feature that static classes lack compared to Singletons is polymorphism.
But if you don't need it, with a static class you can of course have inheritance ( not sure about interface implementation ) and data and function encapsulation.
The comment of Morendil, "The design style embodied in a static class is purely procedural" I may be wrong, but I disagree.
In static methods you can access static members, which would be exactly the same as singleton methods accessing their single instance members.
edit:
I'm actually thinking now that another difference is that a Static class is instantiated at program start* and lives throughout the whole life span of the program, while a singleton is explicitly instantiated at some point and can be destroyed also.
* or it may be instantiated at first use, depending on the language, I think.
To illustrate Jon's point what's shown below cannot be done if Logger was a static class.The class SomeClass expects an instance of ILogger implementation to be passed into its constructor.
Singleton class is important for dependency injection to be possible.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
namespace ConsoleApplication2
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var someClass = new SomeClass(Logger.GetLogger());
}
}
public class SomeClass
{
public SomeClass(ILogger MyLogger)
{
}
}
public class Logger : ILogger
{
private static Logger _logger;
private Logger() { }
public static Logger GetLogger()
{
if (_logger==null)
{
_logger = new Logger();
}
return _logger;
}
public void Log()
{
}
}
public interface ILogger
{
void Log();
}
}
Singleton's are instantiated. It's just that there's only one instance ever created, hence the single in Singleton.
A static class on the other hand can't be instantiated.
Well a singleton is just a normal class that IS instantiated but just once and indirectly from the client code. Static class is not instantiated.
As far as I know static methods (static class must have static methods) are faster than non-static.
Edit:
FxCop Performance rule description:
"Methods which do not access instance data or call instance methods can be marked as static (Shared in VB). After doing so, the compiler will emit non-virtual call sites to these members which will prevent a check at runtime for each call that insures the current object pointer is non-null. This can result in a measurable performance gain for performance-sensitive code. In some cases, the failure to access the current object instance represents a correctness issue."
I don't actually know if this applies also to static methods in static classes.
Main differences are:
Singleton has an instance/object while static class is a bunch of
static methods
Singleton can be extended e.g. through an interface while static
class can't be.
Singleton can be inherited which supports open/close principles in
SOLID principles on the other hand static class can't be inherited
and we need to make changes in itself.
Singleton object can be passed to methods while static class as it
does not have instance can't be passed as parameters
Distinction from static class
JDK has examples of both singleton and static, on the one hand java.lang.Math is a final class with static methods, on the other hand java.lang.Runtime is a singleton class.
Advantages of singleton
If your need to maintain state than singleton pattern is better choice than static class, because maintaining state in static class leads to bugs, especially in concurrent environment, that could lead to race conditions without adequate synchronization parallel modification by multiple threads.
Singleton class can be lazy loaded if its a heavy object, but static class doesn't have such advantages and always eagerly loaded.
With singleton, you can use inheritance and polymorphism to extend a base class, implement an interface and provide different implementations.
Since static methods in Java cannot be overridden, they lead to inflexibility. On the other hand, you can override methods defined in singleton class by extending it.
Disadvantages of static class
It is easier to write unit test for singleton than static class, because you can pass mock object whenever singleton is expected.
Advantages of static class
Static class provides better performance than singleton, because static methods are bonded on compile time.
There are several realization of singleton pattern each one with advantages and disadvantages.
Eager loading singleton
Double-checked locking singleton
Initialization-on-demand holder idiom
The enum based singleton
Detailed description each of them is too verbose so I just put a link to a good article - All you want to know about Singleton
Singleton is better approach from testing perspective.
Unlike static classes , singleton could implement interfaces and you can use mock instance and inject them.
In the example below I will illustrate this.
Suppose you have a method isGoodPrice() which uses a method getPrice() and you implement getPrice() as a method in a singleton.
singleton that’s provide getPrice functionality:
public class SupportedVersionSingelton {
private static ICalculator instance = null;
private SupportedVersionSingelton(){
}
public static ICalculator getInstance(){
if(instance == null){
instance = new SupportedVersionSingelton();
}
return instance;
}
#Override
public int getPrice() {
// calculate price logic here
return 0;
}
}
Use of getPrice:
public class Advisor {
public boolean isGoodDeal(){
boolean isGoodDeal = false;
ICalculator supportedVersion = SupportedVersionSingelton.getInstance();
int price = supportedVersion.getPrice();
// logic to determine if price is a good deal.
if(price < 5){
isGoodDeal = true;
}
return isGoodDeal;
}
}
In case you would like to test the method isGoodPrice , with mocking the getPrice() method you could do it by:
Make your singleton implement an interface and inject it.
public interface ICalculator {
int getPrice();
}
Final Singleton implementation:
public class SupportedVersionSingelton implements ICalculator {
private static ICalculator instance = null;
private SupportedVersionSingelton(){
}
public static ICalculator getInstance(){
if(instance == null){
instance = new SupportedVersionSingelton();
}
return instance;
}
#Override
public int getPrice() {
return 0;
}
// for testing purpose
public static void setInstance(ICalculator mockObject){
if(instance != null ){
instance = mockObject;
}
test class:
public class TestCalculation {
class SupportedVersionDouble implements ICalculator{
#Override
public int getPrice() {
return 1;
}
}
#Before
public void setUp() throws Exception {
ICalculator supportedVersionDouble = new SupportedVersionDouble();
SupportedVersionSingelton.setInstance(supportedVersionDouble);
}
#Test
public void test() {
Advisor advidor = new Advisor();
boolean isGoodDeal = advidor.isGoodDeal();
Assert.assertEquals(isGoodDeal, true);
}
}
In case we take the alternative of using static method for implementing getPrice() , it was difficult to the mock getPrice().
You could mock static with power mock, yet not all product could use it.
I'm agree with this definition:
The word "single" means single object across the application life
cycle, so the scope is at application level.
The static does not have
any Object pointer, so the scope is at App Domain level.
Moreover both should be implemented to be thread-safe.
You can find interesting other differences about: Singleton Pattern Versus Static Class
One notable difference is differed instantiation that comes with Singletons.
With static classes, it gets created by the CLR and we have not control on it.
with singletons, the object gets instantiated on the first instance it's tried to be accessed.
Below are some main differences between static class and singleton:
1.Singleton is a pattern, not a keyword like static. So for creating a static class static keyword is sufficient while in the case of singleton there is a need to write the logic for the singleton.
2.A singleton class must have a private default instance constructor, while a static class cannot contain any instance constructor.
3.A static class is neither instantiated nor extended, while a singleton class can be.
4.A static class is sealed implicitly, but the singleton class must be decorated as sealed explicitly.
5.It is possible for a singleton to implement the interface or inherit from another class, but the static class neither implements the interface nor extends from any other class.
6.We cannot implement the dependency injection with a static class, but DI is possible with the singleton class because it can be interface driven.
The scope of the static class is at the app domain level because it is managed by the CLR, while the scope of the singleton object is across the application lifecycle.
7.A static class cannot have any destructor but a singleton class can define a destructor.
8.The singleton class instance can be passed as a parameter to another method while a static class cannot be because it contains only static members.
Lazy Loading
Support of interfaces, so that separate implementation can be provided
Ability to return derived type (as a combination of lazyloading and interface implementation)
In many cases, these two have no practical difference, especially if the singleton instance never changes or changes very slowly e.g. holding configurations.
I'd say the biggest difference is a singleton is still a normal Java Bean as oppose to a specialized static-only Java class. And because of this, a singleton is accepted in many more situations; it is in fact the default Spring Framework's instantiation strategy. The consumer may or may not know it's a singleton being passed around, it just treat it like a normal Java bean. If requirement changes and a singleton needs to become a prototype instead, as we often see in Spring, it can be done totally seamlessly without a line of code change to the consumer.
Someone else has mentioned earlier that a static class should be purely procedural e.g. java.lang.Math. In my mind, such a class should never be passed around and they should never hold anything other than static final as attributes. For everything else, use a singleton since it's much more flexible and easier to maintain.
We have our DB framework that makes connections to Back end.To Avoid Dirty reads across Multiple users we have used singleton pattern to ensure we have single instance available at any point of time.
In c# a static class cannot implement an interface. When a single instance class needs to implement an interface for a business contracts or IoC purposes, this is where I use the Singleton pattern without a static class
Singleton provides a way to maintain state in stateless scenarios
Hope that helps you..
In an article I wrote I have described my point of view about why the singleton is much better than a static class:
Static class is not actually canonical class – it’s a namespace with functions and variables
Using static class is not a good practice because of breaking object-oriented programming principles
Static class cannot be passed as a parameter for other
Static class is not suitable for “lazy” initialization
Initialization and using of static class is always hard tracked
Implementing thread management is hard
Singleton class provides an object(only one instance) during the application lifeCycle such as java.lang.Runtime
While Static class only provide static methods such as java.lang.Math
Static methods in Java cannot be overridden, but methods defined in Singleton class can be overridden by extending it.
Singleton Class is capable of Inheritance and Polymorphism to extend a base class, implement an interface and capable of providing different implementations. whereas static not.
For eg: java.lang.Runtime,is a Singleton Class in Java, call to getRuntime() method returns the runtime object associated with the current Java application but ensures only one instance per JVM.
a. Serialization - Static members belong to the class and hence can't be serialized.
b. Though we have made the constructor private, static member variables still will be carried to subclass.
c. We can't do lazy initialization as everything will be loaded upon class loading only.
From a client perspective, static behavior is known to the client but Singleton behavior can be completed hidden from a client. Client may never know that there only one single instance he's playing around with again and again.
I read the following and think it makes sense too:
Taking Care of Business
Remember, one of the most important OO rules is that an object is responsible for itself. This means that issues regarding the life cycle of a class should be handled in the class, not delegated to language constructs like static, and so on.
from the book Objected-Oriented Thought Process 4th Ed.
We can create the object of singleton class and pass it to method.
Singleton class doesn't any restriction of inheritance.
We can't dispose the objects of a static class but can singleton class.
What real (i.e. practical) difference exists between a static class and a singleton pattern?
Both can be invoked without instantiation, both provide only one "Instance" and neither of them is thread-safe. Is there any other difference?
What makes you say that either a singleton or a static method isn't thread-safe? Usually both should be implemented to be thread-safe.
The big difference between a singleton and a bunch of static methods is that singletons can implement interfaces (or derive from useful base classes, although that's less common, in my experience), so you can pass around the singleton as if it were "just another" implementation.
The true answer is by Jon Skeet, on another forum here.
A singleton allows access to a single
created instance - that instance (or
rather, a reference to that instance)
can be passed as a parameter to other
methods, and treated as a normal
object.
A static class allows only static
methods.
Singleton objects are stored in Heap, but static objects are stored in stack.
We can clone (if the designer did not disallow it) the singleton object, but we can not clone the static class object
.
Singleton classes follow the OOP (object oriented principles), static classes do not.
We can implement an interface with a Singleton class, but a class's static methods (or e.g. a C# static class) cannot.
The Singleton pattern has several advantages over static classes. First, a singleton can extend classes and implement interfaces, while a static class cannot (it can extend classes, but it does not inherit their instance members). A singleton can be initialized lazily or asynchronously while a static class is generally initialized when it is first loaded, leading to potential class loader issues. However the most important advantage, though, is that singletons can be handled polymorphically without forcing their users to assume that there is only one instance.
static classes are not for anything that needs state. It is useful for putting a bunch of functions together i.e Math (or Utils in projects). So the class name just gives us a clue where we can find the functions and nothing more.
Singleton is my favorite pattern and I use it to manage something at a single point. It's more flexible than static classes and can maintain it's state. It can implement interfaces, inherit from other classes and allow inheritance.
My rule for choosing between static and singleton:
If there is a bunch of functions that should be kept together, then static is the choice.
Anything else which needs single access to some resources, could be implemented as a singleton.
Static Class:-
You cannot create the instance of static class.
Loaded automatically by the .NET Framework common language runtime (CLR) when the program or namespace containing the class is loaded.
We cannot pass the static class to method.
We cannot inherit Static class to another Static class in C#.
A class having all static methods.
Better performance (static methods are bonded on compile time)
Singleton:-
You can create one instance of the object and reuse it.
Singleton instance is created for the first time when the user requested.
You can create the object of singleton class and pass it to method.
Singleton class does not say any restriction of Inheritance.
We can dispose the objects of a singleton class but not of static class.
Methods can be overridden.
Can be lazy loaded when need (static classes are always loaded).
We can implement interface(static class can not implement interface).
A static class is one that has only static methods, for which a better word would be "functions". The design style embodied in a static class is purely procedural.
Singleton, on the other hand, is a pattern specific to OO design. It is an instance of an object (with all the possibilities inherent in that, such as polymorphism), with a creation procedure that ensures that there is only ever one instance of that particular role over its entire lifetime.
In singleton pattern you can create the singleton as an instance of a derived type, you can't do that with a static class.
Quick Example:
if( useD3D )
IRenderer::instance = new D3DRenderer
else
IRenderer::instance = new OpenGLRenderer
To expand on Jon Skeet's Answer
The big difference between a singleton and a bunch of static methods is that singletons can implement interfaces (or derive from useful base classes, although that's less common IME), so you can pass around the singleton as if it were "just another" implementation.
Singletons are easier to work with when unit testing a class. Wherever you pass singletons as a parameter (constructors, setters or methods) you can instead substitute a mocked or stubbed version of the singleton.
Here's a good article:
http://javarevisited.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/difference-between-singleton-pattern-vs-static-class-java.html
Static classes
a class having all static methods.
better performance (static methods are bonded on compile time)
can't override methods, but can use method hiding. (What is method hiding in Java? Even the JavaDoc explanation is confusing)
public class Animal {
public static void foo() {
System.out.println("Animal");
}
}
public class Cat extends Animal {
public static void foo() { // hides Animal.foo()
System.out.println("Cat");
}
}
Singleton
an object that can only be instantiated once.
methods can be overridden (Why doesn't Java allow overriding of static methods?)
easier to mock then static methods
better at maintaining state
In summary, I would only use static classes for holding util methods, and using Singleton for everything else.
Edits
static classes are lazy loaded as well. Thanks #jmoreno
(When does static class initialization happen?)
method hiding for static classes. Thanks #MaxPeng.
Another advantage of a singleton is that it can easily be serialized, which may be necessary if you need to save its state to disc, or send it somewhere remotely.
I'm not a great OO theorist, but from what I know, I think the only OO feature that static classes lack compared to Singletons is polymorphism.
But if you don't need it, with a static class you can of course have inheritance ( not sure about interface implementation ) and data and function encapsulation.
The comment of Morendil, "The design style embodied in a static class is purely procedural" I may be wrong, but I disagree.
In static methods you can access static members, which would be exactly the same as singleton methods accessing their single instance members.
edit:
I'm actually thinking now that another difference is that a Static class is instantiated at program start* and lives throughout the whole life span of the program, while a singleton is explicitly instantiated at some point and can be destroyed also.
* or it may be instantiated at first use, depending on the language, I think.
To illustrate Jon's point what's shown below cannot be done if Logger was a static class.The class SomeClass expects an instance of ILogger implementation to be passed into its constructor.
Singleton class is important for dependency injection to be possible.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
namespace ConsoleApplication2
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var someClass = new SomeClass(Logger.GetLogger());
}
}
public class SomeClass
{
public SomeClass(ILogger MyLogger)
{
}
}
public class Logger : ILogger
{
private static Logger _logger;
private Logger() { }
public static Logger GetLogger()
{
if (_logger==null)
{
_logger = new Logger();
}
return _logger;
}
public void Log()
{
}
}
public interface ILogger
{
void Log();
}
}
Singleton's are instantiated. It's just that there's only one instance ever created, hence the single in Singleton.
A static class on the other hand can't be instantiated.
Well a singleton is just a normal class that IS instantiated but just once and indirectly from the client code. Static class is not instantiated.
As far as I know static methods (static class must have static methods) are faster than non-static.
Edit:
FxCop Performance rule description:
"Methods which do not access instance data or call instance methods can be marked as static (Shared in VB). After doing so, the compiler will emit non-virtual call sites to these members which will prevent a check at runtime for each call that insures the current object pointer is non-null. This can result in a measurable performance gain for performance-sensitive code. In some cases, the failure to access the current object instance represents a correctness issue."
I don't actually know if this applies also to static methods in static classes.
Main differences are:
Singleton has an instance/object while static class is a bunch of
static methods
Singleton can be extended e.g. through an interface while static
class can't be.
Singleton can be inherited which supports open/close principles in
SOLID principles on the other hand static class can't be inherited
and we need to make changes in itself.
Singleton object can be passed to methods while static class as it
does not have instance can't be passed as parameters
Distinction from static class
JDK has examples of both singleton and static, on the one hand java.lang.Math is a final class with static methods, on the other hand java.lang.Runtime is a singleton class.
Advantages of singleton
If your need to maintain state than singleton pattern is better choice than static class, because maintaining state in static class leads to bugs, especially in concurrent environment, that could lead to race conditions without adequate synchronization parallel modification by multiple threads.
Singleton class can be lazy loaded if its a heavy object, but static class doesn't have such advantages and always eagerly loaded.
With singleton, you can use inheritance and polymorphism to extend a base class, implement an interface and provide different implementations.
Since static methods in Java cannot be overridden, they lead to inflexibility. On the other hand, you can override methods defined in singleton class by extending it.
Disadvantages of static class
It is easier to write unit test for singleton than static class, because you can pass mock object whenever singleton is expected.
Advantages of static class
Static class provides better performance than singleton, because static methods are bonded on compile time.
There are several realization of singleton pattern each one with advantages and disadvantages.
Eager loading singleton
Double-checked locking singleton
Initialization-on-demand holder idiom
The enum based singleton
Detailed description each of them is too verbose so I just put a link to a good article - All you want to know about Singleton
Singleton is better approach from testing perspective.
Unlike static classes , singleton could implement interfaces and you can use mock instance and inject them.
In the example below I will illustrate this.
Suppose you have a method isGoodPrice() which uses a method getPrice() and you implement getPrice() as a method in a singleton.
singleton that’s provide getPrice functionality:
public class SupportedVersionSingelton {
private static ICalculator instance = null;
private SupportedVersionSingelton(){
}
public static ICalculator getInstance(){
if(instance == null){
instance = new SupportedVersionSingelton();
}
return instance;
}
#Override
public int getPrice() {
// calculate price logic here
return 0;
}
}
Use of getPrice:
public class Advisor {
public boolean isGoodDeal(){
boolean isGoodDeal = false;
ICalculator supportedVersion = SupportedVersionSingelton.getInstance();
int price = supportedVersion.getPrice();
// logic to determine if price is a good deal.
if(price < 5){
isGoodDeal = true;
}
return isGoodDeal;
}
}
In case you would like to test the method isGoodPrice , with mocking the getPrice() method you could do it by:
Make your singleton implement an interface and inject it.
public interface ICalculator {
int getPrice();
}
Final Singleton implementation:
public class SupportedVersionSingelton implements ICalculator {
private static ICalculator instance = null;
private SupportedVersionSingelton(){
}
public static ICalculator getInstance(){
if(instance == null){
instance = new SupportedVersionSingelton();
}
return instance;
}
#Override
public int getPrice() {
return 0;
}
// for testing purpose
public static void setInstance(ICalculator mockObject){
if(instance != null ){
instance = mockObject;
}
test class:
public class TestCalculation {
class SupportedVersionDouble implements ICalculator{
#Override
public int getPrice() {
return 1;
}
}
#Before
public void setUp() throws Exception {
ICalculator supportedVersionDouble = new SupportedVersionDouble();
SupportedVersionSingelton.setInstance(supportedVersionDouble);
}
#Test
public void test() {
Advisor advidor = new Advisor();
boolean isGoodDeal = advidor.isGoodDeal();
Assert.assertEquals(isGoodDeal, true);
}
}
In case we take the alternative of using static method for implementing getPrice() , it was difficult to the mock getPrice().
You could mock static with power mock, yet not all product could use it.
I'm agree with this definition:
The word "single" means single object across the application life
cycle, so the scope is at application level.
The static does not have
any Object pointer, so the scope is at App Domain level.
Moreover both should be implemented to be thread-safe.
You can find interesting other differences about: Singleton Pattern Versus Static Class
One notable difference is differed instantiation that comes with Singletons.
With static classes, it gets created by the CLR and we have not control on it.
with singletons, the object gets instantiated on the first instance it's tried to be accessed.
Below are some main differences between static class and singleton:
1.Singleton is a pattern, not a keyword like static. So for creating a static class static keyword is sufficient while in the case of singleton there is a need to write the logic for the singleton.
2.A singleton class must have a private default instance constructor, while a static class cannot contain any instance constructor.
3.A static class is neither instantiated nor extended, while a singleton class can be.
4.A static class is sealed implicitly, but the singleton class must be decorated as sealed explicitly.
5.It is possible for a singleton to implement the interface or inherit from another class, but the static class neither implements the interface nor extends from any other class.
6.We cannot implement the dependency injection with a static class, but DI is possible with the singleton class because it can be interface driven.
The scope of the static class is at the app domain level because it is managed by the CLR, while the scope of the singleton object is across the application lifecycle.
7.A static class cannot have any destructor but a singleton class can define a destructor.
8.The singleton class instance can be passed as a parameter to another method while a static class cannot be because it contains only static members.
Lazy Loading
Support of interfaces, so that separate implementation can be provided
Ability to return derived type (as a combination of lazyloading and interface implementation)
In many cases, these two have no practical difference, especially if the singleton instance never changes or changes very slowly e.g. holding configurations.
I'd say the biggest difference is a singleton is still a normal Java Bean as oppose to a specialized static-only Java class. And because of this, a singleton is accepted in many more situations; it is in fact the default Spring Framework's instantiation strategy. The consumer may or may not know it's a singleton being passed around, it just treat it like a normal Java bean. If requirement changes and a singleton needs to become a prototype instead, as we often see in Spring, it can be done totally seamlessly without a line of code change to the consumer.
Someone else has mentioned earlier that a static class should be purely procedural e.g. java.lang.Math. In my mind, such a class should never be passed around and they should never hold anything other than static final as attributes. For everything else, use a singleton since it's much more flexible and easier to maintain.
We have our DB framework that makes connections to Back end.To Avoid Dirty reads across Multiple users we have used singleton pattern to ensure we have single instance available at any point of time.
In c# a static class cannot implement an interface. When a single instance class needs to implement an interface for a business contracts or IoC purposes, this is where I use the Singleton pattern without a static class
Singleton provides a way to maintain state in stateless scenarios
Hope that helps you..
In an article I wrote I have described my point of view about why the singleton is much better than a static class:
Static class is not actually canonical class – it’s a namespace with functions and variables
Using static class is not a good practice because of breaking object-oriented programming principles
Static class cannot be passed as a parameter for other
Static class is not suitable for “lazy” initialization
Initialization and using of static class is always hard tracked
Implementing thread management is hard
Singleton class provides an object(only one instance) during the application lifeCycle such as java.lang.Runtime
While Static class only provide static methods such as java.lang.Math
Static methods in Java cannot be overridden, but methods defined in Singleton class can be overridden by extending it.
Singleton Class is capable of Inheritance and Polymorphism to extend a base class, implement an interface and capable of providing different implementations. whereas static not.
For eg: java.lang.Runtime,is a Singleton Class in Java, call to getRuntime() method returns the runtime object associated with the current Java application but ensures only one instance per JVM.
a. Serialization - Static members belong to the class and hence can't be serialized.
b. Though we have made the constructor private, static member variables still will be carried to subclass.
c. We can't do lazy initialization as everything will be loaded upon class loading only.
From a client perspective, static behavior is known to the client but Singleton behavior can be completed hidden from a client. Client may never know that there only one single instance he's playing around with again and again.
I read the following and think it makes sense too:
Taking Care of Business
Remember, one of the most important OO rules is that an object is responsible for itself. This means that issues regarding the life cycle of a class should be handled in the class, not delegated to language constructs like static, and so on.
from the book Objected-Oriented Thought Process 4th Ed.
We can create the object of singleton class and pass it to method.
Singleton class doesn't any restriction of inheritance.
We can't dispose the objects of a static class but can singleton class.
I've been reading in various places that it's often advisable to use static factory methods over public constructors.
One of the advantages is that unlike with constructors, a static factory method does not create a new object each time it is invoked. However, as I read on this site, the factory method for the class
class Employee {
private int _type;
static final int ENGINEER = 0;
static final int SALESMAN = 1;
static final int MANAGER = 2;
Employee (int type) {
_type = type;
}
}
is defined as :
static Employee create(int type) {
return new Employee(type);
}
Thus to create a new instance, we do
Employee eng = Employee.create(Employee.ENGINEER);
What I don't understand is, isn't the factory method invoking the public constructor? So isn't it creating a new instance all over again?
A second aspect of using static factory methods that I don't quite understand is why can classes without public / protected constructors not be subclassed?
I believe it was not implemented correctly . Shouldn't the constructor be private in this case ? The whole point of having a static factory method is to bar direct access to create instances using the constructor directly from other code. Say suppose , your class provides DB connection , as we know connections are resource intensive and we shouldn't create connections indiscriminately , a static factory is used to request connection object . The factory method checks to see if there is a free connection object in the pool and returns it . Re-usablity is important concept here , which is implemented by static factory method.
Another point is that it abstracts away the instantiation of an object. Generally factories are useful when you know that you need a new instance of a class that implements some interface but you don't know the implementing class.
The code provided in that link is just a sample of how it works , though , not a good example . Read further :
The most obvious motivation for Replace Constructor with Factory Method comes with replacing a type code with subclassing. You have an object that often is created with a type code but now needs subclasses. The exact subclass is based on the type code. However, constructors can only return an instance of the object that is asked for. So you need to replace the constructor with a factory method.
Coming back to your questions:
What I don't understand is, isn't the factory method invoking the public constructor? So isn't it creating a new instance all over again?
Yes probably it shouldn't .
I don't quite understand is why can classes without public / protected constructors not be subclassed?
Even a constructor with default access , i.e. with no access modifier can be sub classed . But the sub class should be part of the package . Remember once you sub class a class , while creating objects of the sub class , the sub class constructor implicitly/explicitly has to invoke the super class constructor. Now if the super class constructor is inaccessible from the sub class constructor because it is marked as private , then the instantiation fails . Hence the subclassing has no meaning.
Suggested Reading:
Consider static factory methods instead of constructors - Josh Bloch
What are static factory methods in Java?
One of the advantages is that unlike with constructors, a static factory method does not create a new object each time it is invoked.
Actually, that would be better stated as "a static factory method does not necessarily create a new object each time it is invoked". And that effectively addresses your first query. (In your example, it does create a new instance each time ... but that's not the only reason to use static factory methods.)
A second aspect of using static factory methods that I don't quite understand is why can classes without public / protected constructors not be subclassed?
This is actually orthogonal to the issue of factory methods. (And also not completely true, either.)
You cannot subclass a class that has no accessible constructor because the JLS requires that every constructor for a subclass explicitly or implicitly invokes a superclass constructor. If no superclass constructors are accessible to the subclass, then this requirement cannot be met.
In fact, there is another reason. for using static factory methods instead of invoking constructors directly. A static factory method can create and return instances of different classes. For example:
// static factory method ...
public static CharSequence createCharSequence(char[] chars, boolean mutable) {
return mutable ? new StringBuilder(chars) : new String(chars);
}
And indeed you can take this further with non-static factory methods and factory objects. These allow you to (respectively) inherit and override object creation logic, and separate the object creation logic from the object classes themselves.
isn't the factory method invoking the public constructor? So isn't it creating a new instance all over again?
Yes, It allows to create new object so make private constructor.
And create create method inside class.
Try with
public class Employee {
private int _type;
static final int ENGINEER = 0;
static final int SALESMAN = 1;
static final int MANAGER = 2;
public static Employee INSTANCE;
public static final Employee create(int type)
{
if(INSTANCE==null)
{
INSTANCE=new Employee(type);
}
return INSTANCE;
}
private Employee (int type) {
_type = type;
}
}
new object is created through clone also. you can override the Object class's clone() method to throw the CloneNotSupportedException exception.
I've been reading in various places that it's often advisable to use
static factory methods over public constructors.
Actually I don't think this is true or advisable to do this. The factory pattern has it's own uses and CANNOT replace the functionality provided by public constructors. "public constructors" ARE PROVIDED to dictate how other classes will create your class. It makes no sense adding a simple wrapper static function which does nothing else other than accept the same parameters as the constructor and create the object as shown in the code. Doing this is a MISUSE of the factory pattern.
"Factory pattern" is a creation pattern that is needed ONLY IF there is a need for an INSTANTIATION LOGIC of different classes based on input parameters. In your eg., if Engineer, Salesman and Manager were different classes derived from the same Employee class, and based on the type the appropriate class is constructed, then a factory is needed.
Design can be done in anticipation of a required functionality, BUT, I think, it is much better to just design for the functionality at hand and modify it when the need arises.
What's a "static factory" method?
The static factory method pattern is a way to encapsulate object creation. Without a factory method, you would simply call the class's constructor directly: Foo x = new Foo(). With this pattern, you would instead call the factory method: Foo x = Foo.create(). The constructors are marked private, so they cannot be called except from inside the class, and the factory method is marked as static so that it can be called without first having an object.
There are a few advantages to this pattern. One is that the factory can choose from many subclasses (or implementers of an interface) and return that. This way the caller can specify the behavior desired via parameters, without having to know or understand a potentially complex class hierarchy.
Another advantage is, as Matthew and James have pointed out, controlling access to a limited resource such as connections. This a way to implement pools of reusable objects - instead of building, using, and tearing down an object, if the construction and destruction are expensive processes it might make more sense to build them once and recycle them. The factory method can return an existing, unused instantiated object if it has one, or construct one if the object count is below some lower threshold, or throw an exception or return null if it's above the upper threshold.
As per the article on Wikipedia, multiple factory methods also allow different interpretations of similar argument types. Normally the constructor has the same name as the class, which means that you can only have one constructor with a given signature. Factories are not so constrained, which means you can have two different methods that accept the same argument types:
Coordinate c = Coordinate.createFromCartesian(double x, double y)
and
Coordinate c = Coordinate.createFromPolar(double distance, double angle)
This can also be used to improve readability, as Rasmus notes.
NOTE! "The static factory method is NOT the same as the Factory Method pattern" (c) Effective Java, Joshua Bloch.
Factory Method: "Define an interface for creating an object, but let the classes which implement the interface decide which class to instantiate. The Factory method lets a class defer instantiation to subclasses" (c) GoF.
"Static factory method is simply a static method that returns an instance of a class." (c) Effective Java, Joshua Bloch. Usually this method is inside a particular class.
The difference:
The key idea of static factory method is to gain control over object creation and delegate it from constructor to static method. The decision of object to be created is like in Abstract Factory made outside the method (in common case, but not always). While the key (!) idea of Factory Method is to delegate decision of what instance of class to create inside Factory Method. E.g. classic Singleton implementation is a special case of static factory method. Example of commonly used static factory methods:
valueOf
getInstance
newInstance
We avoid providing direct access to database connections because they're resource intensive. So we use a static factory method getDbConnection that creates a connection if we're below the limit. Otherwise, it tries to provide a "spare" connection, failing with an exception if there are none.
public class DbConnection{
private static final int MAX_CONNS = 100;
private static int totalConnections = 0;
private static Set<DbConnection> availableConnections = new HashSet<DbConnection>();
private DbConnection(){
// ...
totalConnections++;
}
public static DbConnection getDbConnection(){
if(totalConnections < MAX_CONNS){
return new DbConnection();
}else if(availableConnections.size() > 0){
DbConnection dbc = availableConnections.iterator().next();
availableConnections.remove(dbc);
return dbc;
}else {
throw new NoDbConnections();
}
}
public static void returnDbConnection(DbConnection dbc){
availableConnections.add(dbc);
//...
}
}
Readability can be improved by static factory methods:
Compare
public class Foo{
public Foo(boolean withBar){
//...
}
}
//...
// What exactly does this mean?
Foo foo = new Foo(true);
// You have to lookup the documentation to be sure.
// Even if you remember that the boolean has something to do with a Bar
// you might not remember whether it specified withBar or withoutBar.
to
public class Foo{
public static Foo createWithBar(){
//...
}
public static Foo createWithoutBar(){
//...
}
}
// ...
// This is much easier to read!
Foo foo = Foo.createWithBar();
have names, unlike constructors, which can clarify code.
do not need to create a new object upon each invocation - objects
can be cached and reused, if necessary.
can return a subtype of their return type - in particular, can
return an object whose implementation class is unknown to the caller.
This is a very valuable and widely used feature in many frameworks
which use interfaces as the return type of static factory methods.
fromhttp://www.javapractices.com/topic/TopicAction.do?Id=21
It all boils down to maintainability. The best way to put this is whenever you use the new keyword to create an object, you're coupling the code that you're writing to an implementation.
The factory pattern lets you separate how you create an object from what you do with the object. When you create all of your objects using constructors, you are essentially hard-wiring the code that uses the object to that implementation. The code that uses your object is "dependent on" that object. This may not seem like a big deal on the surface, but when the object changes (think of changing the signature of the constructor, or subclassing the object) you have to go back and rewire things everywhere.
Today factories have largely been brushed aside in favor of using Dependency Injection because they require a lot of boiler-plate code that turns out to be a little hard to maintain itself. Dependency Injection is basically equivalent to factories but allows you to specify how your objects get wired together declaratively (through configuration or annotations).
If the constructor of a class is private then you cannot create an object for class from outside of it.
class Test{
int x, y;
private Test(){
.......
.......
}
}
We cannot create an object for above class from outside of it. So you cannot access x, y from outside of the class. Then what is the use of this class?
Here is the Answer : FACTORY method.
Add the below method in above class
public static Test getObject(){
return new Test();
}
So now you can create an object for this class from outside of it. Like the way...
Test t = Test.getObject();
Hence, a static method which returns the object of the class by executing its private constructor is called as FACTORY method.
I thought i will add some light to this post on what i know. We used this technique extensively in our recent android project. Instead of creating objects using new operator you can also use static method to instantiate a class. Code listing:
//instantiating a class using constructor
Vinoth vin = new Vinoth();
//instantiating the class using static method
Class Vinoth{
private Vinoth(){
}
// factory method to instantiate the class
public static Vinoth getInstance(){
if(someCondition)
return new Vinoth();
}
}
Static methods support conditional object creation: Each time you invoke a constructor an object will get created but you might not want that. suppose you want to check some condition only then you want to create a new object.You would not be creating a new instance of Vinoth each time, unless your condition is satisfied.
Another example taken from Effective Java.
public static Boolean valueOf(boolean b) {
return (b ? TRUE : FALSE);
}
This method translates a boolean primitive value into a Boolean object reference. The Boolean.valueOf(boolean) method illustrates us, it never creates an object. The ability of static factory methods to return the same object from repeated invocations allows classes to maintain strict control over what instances exist at any time.
Static factory methods is that, unlike constructors, they can return an object of any subtype of their return type. One application of this flexibility is that an API can return objects without making their classes public. Hiding implementation classes in this fashion leads to a very compact API.
Calendar.getInstance() is a great example for the above, It creates depending on the locale a BuddhistCalendar, JapaneseImperialCalendar or by default one Georgian.
Another example which i could think is Singleton pattern, where you make your constructors private create an own getInstance method where you make sure, that there is always just one instance available.
public class Singleton{
//initailzed during class loading
private static final Singleton INSTANCE = new Singleton();
//to prevent creating another instance of Singleton
private Singleton(){}
public static Singleton getSingleton(){
return INSTANCE;
}
}
A factory method a method that abstracts away the instantiation of an object. Generally factories are useful when you know that you need a new instance of a class that implements some interface but you don't know the implementing class.
This is useful when working with hierarchies of related classes, a good example of this would be a GUI toolkit. You could simply hard-code calls to the constructors for concrete implementations of each widget but if you ever wanted to swap one toolkit for another you'd have a lot of places to change. By using a factory you reduce the amount of code you would need to change.
One of the advantages that stems from Static factory is that that API can return objects without making their classes public. This lead to very compact API. In java this is achieved by Collections class which hides around 32 classes which makes it collection API very compact.
One of the advantages of the static factory methods with private constructor(object creation must have been restricted for external classes to ensure instances are not created externally) is that you can create instance-controlled classes. And instance-controlled classes guarantee that no two equal distinct instances exist(a.equals(b) if and only if a==b) during your program is running that means you can check equality of objects with == operator instead of equals method, according to Effective java.
The ability of static factory methods to return the same object from
repeated invocations allows classes to maintain strict control over
what instances exist at any time. Classes that do this are said to be
instance-controlled. There are several reasons to write
instance-controlled classes. Instance control allows a class to
guarantee that it is a singleton (Item 3) or noninstantiable (Item 4).
Also, it allows an immutable class (Item 15) to make the guarantee
that no two equal instances exist: a.equals(b) if and only if a==b. If
a class makes this guarantee, then its clients can use the == operator
instead of the equals(Object) method, which may result in improved
performance. Enum types (Item 30) provide this guarantee.
From Effective Java, Joshua Bloch(Item 1,page 6)
A static factory method is good when you want to ensure that only one single instance is going to return the concrete class to be used.
For example, in a database connection class, you may want to have only one class create the database connection, so that if you decide to switch from Mysql to Oracle you can just change the logic in one class, and the rest of the application will use the new connection.
If you want to implement database pooling, then that would also be done without affecting the rest of the application.
It protects the rest of the application from changes that you may make to the factory, which is the purpose.
The reason for it to be static is if you want to keep track of some limited resource (number of socket connections or file handles) then this class can keep track of how many have been passed out and returned, so you don't exhaust the limited resource.
Java implementation contains utilities classes java.util.Arrays and java.util.Collections both of them contains static factory methods, examples of it and how to use :
Arrays.asList("1","2","3")
Collections.synchronizedList(..), Collections.emptyList(), Collections.unmodifiableList(...) (Only some examples, could check javadocs for mor methods examples https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/Collections.html)
Also java.lang.String class have such static factory methods:
String.format(...), String.valueOf(..), String.copyValueOf(...)
static
A member declared with the keyword 'static'.
factory methods
Methods that create and return new objects.
in Java
The programming language is relevant to the meaning of 'static' but not to the definition of 'factory'.