I commonly create apps that require storage of data, and this data is used across the entire program. It's not much, though, so I usually use NSUserDefaults to load/save this data. However, the saving/loading code, along with packing/unpacking the data, takes up space, and I thought moving this code to reusable methods inside a global singleton would be a good idea. It seems to have worked well.
Even so, I've read a lot lately on the evils of singletons and global objects, and I've started to have second thoughts. People often say that the use of singletons is almost always an indications of poor design. For the most part, I'd disagree (I think simple uses like this are a good design pattern), but I'm certainly no expert on the matter.
So, is using singletons even in a simple way like this bad? If so, what's the better alternative?
I definitely don't agree that singletons are evil. They are sometimes overused perhaps but on some occasions are just perfect for the job. In some applications it makes sense to have some kind of general data manager. The singleton pattern is used extensively in the SDK itself (app delegates, shared managers, default centers and so on). Most often these are not "pure" singletons, as in you can access a shared instance but can also create new instances if necessary.
The question you need to ask yourself is whether it would be useful to have access to a single instance of a data manager from anywhere at anytime, if it isn't then a singleton is probably not needed. If you are going to be using singletons in multi-threaded environments however, you do need to worry about race conditions (can one thread modify a resource while another is accessing it), the documentation has good explanations on how best to achieve this in Cocoa.
Let me try to explain with an example - Am using some code from a game I wrote. Let's say you have a GameMap class and a Tile class. The GameMap represents a 2 dimension grid of Tile objects.
GameMap *gameMap = [[GameMap alloc] init];
NSArray *theTiles = gameMap.tiles;
The instance of the GameMap owns the grid of tiles, and creates the tiles when the game map is created. No singleton needed.
You may say "but I only have one GameMap at a time, what's the big deal?". What about loading saved games, or loading new levels? Well that becomes as easy as:
// In whatever class object owns the game map
self.gameMap = [[GameMap alloc] initWithSaveData:saveData];
In conclusion, create an instance of a class that has code to manage other instances of things. Keep as little global as possible and your code will be more scalable and maintainable.
Related
I've looked through a lot of answers on stack overflow but haven't found anything that answers this question.
I have an app where you download data in a downloadVC (there are many other VC's). I want to be able to access the currentUser and the downloaded data in the downloadVC whenever I go to the downloadVC without re-downloading the data.
The options I've looked at so far are:
Making a singleton with data that I could access at all points of the app (feels like the easiest way but people have warned me singletons aren't good).
Making a class var of download VC. (This is the solution I understand the least, what is the scope of a class var? Is it just the same as making a singleton?)
Passing it around (This wouldn't work for me as the app is too big to have it passed between every VC)
Saving it to user defaults, (how quick is accessing something user defaults?)
Please tell me if this questions doesn't fit the stack overflow rules?
Singletons are usually implemented using a static variable, so your first and second options are quite similar.
There is a "singletons are evil" sect that's very vocal in the development community lately.
Personally, I think they have their place and can sometimes clean up your design. I recently worked on a project that had been designed by a member of the "Singletons are evil" cult who then went to absurd lengths to pass a data manager object around to every other object in the project, resulting in a lot of overhead and more than a few bugs when the object got dropped.
There is no one answer. You need to weigh the pros and cons of different approaches for your app.
I would caution against over-using UserDefaults though. That's intended for saving small bits of data like user preference settings, not big data objects.
Basically, adding any networking logic inside the view controller is a first big mistake that you could make. So move that to another class that is responsible only for sending network requests and handling the responses.
Then, when you have the data downloaded, you'll probably need something to manage the cache - no matter whether it is a set of big files or a couple of small strings, the logic would be the same - to have all this cache controlled by one object. This cache manager could save the objects to local files, use CoreData or simply keep those objects in memory - this is for you to decide, depending on what kind of app are you creating.
Now, the cache manager could basically be your endpoint for view controllers, since it will either download the data and return it to view controller after the request's success, or return it immediately. The view controllers don't really have to know about any networking at all.
But, how the view controllers will find out about the cache manager?
You could either pass around the reference to it, but you've already said that this is impossible in your app. So basically another solution would be to use the hated singleton pattern. I too personally think this is a bad pattern, however you cannot create any app without it, since you always must have at least one singleton, which is AppDelegate.
Anyway, a good idea might be to create a singleton class (or maybe even use the AppDelegate for that purpose), that would be responsible for handling the dependencies between the classes responsible for networking, the cache manager, and any other classes that you might need to perform some logic behind your app. This is actually a pattern called Dependency Injection Container. It would allow you to easily access your model classes through this container, without neither having a ton of singletons that will eventually make you confused, nor creating some ridiculous logic of passing around the model objects.
The simple answer is, yes, you use a singleton.
That's exactly correct.
Note that whether you use
SQLite.swift,
core data,
realm.io,
write to a text file,
a baas such as Firebase or Back4app (aka Parse),
or literally just "keep it in an array" ("in memory"),
Yes, the answer to your question is you'll have singleton which is where you "keep - access" that stuff. Exactly correct.
That seems to be what you are asking here.
Given that ...
... if you are then additionally asking "what's the easiest / best / most modern way ("in my data singleton") to store data locally in my app", the real-world answer in 2017 is
realm.io
Previously you used Apple's core data. Which is (a) spectacular (b) extremely difficult. Importantly though: realm.io and SQLite are identically available on both Android and iOS; in very many cases, on real world projects today, this eliminates Core Data from consideration.
However. All of this is somewhat moot. Don't forget ...
We now live in a "baas world"
You can't eg. "get a job programming iOS or Android" any more. You get a job because of how good you are / your specific expertise areas in either Firebase, Parse, PubNub, Cloudbase, or whatever. For better or worse, being able to move buttons and tables around in Xcode, Studio, is not really a thing anymore. (There are a minuscule number of hyper-specialities, like GPU programming, dynamic mesh, or the like, that are exceptions to this.) Similarly, say you're a hobbyist making your own app or startup: again in that case, it's just entirely and totally about what backend you work with. (And that applies equally to games or business/social apps.) There are simply no "local, static" apps any more. (Again, applies equally to games or business/social apps.)
(Note indeed that realm.io, which is "the" simple, obvious way to keep data on apps these days - indeed, those guys have/are moving to becoming, indeed, a OCC cloud baas-paas-whatever service themselves. We'll probably all just use realm.io instead of Firebase in a year.)
So in a sense the answer to your question is something like Firebase or back4app. But: then within your app, you centralize that to a singleton, indeed (the first part of your question).
But note....................
it is extremely unlikely, at the beginner level, that any of this will be relevant: Just keep the data in an array! That's all there is to it. OK, once in a billion years when a user happens to literally restart the device or your app, the app will reload data. So what?
Note that a common name for your "get data here" Singleton is
Local
So,
import Foundation
often .. import SQLite, Realm, Firebase or whatever
public let local = Local.shared
open class Local {
static let shared = Local()
fileprivate init() {
print("'Local' singleton running AOK")
}
// could be this simple..
var clients:[String:[Blah]] = [:]
var stock:[String:String] = [:]
func loadStockInfoFromWWW() { ... }
func calculateQuantityInfoOrWhatever() { ... }
// or it could be more like this..
func reloadClientsFromParse() { ... }
func sendNewDataToFirebaseParse() { ... }
.... etc
you then just access it from anywhere in your app like
local.updateFromWeb()
height = local.stock["ladders"][idNumber].size.h
and so on.
That's all there is to it.
(A word on singleton code style.)
It depends on file complexity & size. If you don't need to parse the contents, or they're simple to parse, but it's large in size then I'd recommend using the Documents folder and retrieving it from there, if it's small or involves complex processing then a singleton acting as a manager would be my approach as it feels appropriate.
This is more of a design best practice question:
When you are designing the structure of lets say a location based app. The location Manager is obviously an important instance and should be given easy access for other objects.
Should you have it as a property of appDelegate? or a singleton on its own?
Under what scenario would you prefer one over the other?
I understand both would work, but I want to make sure I'm doing things the right way, not just hacking everything together.
Your inputs are much appreciated!
Neither.
Pass in a location manger object via a custom init method or property where ever you need it.
This will conform with the SOLID principals S, O & D (single responsible, open-close, dependency inversion).
Also testing with mocks will be possible more easily.
The worst choice IMO is to store things in the app delegate. See What describes the Application Delegate best? How does it fit into the whole concept? for much more on that. In short, the app delegate is the Application Delegate. It is not "the Application Dumping Ground for Globalish Things."
Singletons are a long-established approach in ObjC, via the shared... pattern. After decades of popularity, and extensive use within the core Cocoa frameworks (NSUserDefaults, NSNotificationCenter, NSApplication, NSFontManager, NSWorkspace, UIDevice, etc. etc. etc.), they have in recent years fallen into some disregard in favor of other techniques, particularly "dependency injection," which is just to say "assigning to a property."
After years of using singletons in ObjC, I am coming around to the DI way of thinking. The improvements in testability and the improved clarity of dependencies are quite nice. That said, sometimes DI can lead to awkward transitions, particularly when dealing with storyboards.
So, I would say:
When practical, just construct objects and assign them to properties on the objets that need them.
If you have a lot to pass around, consider collecting them into a single "configuration" object and pass that around (but this hurts modularity somewhat).
If DI creates chaos (particularly if it leads to a lot of passing objects to things just so they can pass the object on to something else), or if it forces a lot of storyboard segue code that you could otherwise avoid, singletons are a well-established and well-respected pattern in Cocoa and are not wrong. They are a Cocoa Core Competency.
If you ever find yourself calling (MyAppDelegate *)[[UIApplication sharedApplication] delegate], then you're doing something wrong.
Make another singleton for location management. Single responsibility is a first principle of SOLID.
Think about do you really need it in AppDelegate ?
For Location Manager for example, no you don't. You better keep the location manager with all its related methods in a separate class to keep the singularity principle as #vladimir said, and to be able to reuse it later.
AppDelegate is responsible for handling what happens when the app launch and/or going to the background, initializing core data, registering to push notification and other 3rd party libraries like parse,...
Adding other things to appDelegate will make it grow larger by time and it would be very hard to maintain.
When to add things that don't belong to AppDelegate to it? I think when the app is small, you know it won't scale up, and you are required to favor time over clean code.
Check the AppDelegate responsibilities , and this answer by Matt
You can create multiple instances of CLLocationManager and use them wherever you need them.
If you create one instance and try to share it then you'll have trouble trying to forward the delegate methods around or try to re-implement them as notifications leading to a big mess.
With swift, isn't it possible to dump functions and variables into a file instead of implementing a singleton? Is there a good reason (like memory management or something) that I am missing, other than style concerns?
It is very much possible to do so. Module level private variables could be used as private variables for singleton class.
For me it is rather a choice dictated by what makes more sense as a solution to the problem. The language has given us tools each with its particular usage, so use them the way they are meant to be used.
If your solution requires an object with data, state and related functionality which could have only one instance then it is better to use a singleton. This will make more sense when you or someone else will try to understand code at later time.
If your solution is just bunch of loosely related functions without data or state then it is better to use functions in a file.
With swift, isn't it possible to dump functions and variables into a file instead of implementing a singleton?
Yes, it is definitely possible. However, the same is possible in Objective-C, with the same pluses and minuses.
Is there a good reason (like memory management or something) that I am missing, other than style concerns?
Two considerations are relevant here:
You can make your singleton polymorphic, expose an interface, define several implementations, and pick the specific one at runtime
You can "reset" your singleton by discarding the instance and creating a new one.
If you need concurrency, having a singleton makes it a little easier to implement.
It seems to satisfy the three requirements here: On Design Patterns: When to use the Singleton?
I need it to exist only once.
I need to access it from all over the source base.
It handles concurrent access, i.e. Locks for writes, but can handle concurrent reads.
Hi all,
I've been reading a lot of no doubt intelligent educated and wise gems of advice that Singletons are 'Evil' and singletons are anti patterns or just plain bad news.
With the argument that logging makes sense but not much else.
Just interested to know if the case of essentially a persistent data store context makes sense for a singleton, i.e. Reading/Writing from disk to memory and referencing an object graph.
And if not, how do people normally tackle this issue, I don't currently have any problem with it, I know it's created only once, it's fast and the accessor logic is in one place. Meaning it takes me one line of code to do anything data model related.
Which leaves the only argument that it's bad for testing, in that it's a hard coded production implementation to data, but couldn't I just write a method swizzle through a category or in the test code to create the test version of the singleton?
And the final argument from DI testers, is that it is a hard coded implementation, rather than simply an interface to something, which I do get but I don't really have a major drive to use a DI framework given that I can use protocols for implementation, and use separate init methods for setting up an objects state in testing. There's only ever going to be two types of state for the singleton, or realistically one type...production.
Making it (in my opinion) much easier to read and faster to develop.
Change my view SO?
Yup, for some singletons are Evil. For the new developers who has little MRC knowledge and more ARC it sounds scary because they need to mess with memory,volatile,synchronize etc.
However it is not against to use them, they indeed has their own purpose to use with some are below.
when sharing large data models like arrays and dictionaries etc between multiple screens (VC's) we can't prefer storing them in UserDefaults (because userdefaults is permanent storage and storing such large entries make app start lazily) instead singletons are best since they stay only current app context and restarting app creates new one.
when we need a stable db connection to be accessible allover the app without messing up with connecting and closing in every business classes we can go for it.
when we wanted an ability to app for theming itself dynamically we would need to create a singleton class which holds all the color,image instances etc. and use that instance in application VC/Views etc so no code duplication and re-processing theme occurs in all places.
You dont have to change your view but tweak it a bit to get some positive intention towards singletons.
Hoping this clears it out, thanks
There are a lot of questions out there about whether singletons are "bad," and what patterns to use instead. They're generally focused on the singleton design pattern, which involves retrieving the singleton instance from a static method on the class. This is not one of those questions.
Ever since I really "discovered" dependency injection several months back, I've been driving its adoption in our team, removing static and singleton patterns from our code over time, and using constructor-based injection wherever possible. We've adopted conventions so that we don't have to keep adding explicit bindings to our DI modules. We even use the DI framework to provide logger instances, so that we can automatically tell each logger which class it's in without additional code. Now that I have a single place where I can control how various types are bound, it's really easy to determine what the life cycle of a particular category of classes (utility classes, repositories, etc.) should be.
My initial thinking was that there would probably be some advantage to binding classes as singletons if I expected them to be used fairly often. It just means there's a lot less newing going on, especially when the object you're creating ends up having a big dependency tree. Pretty much the only non-static fields on any of these classes are those values getting injected into the constructor, so there's relatively little memory overhead to keeping an instance around when it's not being used.
Then I read "Singleton I love you, but you're bringing me down" on www.codingwithoutcomments.com, and it made me wonder whether I had the right idea. After all, Ninject compiles object-creation functions by default, so there's very little reflection overhead involved in creating additional instances of these objects. Because we're keeping business logic out of the constructor, creating new instances is a really lightweight operation. And the objects don't have a bunch of non-static fields, so there isn't a lot of memory overhead involved in creating new instances, either.
So at this point, I'm beginning to think that it probably won't matter much either way. Are there additional considerations I haven't taken into account? Has anyone actually experienced a significant improvement in performance by changing the life cycles of certain types of objects? Is following the DI pattern the only real important thing, or are there other reasons that using a single instance of an object can be inherently "bad?"
I am using singleton instances to cache expensive to create objects (like nhibernate session factory) or for objects I want to share across the application.
If in uncertainty I would rather have the object be recreated every time it is used and mark it as singleton or "per thread"/"per request"/"per whatever" only if you really need to.
Scattering singletons all over the place to potentially save some newing up is premature optimization and can lead to really nasty bugs because you can't be sure if the object is new or shared across multiple objects/instances.
Even if the object has no state at the moment and seems save to share, someone can refactor later and add state to it which then may be unintentionally shared between different objects/instances.
I am not sure if memory management is the big issue unless you are creating A LOT of objects. I found using singleton from my IoC container helpful when dealing with something like caching, where creating the caching object and making a connection to the caching servers is expensive during creation so we create the caching object once and reuse it.
A single instance can be harmful however cause it can create a bottleneck in performance as you have a single instance serving multiple requests in the case of services.
It shouldn't matter much for memory usage, but you'll get increased modularity, easier testability with mock objects, and the aesthetic ugliness of having to write out dependencies explicity will encourage programmers to make each class more orthogonal and independent. It's easier to gloss over dependencies when your class is calling globals, which a singleton basically is, and it can make your life harder later.
As noted in Gary's answer, the whole point of DI is testability (you can easily mock out all references to a class since they are all listed in the constructor), not runtime performance.
You want to do TDD (test-drive development), right?