Something about singletons doesn't sit quite right with me, but in the most part, if they're not misbehaving, I'll probably leave them be.
The thing that bothers me a lot more though, is the fact that everyone else is forced to know about your singleton-ness..
ImASingleton.getInstance().doSomething();*shivers*
If you have to store global state, it would be nice if we could hide that from the clients. Why do we have a single instance with instance variables accessed through a static getInstance method, when we could hide (ooh, encapsulation) the implementation behind multiple instances with private static variables?
By using instance methods, we also get all the interface / testing / mocking goodness.
new ImASingletonButYouCantTell().doSomething();OK, I'm rambling... am I missing something? (please rant below)
2 comments:
The majority of Singletons I've seen were disguised global variables. I've rambled on this previously as part of a post on a specific refactoring task.
It's a problem with Java like languages that want to make everything into a class. The focus of the language should be on objects and not on classes. So, all in all I consider that singletonitis is a problem of some languages.
Seealso
Post a Comment