I have doubts regarding the creation of singleton class in Objective-C/iOS.
Where ever I see the trick to create a singleton class in objective-C is this code
+ (id)sharedManager {
static MyManager *sharedMyManager = nil;
static dispatch_once_t onceToken;
dispatch_once(&onceToken, ^{
sharedMyManager = [[self alloc] init];
});
return sharedMyManager;
}
Whenever I call [MyManager sharedManager] of course I get the same address. However, I can also write [MyManager new] in which case the address is different.
1.Isn't the concept of singleton class is that it restricts the instantiation of a class to one object?
2.If we can create another object its not a singleton anymore, is it?
In my iOS app I tried [UIApplication new]. I got an exception in runtime. Now this I get. You cannot make another instance of UIApplication since its a singleton class.
So why the use of shared instance considered to be the way of creating a singleton class or have I got this all wrong?
The sharedManager is the convenience method you'd use to access the singleton instance. While this doesn't guarantee that there will be only one instance of that manager over the app, if everyone is using sharedManager then there will practically exist only one instance of that manager.
This kind of singletons are singletons by convenience, not by implementation. You should use them, for multiple reasons:
you can unit test them, by calling alloc init in your unit tests and making use of that brand new allocated object
it makes your life easier if decide to later refactor the manager and no longer use it as a singleton if you consider it from the begging like a regular object to work with
Of-course, you can make a singleton by-the-book by overriding the init and allocWithZone: to either return the only instance or by raising an exception, however I'm not sure they'd worth the effort.
There's a very good tech talk regarding singletons held by Misko Hevery in the Google clean code talks playlist, the link to the video: here. This kind of singletons are referred as lower case S singletons, not capital S ones in the video, and Misko explains very well why they are preferred.
It doesn't break singleton concept. You choose your way to implement what you want. If you want to create only singleton instance, you can make run error by override init function:
[NSException exceptionWithName:NSInternalInconsistencyException
reason:#"bla bla bla..." userInfo:nil];
or
you can override it to force return to shared instance.
Of course, you can. But it not recommend if you are using singleton.
Objective-C uses a pragmatic approach. Your +sharedManager method returns a singleton. If someone is stupid enough to call [SingletonClass new] or [[SingletonClass alloc] init], that's their problem. They'll get what they deserve. There is no reason to prevent people from shooting themselves in the foot if that is what they want to do.
There are millions of programming errors that people can make and that the developer of a class or the compiler cannot prevent. No point wasting effort on preventing this particular error.
Related
I understand that dispatch_once is something that is equivalent to a static variable and that the piece of code inside dispatch_once is executed only once throughout the application.
I am going through a huge code base and came across something like this
+ (DBHelper *)sharedInstance {
static DBHelper *sharedDBHelper = nil;
static dispatch_once_t onceToken;
dispatch_once(&onceToken, ^{
sharedDBHelper = [[super alloc] initUniqueInstance];
});
return sharedDBHelper;
}
DBHelper.sharedInstance is used to get an object and is used in a lot of places ot generate objects.
I'm confused as to why dispatch_once is being used here since that would mean you could have only one object of the class?
This is the standard pattern for a shared instance, otherwise known as a faux singleton.
In many cases programmers choose to use a single object that can be easily accessed from any part of an application - by calling a static method which returns back a reference to the shared object, i.e. sharedInstance in your example - as a means to provide communication/shared data between otherwise independent parts of the application.
It is a faux singleton pattern as it does not prevent other instances of the same type - DBHelper in your example - from being created. A true singleton model is one in which only a single instance of the type can ever be created. (Apple used to have sample code showing how to create true singletons, but it was never updated for the post-ARC world, for more details on that including an ARC version see this answer.)
HTH
It's a singleton (a design pattern). You only need one instance of the class instantiated, so that's all you create.
I have a single ton which is working fine, but i don't want to use singleton instead any alternative best way
find my code for reference
Myclass.h
+ (instancetype)shareInformation;
Myclass.m
+ (instancetype)shareInformation
{
static Myclass *manager;
static dispatch_once_t onceToken;
dispatch_once(&onceToken, ^{
manager = [[Myclass alloc] init];
});
return manager;
}
MyNextClass.m
[[Myclass shareInformation] methodofMyclass:^(NSDictionary *results, NSError *error) {
//my code
}];
i have a class Myclass in which i am using a singleton to init manager = [[Myclass alloc] init]; and i am calling this in other class MyNextClass but i don't want to do this in this way i mean i don't want to use singleton pattern i need some this alternative for what i do here
I'm guessing you want to avoid using the singleton as it's considered an anti-pattern.
A solution would be to use a dependency injection container to wire up your application and configure it to resolve your object as a single instance.
I'm not familiar with ios development but Typhoon looks like popular choice.
You can use a singleton or you can use a normal instance, it's up to you. One of the major benefits of a singleton is so that you can get a reference to it anywhere without difficulty.
You could always create a class, and pass a reference of it anywhere you want to use it. For example in your view controller you create it, make sure you create a property of it in your following view controllers and then pass that same reference to the new view controller.
It's best to use a singleton if that's what you're trying to accomplish and you only need one instance though.
Another option, for "global" data, is to make use of the AppDelegate. You can place simple properties in the AppDelegate itself, or define a property (or explicit "getter" method) which returns a pointer to some more complex "global" object.
Note that using the AppDelegate this way is considered "bad form" by many, but there's really not that much bad about it, other than accessing the AppDelegate itself is a bit awkward. (And it upsets the sensibilities of those who are sure they know what "separation of concerns" really means.)
I've been thinking about using a singleton on my data class in my current app. I've also been thinking of reasons not to use the pattern and currently I am stuck in the middle.
The reason I am for the singleton in this case is due to accessibility to methods and properties easily that I need to use more than once throughout the app. I could use the appDelegate for this but that muddles up the area of concern as these methods / variables have nothing to do with the app state - more to do with user input. The data will be persisted with eventually with NSUserDefaults - which is a singleton already.
The reason I am against it is because its another singleton to an app that already bass one (The appDelegate)
My question:
Would using another Singleton to access the data model be the correct way / acceptable way of doing it - or should I look at another approach?
I personally think there would be nothing wrong with a singleton as a data model - using the app delegate to instantiate it when the app starts and then access its various methods / properties when I need them throughout the app. This would be the only other singleton in the app (Maybe another one for user management - e.g.; logging in / out / profile / credentials, etc? )
Any thoughts?
Thanks all!
There is no problem having multiple singleton classes within ios, in fact in many of my projects most of the classes are singletons. Normally I have the data access logic and control within a singleton and then actual object classes as instances.
As you have already identified you really do not want to be putting something into AppDelegate that does not apply to the whole app.
From my point of view do not instanciate the class from AppDelegate, simply have the class instanciate itself on first access.
Whenever I am explaining singleton Objective-C to people I always direct them to this site, it may be worth a view for you:
http://www.galloway.me.uk/tutorials/singleton-classes/
It explains only what you need in a really easy to understand way. The bit that does the 'self-instanciating' is this bit:
+ (id)sharedManager {
static MyManager *sharedMyManager = nil;
static dispatch_once_t onceToken;
dispatch_once(&onceToken, ^{
sharedMyManager = [[self alloc] init];
});
return sharedMyManager;
}
You could use singleton in these case. Don't use delegate to hold values for your app. You may use same singleton for user management also.
Note : Don't use globals unless you need to do so. Singletons and top-level data should be used only when the data they contain truly belongs at the top level.
This question already has answers here:
Singleton Instance vs Class Methods
(2 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
So, pretty simple question. Ignoring the implications of over-use of the singleton pattern. I'm trying to find a reliable singleton patter in Objective-C. I have come across this:
#implementation SomeSingleTonClass
static SomeSingleTonClass* singleInstance;
+ (SomeSingleTonClass*)getInstance
{
static dispatch_once_t dispatchOnceToken;
dispatch_once(&dispatchOnceToken, ^{
singleInstance = [[SomeSingleTonClass alloc] init];
});
return singleInstance;
}
- (void)someMethodOnTheInstance
{
NSLog(#"DO SOMET WORK")
}
#end
This I am fairly happy with but it leads to a lot of this:
[[SomeSingleTonClass getInstance] someMethodOnTheInstance];
My question is, why is this better than a purely static class.
#implementation SomeStaticClass
static NSString* someStaticStateVariable;
- (id)init
{
//Don't allow init to initialize any memory state
//Perhaps throw an exception to let some other programmer know
//not to do this
return nil;
}
+ (void)someStaticMethod
{
NSLog(#"Do Some Work");
}
All you really gain, is mildly cleaner looking method calls. Basically you swap out this:
[[SomeSingleTonClass getInstance] someMethodOnTheInstance];
For this
[SomeStaticClass someStaticMethod];
This is a minor simplification for sure, and you can always store the instance within your class. This is more intellectual curiosity, what Objective-C god am I pissing off by using static classes instead of singletons? I'm sure I can't be the first person to think this, but I promise, I did a duplicate search first. The few answers I found, I felt like were based on older versions of cocoa, because even the discussed singleton patterns seemed to suffer from threading issues.
Static class : Used when you want to group together utility methods that are state independent.
Singleton : Used when you have multiple methods that share a state.
I've found it convenient to do a mix of both. I use a standard singleton pattern similar to your first that results in:
[[MyClass defaultInstance] doSomething];
But I also want to be able to create other instances of the same class:
MyClass *secondInstance = [[MyClass alloc] init];
[secondInstance doSomething];
When I want more concise access to call methods on the singleton instance, I define class methods as follows:
// class method to call a method on the singleton instance
+ (void)doSomething
{
[[MyClass defaultInstance] doSomething];
}
So with that, I can use:
[MyClass doSomething];
You're pissing off no Objective-C gods with a class like that. Actually, Apple recommends to use that pattern in some cases (I think they mentioned this in one of the ARC session videos, where they discussed common design patterns and how to implement them using ARC).
In other cases, where you can have multiple instances of a class, but want a default one, you'll of course have to use the shared instance approach.
The first example seems to be needlessly creating a singleton-like instance of a class. I say needlessly because from your other comments it appears that the class doesn't declare any properties or instance variables. Given that the fundamental purpose of an object is to provide storage for state, an object with no instance variables is rarely a useful thing.
Your second example shows a class that would never be instantiated. Again, the fundamental purpose of a class in Objective-C is to act as a factory for instances, so a class that's never instantiated isn't really useful or necessary.
Instead, you can just provide a set of C functions. C functions don't need to be associated with a class at all. So consider doing something like this:
static NSString* someStaticStateVariable;
void someFunction(void)
{
NSLog(#"Do Some Work");
}
The functions can be in separate .h/.m pair, or can be incorporated in the .h/.m for an existing class if it makes sense to do so (generally, if the functions are closely associated with the concerns of that class).
I've been reading a lot of threads and blog articles about how to implement a singleton in objective-c, several of them maybe being a bit deprecated (year 2010 or earlier), and it seems like people have different opinions regarding this issue... Does Apple have documentation about implementing a singleton? I couldn't find it. If so, could somebody tell me where?
I need a singleton for a class that has some both public and private variables. Currently, this is the implementation I have for such class:
#interface MySingleton ()
#property (strong, nonatomic) NSString *state;
#end
#implementation MySingleton
#synthesize state = _state;
#synthesize count = _count;
static MySingleton *sharedObject = nil;
+ (MySingleton *)sharedInstance
{
static dispatch_once_t _singletonPredicate;
dispatch_once(&_singletonPredicate, ^{
sharedObject = [[super allocWithZone:nil] init];
});
return sharedObject;
}
+ (id)allocWithZone:(NSZone *)zone
{
return [self sharedInstance];
}
Should be this the recommended way? And how should I initialize the instance variables, public and private?
Another issue I'd like to make clear about singleton is: will this generate a memory leak? Is the use of singletons actually recommended in iOS?
Thanks
The above is correct, along with #miho's comment about includng the static object inside of the sharedInstance method. But there is no reason to override +allocWithZone:. Singletons in ObjC are generally "shared," not forced. You're free to create other instances of a "singleton." If it's illegal to create other instances, then you should make init perform an NSAssert rather than fooling the caller in +allocWithZone:. If your singleton is mutable (and most are), you absolutely should not override +allocWithZone: this way.
Another issue I'd like to make clear about singleton is: will this generate a memory leak?
No. This object will never be released, but it will always be accessible. That is not a leak.
Is the use of singletons actually recommended in iOS?
Yes, and it is a very common pattern, used all over the Cocoa frameworks. That said, there are various other patterns that have started to recently become somewhat popular among developers. Dependency Injection is getting some interest, though I don't see it in practice very often. Reducing your reliance on singletons can improve testability, and I have been experimenting recently with how to eliminate some of them in my code with some success. But they have a long, proud history in Cocoa, and I do not consider them a problem.
EDIT: you have one actual bug in your code. You should be calling [[self alloc] init], not [[super alloc] init]. There's no reason to ever call +allocWithZone:, just use +alloc. (The time when ...WithZone: methods were useful has long passed.)
In Xcode, under 'Search Documentation' enter Creating a Singleton Instance. There are lots of results (but the link above, at the bottom of the page, has example code).
Yes, this is the recommended way. There is only one small difference of how I use it: I define the sharedObject as static variable inside the + (MySingleton *)sharedInstance method, because it shouldn't be possible to access the variable from anywhere else then from the getter method.
And no, you won't create a memory leak. When your app is terminated all reserved memory used by your app will be released anyway and there is no other situation where a static shared instance should get released. In pre-ARC area it even was common to override the release method do prevent accidentally releasing of the object.
A bit of warning using gcd for singletons:
dispatch_once(&_singletonPredicate, ^{
sharedObject = [[super allocWithZone:nil] init];
});
if the init method for some reason addresses the singleton object directly or indirectly, there will be a deadlock. For this reason I believe that the more appropriate way to write a singleton is through the
+ (void) initialize
method
I am still using the singleton header thingy from CocoaWithLove - may be a bit dated but still works like a charm. It basically does the same as described here referring to Apples documentation and I would assume at least Apple's documentation (bottom of this page) is still valid. There are people assuming it will stay valid indefinitely sine it is the official solution Apple suggested.