Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

Refactoring Singleton Overuse

Today I had an epiphany, and it was that I was doing everything wrong. Some history: I inherited a C# application, which was really just a collection of static methods, a completely procedural mess of C# code. I refactored this the best I knew at the time, bringing in lots of post-college OOP knowledge. To make a long story short, many of the entities in code have turned out to be Singletons.

Today I realized I needed 3 new classes, which would each follow the same Singleton pattern to match the rest of the software. If I keep tumbling down this slippery slope, eventually every class in my application will be Singleton, which will really be no logically different from the original group of static methods.

I need help on rethinking this. I know about Dependency Injection, and that would generally be the strategy to use in breaking the Singleton curse. However, I have a few specific questions related to this refactoring, and all about best practices for doing so.

  1. How acceptable is the use of static variables to encapsulate configuration information? I have a brain block on using static, and I think it is due to an early OO class in college where the professor said static was bad. But, should I have to reconfigure the class every time I access it? When accessing hardware, is it ok to leave a static pointer to the addresses and variables needed, or should I continually perform Open() and Close() operations?

  2. Right now I have a single method acting as the controller. Specifically, I continually poll several external instruments (via hardware drivers) for data. Should this type of controller be the way to go, or should I spawn separate threads for each instrument at the program's startup? If the latter, how do I make this object oriented? Should I create classes called InstrumentAListener and InstrumentBListener? Or is there some standard way to approach this?

  3. Is there a better way to do global configuration? Right now I simply have Configuration.Instance.Foo sprinkled liberally throughout the code. Almost every class uses it, so perhaps keeping it as a Singleton makes sense. Any thoughts?

  4. A lot of my classes are things like SerialPortWriter or DataFileWriter, which must sit around waiting for this data to stream in. Since they are active the entire time, how should I arrange these in order to listen for the events generated when data comes in?

Any other resources, books, or comments about how to get away from Singletons and other pattern overuse would be helpful.

like image 561
drharris Avatar asked May 27 '10 22:05

drharris


People also ask

Should you avoid singletons?

The truth is that singletons aren't inherently bad if they're used correctly. The goal of the singleton pattern is to ensure only one instance of a class is alive at any one time. That, however, is not the goal many developers have in mind when using singletons.

What is one of the most common mistakes you can make when implementing a singleton?

A common mistake with that implementation is to neglect synchronization, which can lead to multiple instances of the singleton class.

What are the disadvantages of Singleton pattern?

Disadvantages of a Singleton PatternUnit testing is more difficult (because it introduces a global state into an application). This pattern reduces the potential for parallelism within a program, because to access the singleton in a multi-threaded system, an object must be serialized (by locking).


2 Answers

Alright, here's my best shot at attacking this question:

(1) Statics

The Problem with static that you may be having is that it means different things in .NET and say, C++. Static basically means it's accessible on the class itself. As for it's acceptability id say it's more of something you'd use to do non-instance specific operations on a class. Or just general things like Math.Abs(...). What you should use for a global config is probably a statically accessed property for holding the current/active configuration. Also maybe some static classes for loading/saving setting the config, however the config should be an Object so it can be passed around manipulated, etc. public class MyConfiguration { public const string DefaultConfigPath = "./config.xml";

  protected static MyConfiguration _current;
  public static MyConfiguration Current
  {
    get
    {
      if (_current == null)
        Load(DefaultConfigPath);
      return _current;
    }
  }

  public static MyConfiguration Load(string path)
  {
    // Do your loading here
    _current = loadedConfig;
    return loadedConfig; 
  }

  // Static save function

  //*********** Non-Static Members *********//

  public string MyVariable { get; set; }
  // etc..
}

(2) Controller/Hardware

You should probably look into a reactive approach, IObserver<> or IObservable<>, it's part of the Reactive Framework (Rx).

Another approach is using a ThreadPool to schedule your polling tasks, as you may get a large number of threads if you have a lot of hardware to pool. Please make sure before using any kind of Threading to learn a lot about it. It's very easy to make mistakes you may not even realize. This Book is an excelent source and will teach you lots.

Either way you should probably build services (just a name really) for managing your hardware which are responsible for collecting information about a service (essentially a model-pattern). From there your central controller can use them to access the data keeping the program logic in the controller, and the hardware logic in the service.

(3) Global Configuration

I may have touched this subject in point #1 but generally that's where we go, if you find yourself typing too much you can always pull it out of there assuming the .Instance is an object.

MyConfiguration cfg = MyConfiguration.Current
cfg.Foo // etc...

(4) Listening For data

Again the reactive framework could help you out, or you could build up an event-driven model that uses triggers for incoming data. This will make sure you're not blocking on a thread till data comes in. It can reduce the complexity of your application greatly.

like image 145
Aren Avatar answered Oct 19 '22 09:10

Aren


for starters, you can limit use of singleton through the "Registry" pattern, which effectively means you have one singleton which allows you to get to a bunch of other preconfigured objects.

This is not a "fix" but an improvement, it makes the many objects that are singletons a little more normal and testable. eg... (totally contrived example)

HardwareRegistry.SerialPorts.Serial1.Send("blah");

but the real problem seems to be you are struggling with making a set of objects that work nicely together. There's two kind of steps in OO.... configuring objects, and letting objects do their thing.

so perhaps look at how you can configure non singleton objects to work together, and then hang that off a registry.

Static :-

Plenty of exceptions to the rules here, but in general, avoid it, but it is useful for doing singletons, and creating methods that do "general" computing outside the context of an object. ( like Math.Min )

Data Monitoring :-

its often better to do as you hint at, create a thread with a bunch of preconfigured objects that will do your monitoring. Use message passing to communicate between threads (through a thread safe queue) to limit thread locking problems. Use the registry pattern to access hardware resources.

you want something like a InstrumentListner that uses an InstrumentProtocol (which you subclass for each protocol) to I dunno, LogData. The command pattern may be of use here.

Configuration:-

have your configuration information and use something like the "builder" pattern to translate your configuration into a set of objects set up in a particular way. ie, don't make your classes aware of configuation, make a object that configures objects in a particular way.

Serial Ports :-

I do a bunch of work with these, what I have is a serial connection, which generates a stream of characters which it posts as an event. Then I have something that interprets the protocol stream into meaningful commands. My protocol classes work with a generic "IConnection" of which a SerialConnection inherits..... I also have TcpConnections, MockConnections, etc, to be able to inject test data, or pipe serial ports from one computer to another, etc. So Protocol classes just interpret a stream, have a statemachine, and dispatch commands. The protocol is preconfigured with a Connection, Various things get registered with the protocol, so when it has meaningful data they will be triggered and do their thing. All this is built from a configuration at the beginning, or rebuilt on the fly if something changes.

like image 4
Keith Nicholas Avatar answered Oct 19 '22 08:10

Keith Nicholas