Skip to main content

Singleton's and the Singleton Lifestyle

The death of testability and the lack of isolation make the singleton pattern a relic of times gone by. Rarely have I had a real need to code a singleton since my first year of university. Most decisions to use a singleton boil down to scoping issues.


Assume a game requires a single instance of a rendering component. In this example configuring and initialising the renderer may be expensive. We only want to do this once.

While this singleton renderer solves the problem of instantiating more than once it suffers from the fact there is only ever one instance. If we want multiple renderers such as a console debugger we are out of luck. Testability is also lost. If we wish to exercise the Game, we need to provide and use a real rendering component.

Static Classes

Or class instances give you the same advantages and disadvantages of singletons. You only have one instance and you can access it easily. One big difference is that unlike singletons you cannot provide static instances as arguments. In practice this is rarely a problem given you have easy access to the instance anyway. You should treat static classes as suspiciously as singletons. However static classes are not bad. They do have uses.

The renderer is now a static class. The same disadvantage as the singleton remains. We are always stuck with a single instance.

Singleton Lifestyle

When using DI you need to consider lifestyle. Singleton lifestyle is one of the most useful. Do not be confused with the Singleton pattern. Despite the name, singleton lifestyle is purely a scoping issue.

By adjusting the scoping of the renderer, the game can now be provided with a single instance. Any component from the game down is unaware of this fact, they simple interact with a rendering component. If we were to provide a composite of rendering components the game would be unaware. This change of scope provides the benefits of a singleton. One area that has been lost is the lazy initialisation of the renderer which may or may not be an issue.

DI does not solve all problems however. Sometimes dependencies are global. The likes of date/time or logging spring to mind. In these cases alternative solutions exist.


Popular posts from this blog

Constant Object Anti Pattern

Most constants are used to remove magic numbers or variables that lack context. A classic example would be code littered with the number 7. What does this refer to exactly? If this was replaced with DaysInWeek or similar, much clarity is provided. You can determine that code performing offsets would be adding days, rather than a mysterious number seven.Sadly a common pattern which uses constants is the use of a single constant file or object. The beauty of constants is clarity, and the obvious fact such variables are fixed. When a constant container is used, constants are simply lumped together. These can grow in size and often become a dumping ground for all values within the application.A disadvantage of this pattern is the actual value is hidden. While a friendly variable name is great, there will come a time where you will want to know the actual value. This forces you to navigate, if only to peek at the value within the constant object. A solution is to simple perform a refactor …

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…