Singleton pattern is my all time favorite. Some people call it anti-pattern as they use it even when it is not actually required. Today, I was reading about singleton pattern and found so many interesting things about it.
static data + static functions != singleton pattern
Static class (a class that contains only static data and functions) and singleton pattern are not same. In some cases it may seem same, but with static classes there are some problems e.g.
- You can not extend its functionality by inheritance since static functions can not be virtual.
- Initialization and clean up is very difficult in static classes; since there is no central point of initialization or clean up; i.e. data is not bound with constructor or destructor as the whole data is static.
Singleton design pattern takes care of this along with focusing on the fact that there is a single object in the execution of program.
Given below is one design variant of singleton design pattern :
class singleton {
singleton *pinst_;
singleton() {};
singleton(const singelton&) ;
operator =(const singleton&);
public:
static singleton* Instance() {
if(pinst_ == NULL)
pinst_ = new singleton();
return pinst_;
}
};
Since all constructors are private, user is not allowed to create its instance. Hence, uniqueness is enforced at compile time. If Instance function is never called, no object is created at all. Instance of singleton is created when Instance is called first time. This optimization is useful, if size of class is too big to be very expensive, but what if singleton object is not too big.
In that case, one can keep static object of singleton class instead of pointer as follow :
Another design Invariant :
class singleton {
singleton inst_;
singleton() {};
singleton(const singelton&) ;
operator =(const singleton&);
public:
static singleton* Instance() {
return &inst_; // return its reference
}
};
in implementation file
singleton singleton::inst_; // initializing static object.
This is not a good solution although everything is same in second invariant as well except that in 2nd approach there is static object and in first there is pointer.
In second approach, inst_ is initialized dynamically at runtime and in first approach it happens statically (It is a type without constructor initialized with compile time constant). .
The compiler performs static initialization before the very first assembly statement gets executed. But compiler does not define the order of initialization for dynamically initialized objects found in different translation unit (A compilable source file).
int global = singleton::Instance().do_something();
depending on the order chosen by compiler to initialize global and inst_ singleton::Instance() may return an object that has not been even constructed yet.
Destroying singleton : As we discussed above, first approach is more reliable than the second one. But it has problem that when and how to destroy the static singleton object. Like there is a function Instance(), we can make a public function destroy() that will call destructor but one has to be very careful that nobody access the object after it has been destroyed. we would not have to face this problem if we have used second approach but definitely that is more dangerous. Scott meyer came up with another approach. Therefore, people refer it as Meyer's singleton.
singleton& singleton::Instance {
static singleton obj; //function static object
return obj;
}
Function static object is initialized when control flow hits this function first time. Primitive static variables are initialized with compile time constants. e.g
int func() {
static int x=100;
return x++;
}
In this case, x is initialized to 100 before any code in the program is executed most likely at the load time. When the static variable is not compile time constant or an object with a constructor it is initialized when the program hits for first time.
A pseudo C++ code generated by compiler :
singleton& singleton::Instance() {
// functions generated by compiler extern void __ConstructorSingleton(void *memory); extern void __DestroySingleton();// objects created by compiler
static bool __initialized = false; static char __buffer[sizeof(singleton)]; if(! __initialized) { __ConstructorSingleton(__buffer); atexit(__DestroySingleton); __initialized = true;
} return *reinterpret_cast<singleton*>(__buffer); }
Main part here is atexit function, which is provided by standard c library. It allows register function to be called automatically during program's exit.
Each call to atexit function pushes its parameter on a private stack maintained by C runtime library. During application's exit, these functions are called.
P.S
In subsequent posts we will disucss about following things in more details :
P.S
In subsequent posts we will disucss about following things in more details :
- The compiler performs static initialization before the very first assembly statement gets executed. But compiler does not define the order of initialization for dynamically initialized objects found in different translation unit(A compilable source file).
- atexit function.. problem associated with it.
- Renterpret cast