I have implemented a singleton object using the regular pattern. My question is: is it possible to set this object back to nil, so that on a later called to [MySingleton sharedInstance] the object gets re-initialised?
// Get the shared instance and create it if necessary.
+ (MySingleton *)sharedInstance {
static dispatch_once_t pred;
static MySingleton *shared = nil;
dispatch_once(&pred, ^{
shared = [[MySingleton alloc] init];
});
return shared;
}
// We can still have a regular init method, that will get called the first time the Singleton is used.
- (id)init
{
self = [super init];
if (self) {
// Work your initialising magic here as you normally would
}
return self;
}
My guess is that
MySingleton *shared = [MySingleton sharedInstance];
shared = nil;
only sets the local pointer shared to nil. After all, shared is declared as static.
Your assumption about the local reference is correct, it won't affect your singleton.
To be able to reinitialize the singleton you need to move the static variable out of your method, so it's accessible by the whole class.
static MySingleton *sharedInstance = nil;
// Get the shared instance and create it if necessary.
+ (MySingleton *)sharedInstance {
if (sharedInstance == nil) {
sharedInstance = [[MySingleton alloc] init];
}
return sharedInstance;
}
+ (void)resetSharedInstance {
sharedInstance = nil;
}
Note that you cannot use dispatch_once anymore, since your singleton needs obviously to be created multiple times. If you only ever call this singleton from your UI (and therefore only from the main thread), then the sample above is fine.
If you need access from multiple threads you need to put a lock around the +sharedInstance and +resetSharedInstance method, e.g.
+ (id)sharedInstance {
#synchronized(self) {
if (sharedInstance == nil) {
sharedInstance = [[MySingleton alloc] init];
}
return sharedInstance;
}
}
+ (void)resetSharedInstance {
#synchronized(self) {
sharedInstance = nil;
}
}
This is quite a bit slower than the dispatch_once variant, but in practice it won't matter usually.
Yeah, but your singleton's sharedInstance method defines it as a static inside that method, and your final code sample is just setting a local variable (coincidentally also called shared) to nil, leaving the static inside sharedInstance unaltered. Thus you are just nil-ing a local pointer, not changing the static inside sharedInstance.
If you want to do what you're asking, you'll have to pull the static variable, shared, out of the sharedInstance method (and presumably write some reset method to nil it). Your sharedInstance method also can no longer rely upon dispatch_once, but rather have to check to see if that static is nil or not.
I did this. I'm not sure if it's the best way but it seemed to work fine.
static dispatch_once_t pred;
static MySingleton *shared = nil;
+(MySingleton *)sharedInstance {
dispatch_once(&pred, ^{
shared = [[MySingleton alloc] init];
});
return shared;
}
+(void)clearSharedInstance {
shared = nil;
pred = nil;
}
Related
What happens if the init method of a singleton class is called before the +sharedInstance method..? Will this result in a new object and if not then how the same instance is returned ? The fact that the static variable is declared inside the sharedInstance will have any effect on the overall outcome..?
+ (LibraryAPI*)sharedInstance
{
// 1
static LibraryAPI *_sharedInstance = nil;
// 2
static dispatch_once_t oncePredicate;
// 3
dispatch_once(&oncePredicate, ^{
_sharedInstance = [[LibraryAPI alloc] init];
});
return _sharedInstance;
}
In Objective-C init method of a class is just method with 'init' prefix. It's one of the biggest differences between objc and swift. So if you call init method which is bad but you'll no doubt init a new instance when your init method return successfully.
A static variable inside a function keeps its value between invocations. So every time method sharedInstance is called it will give you the same instance. More about static variable check out here
That depends on how the init method is implemented. By default you can create a new object with init. To prevent that an instance of this class is created you could return nil in the init method and create a private initializer for your class.
-(instancetype)init {
return nil;
}
-(instancetype)localInit {
if(!self) {
self = [super init];
}
return self;
}
So the line
_sharedInstance = [[LibraryAPI alloc] init];
will change to
_sharedInstance = [[LibraryAPI alloc] localInit];
I have the following code:
{
NSObject *_object;
}
- (instancetype)init {
if (self = [super init]) {
_object = [[NSObject alloc] init];
}
return self;
}
- (NSObject*)object {
return _object;
}
If the method object is called from a second thread after init has completed and returned, how do I know the assignment to _object within init will be visible and it's not actually returning an unassigned pointer?
What is the internal mechanism that guarantees this?
The thread-safety of your code depends on how it is used, and how it is intended to be used is inherently thread-safe. You shouldn't be passing around partially constructed objects, therefore the allocation and initialization ([[... alloc] init] or new) should be confined to a single thread and then passed around to other threads.
Use dispatch_once. This is guaranteed to run only one time no matter how many threads there are. For example
+ (MyClass *)sharedInstance
{
// Static local predicate must be initialized to 0
static MyClass *sharedInstance = nil;
static dispatch_once_t onceToken = 0;
dispatch_once(&onceToken, ^{
sharedInstance = [[MyClass alloc] init];
// Do any other initialisation stuff here
});
return sharedInstance;
}
I need to implement a singleton class that takes in a parameter. The same object will be passed as a parameter every single time so the resultant singleton object will always be the same.
I am doing something like the code below. Does this look ok? Is there a better way of achieving what I want to achieve?
- (id)sharedInstanceWithAccount:(UserAccount *)userAccount {
if (!sharedInstance) {
#synchronized(self) {
sharedInstance = [[[self class] alloc] initWithAccount:userAccount];
}
}
return sharedInstance;
}
- (id)initWithAccount:(UserAccount *)userAccount {
self = [super init];
if (self) {
_userAccount = userAccount;
}
return self;
}
- (id)init {
NSAssert(false,
#"You cannot init this class directly. It needs UserAccountDataSource as a paramter");
return nil;
}
+ (id)alloc {
#synchronized(self) {
NSAssert(sharedInstance == nil, #"Attempted to allocated a second instance of the singleton");
sharedInstance = [super alloc];
return sharedInstance;
}
return nil;
}
There are a number of problem in this design:
As recommended by Apple, should dispatch_once instead of #synchronized(self) for singleton:
static MyClass *sharedInstance = nil;
static dispatch_once_t onceToken = 0;
dispatch_once(&onceToken, ^{
sharedInstance = [[MyClass alloc] init];
// Do any other initialisation stuff here
});
return sharedInstance;
Refer to this question for more detail: Why does Apple recommend to use dispatch_once for implementing the singleton pattern under ARC?
Bad API design to put singleton in alloc.
As indicated by the name of the method alloc, it means that some memory will be allocated. However, in your case, it is not. This attempt to overwrite the alloc will cause confusion to other programmers in your team.
Bad idea to use NSAssert in your -init.
If you want to disable a method, disable it by putting this in your header file:
- (id)init __attribute__((unavailable));
In this case, you will get a compile error instead of crashing the app at run time.
Refer to this post for more detail: Approach to overriding a Core Data property: isDeleted
Moreover, you can even add unavailable message:
- (id)init __attribute__((unavailable("You cannot init this class directly. It needs UserAccountDataSource as a parameter")));
Sometime input parameters is ignored with no warning.
In your following code, how would the programmer who is calling this function know that the input parameter userAccount is sometimes ignored if an instance of the class is already created by someone else?
- (id)sharedInstanceWithAccount:(UserAccount *)userAccount {
if (!sharedInstance) {
#synchronized(self) {
sharedInstance = [[[self class] alloc] initWithAccount:userAccount];
}
}
return sharedInstance;
}
In short, don't think it is a good idea to create singleton with parameter. Use conventional singleton design is much cleaner.
objA = [Object sharedInstanceWithAccount:A];
objB = [Object sharedInstanceWithAccount:B];
B is ignored.
userAccount in objB is A.
if userAccount B in objB, you will change sharedInstanceWithAccount.
- (id)sharedInstanceWithAccount:(UserAccount *)userAccount {
static NSMutableDictionary *instanceByAccount = [[NSMutableDictionary alloc] init];
id instance = instanceByAccount[userAccount];
if (!instance) {
#synchronized(self) {
instance = [[[self class] alloc] initWithAccount:userAccount];
instanceByAccount[userAccount] = instance;
}
}
return instance;
}
I have a singleton that is initialized like all singletons, with something like this:
+ (MySingleton *)sharedInstance
{
static MySingleton *sharedMyInstance = nil;
static dispatch_once_t onceToken;
dispatch_once(&onceToken, ^{
sharedMyInstance = [[MySingleton alloc] init];
});
return sharedMyInstance;
}
In my case I want to add some code to initialize the singleton but because sharedInstance is a class method I cannot call instance methods from there.
So I always have to have this pattern:
MySingleton *sing = [MySingleton sharedInstance];
[sing initialize];
Ok, I can do this
MySingleton *sing = [[MySingleton sharedInstance] initialize];
but this will generate another problem because if initializing the singleton is the only thing I want at this point, sing is not being used and this is ugly code.
I suppose I can do simply
[[MySingleton sharedInstance] initialize];
and Xcode will not complain, but this does not sound good.
Is there another way to do this?
Check your code ;-) Specifically the line:
sharedMyInstance = [[MySingleton alloc] init];
You have to implement init and there is where you'll initialize the instance variables of your singleton (AKA shared instance). It will be called the first time the shared instance is used.
I'd like my class to detect that a new instance is equivalent (vis a vis isEqual: and hash) to some existing instance, and create only unique instances. Here's code that I think does the job, but I'm concerned it's doing something dumb that I can't spot...
Say it's an NSURLRequest subclass like this:
// MyClass.h
#interface MyClass : NSMutableURLRequest
#end
// MyClass.m
#implementation MyClass
+ (NSMutableSet *)instances {
static NSMutableSet *_instances;
static dispatch_once_t once;
dispatch_once(&once, ^{ _instances = [[NSMutableSet alloc] init];});
return _instances;
}
- (id)initWithURL:(NSURL *)URL {
self = [super initWithURL:URL];
if (self) {
if ([self.class.instances containsObject:self])
self = [self.class.instances member:self];
else
[self.class.instances addObject:self];
}
return self;
}
// Caller.m
NSURL *urlA = [NSURL urlWithString:#"http://www.yahoo.com"];
MyClass *instance0 = [[MyClass alloc] initWithURL: urlA];
MyClass *instance1 = [[MyClass alloc] initWithURL: urlA]; // 2
BOOL works = instance0 == instance1; // works => YES, but at what hidden cost?
Questions:
That second assignment to self in init looks weird, but not insane.
Or is it?
Is it just wishful coding to think that second alloc (of instance1) gets magically cleaned up?
It's not insane, but in manual retain/release mode, you do need to release self beforehand or you'll leak an uninitialized object every time this method is run. In ARC, the original instance will automatically be released for you.
See #1.
BTW, for any readers who usually stop at one answer, bbum's answer below includes a full working example of a thread-safe implementation. Highly recommended for anyone making a class that does this.
Thought of a better way (original answer below the line) assuming you really want to unique by URL. If not, this also demonstrates the synchronization primitive use.
#interface UniqueByURLInstances:NSObject
#property(strong) NSURL *url;
#end
#implementation UniqueByURLInstances
static NSMutableDictionary *InstanceCache()
{
static NSMutableDictionary *cache;
static dispatch_once_t onceToken;
dispatch_once(&onceToken, ^{
cache = [NSMutableDictionary new];
});
return cache;
}
static dispatch_queue_t InstanceSerializationQueue()
{
static dispatch_queue_t queue;
static dispatch_once_t onceToken;
dispatch_once(&onceToken, ^{
queue = dispatch_queue_create("UniqueByURLInstances queue", DISPATCH_QUEUE_SERIAL);
});
return queue;
}
+ (instancetype)instanceWithURL:(NSURL*)URL
{
__block UniqueByURLInstances *returnValue = nil;
dispatch_sync(InstanceSerializationQueue(), ^{
returnValue = [InstanceCache() objectForKey:URL];
if (!returnValue)
{
returnValue = [[self alloc] initWithURL:URL];
}
});
return returnValue;
}
- (id)initWithURL:(NSURL *)URL
{
__block UniqueByURLInstances* returnValue = self;
dispatch_sync(InstanceSerializationQueue(), ^{
returnValue = [InstanceCache() objectForKey:URL];
if (returnValue) return;
returnValue = [super initWithURL:URL];
if (returnValue) {
[InstanceCache() setObject:returnValue forKey:URL];
}
_url = URL;
});
return returnValue;
}
- (void)dealloc {
dispatch_sync(InstanceSerializationQueue(), ^{
[InstanceCache() removeObjectForKey:_url];
});
// rest o' dealloc dance here
}
#end
Caveat: Above was typed into SO -- never been run. I may have screwed something up. It assumes ARC is enabled. Yes, it'll end up looking up URL twice when using the factory method, but that extra lookup should be lost in the noise of allocation and initialization. Doing that means that the developer could use either the factory or the initializer and still see unique'd instances but there will be no allocation on execution of the factory method when the instance for that URL already exists.
(If you can't unique by URL, then go back to your NSMutableSet and skip the factory method entirely.)
What Chuck said, but some additional notes:
Restructure your code like this:
+(NSMutableSet*)instances
{
static NSMutableSet *_instances;
dispatch_once( ...., ^{ _instances = [[NSMutableSet alloc] init];});
return instances;
}
Then call that method whenever you want access to instances. It localizes all the code in one spot and isolates it from +initialize (which isn't really a big deal).
If your class may be instantiated from multiple threads, you'll want to surround the check-allocate-or-return with a synchronization primitive. I would suggest a dispatch_queue.