I have this code which provides the logic of this solution, but I'm aware that collecting an instance from within the constructor is dangerous.
Does anyone know a better solution?
The goal is to collect all instances that are extending this class. My preferred solution is the one the uses as little resources as possible (libraries, cpu, ram) although I know that there will always be a tradeoff.
I've tried something with reflection, annotation, classpath search but non of them seemed to be the silver bullet.
class Parent{
private companion object{
var childs = arrayListOf<Parent>()
}
constructor(){
childs.add(this)
}
}
If the intention is to collect all instances you should anyway somehow get those instances upon their creation (will it be the constructor or factory method, if any). Also you should somehow store them (maybe LinkedList is a better choice). So your approach seems reasonable.
But remember that within this approach these instances will be linked from a static place, which means that they wouldn't be garbage collected. If you don't want that, you could store them using a WeakReference (more precisely a collection of WeakReference<Parent>'s).
Related
Currently, I have a database manager class that handles all operations to the database like this:
class DatabaseManager(val context: Context) {
private val db = Firebase.firestore
//Other functions, etc.
}
It makes use of the context passed in by different activities to perform functions to the database. The thing is, every single activity that requires database functions have to instantiate this manager class first, then call the functions. I would like to make use of the Singelton design pattern to make it such that all the activities will only use a single instance of the class. I believe kotlin's objects can do this, however I also need to be able to pass in the context of the activities into this manager class. Any assistance is appreciated, thank you!
I would recommend not doing that. The problem with Singletons is that they make code hard to test, you can't fake out the database. And for a database this is a particularly bad problem, as setting up all the right fake data can be painful. Instead, take a look at injection. It can do the same thing (make a single instance shared between everyone who needs it), but it manages that global state rather than having the classes themselves manage it via a static reference, passing it in (generally via the constructor) to whoever needs it. This makes it easy to provide an alternative or mock database when needed for testing. Injection used to be a bit painful to set up, but Hilt makes it a lot easier these days.
I found the answer for Kotlin Lazy objects, using isInitialized() here: Kotlin: Check if lazy val has been initialised
But seems like dagger.Lazy doesn't have the same public method.
This is how I lazily inject using Dagger:
#Inject internal lateinit var someService: dagger.Lazy<SomeService>
How to check if someService is already initialized without calling someService.get() which will initialize it? Other than introducing a boolean flag and keep track of it ourselves..
Thanks!
There isn't a way to check; Lazy only has one method, get, making it a functional interface or "Single Abstract Method (SAM)" interface much like JSR330's Provider, Guava's Supplier, and JDK8 Supplier.
This abstraction is important, because in Dagger the definition of Lazy is more complicated and there is more than one implementation. For scoped bindings, the internal InstanceFactory itself implements Lazy, so the built in Provider<Lazy<T>> available for each T in the graph can be implemented using a class ProviderOfLazy that can simply return the internal Provider or InstanceFactory rather than creating a new wrapper instance. With that in mind, the instance of Lazy you interact with might be a shared one, so a hypothetical isInitialized might be ambiguous: Does it mark that the scoped binding was ever accessed, or just the local Lazy injection point you requested? Would that behavior change based on whether you mark the binding scoped or not in a faraway Module file? You could also imagine an implementation where every Lazy injection got its own instance, and each would locally track whether it had ever had its get called regardless of scoping. This is in contrast to Kotlin's Lazy, in which each instance wraps exactly one initializer function and consequently has less ambiguity.
Also, Kotlin's Lazy has multiple synchronization modes from which you can select, some of which have undefined behavior when called concurrently. isInitialized is never synchronized in any of those modes, so in a concurrent environment you might receive false while the value is in mid-construction, or it may even be fully constructed on a different thread and the value is simply not yet visible from the thread calling isInitialized.
If you need to be able to check on a Lazy-like status, you'll need to specify how wide you care about construction and how thread-safe you want the result to be, which is custom enough to warrant your own implementation.
I'm working on an Android app that uses some background tasks (AsyncTasks) and I want to use best practices regarding data persistence across app lifecycle and tasks callbacks.
Up to now, I have a mix of practices regarding this:
1) I have some static fields in classes where AsyncTasks are used in the form of:
private static String str1;
private static String str2;
private static int int1;
...//=>no more than 6 static fields
2) I use a sinleton App instance with many getters/setters in the form of:
package xxx.xxx.xxx
import xxx.xxx.xxx
...
public class AppSettings {
private static AppSettings singleton;
private String _field1;
...//=>many fields
public void setField1(String field1) { _field1 = field1; }
public String getField1() { return _field1; }
...//=>many getters/setters
private AppSettings() {}
public AppSettings getInstance(){
if (instance== null) {
synchronized(AppSettings.class) {
if (instance == null)
instance = new AppSettings();
}
}
return instance;
}
}
I definitely know that abusing of static fields is not good at all, so I decided to replace them all, but I'm not completely sure if my second approach -having an application instance in a singleton with many getters/setters- is considered a good way to go, and in case not, I would like to know about better alternatives.
Thank you very much.
Edit 1: Just to clarify.
In order for you to understand more clearly what I use my AppSettings singleton class for I'll give you two examples:
1) I use it to store app setting/configuration values (that's why the name) to be available anywhere. For example, font color, font size, whatever.
2) I use it to store temporary data/values. For example, my main activity creates a small video in the backgroung using "VideoHelper" class and called through an AsyncTask, and as video generation process needs some parameters from main activity, I use AppSettings getters/setters to send them through.
Edit 2: Better explanation of everything.
Thanks to #a_local_nobody I realized my "case of use" was not so clear so I'll add a few things more.
My AppSettings is not being used to store user settings, I use SharedPreferences for that, but instead app default configuration parameters.
To give an example, I store activities background color (and this is just an example) so if in the future I change my mind and decide to use another background color this setting (and many more) are centralized there. It's like a "container" for many default app settings.
Regarding the use of getters and setters in this app singleton class, I think I'll foloww #a_local_nobody suggestion related to define some static variables in each class and use them as needed instead of having a bunch of unrelated getters/setters globally.
Anyway, all comments are welcome.
Well, you are talking about persisting data across app lifecycle which, in my mind, sounds like you're looking for a ViewModel:
The ViewModel class is designed to store and manage UI-related data in
a lifecycle conscious way. The ViewModel class allows data to survive
configuration changes such as screen rotations.
as well as:
The purpose of the ViewModel is to acquire and keep the information
that is necessary for an Activity or a Fragment. The Activity or the
Fragment should be able to observe changes in the ViewModel.
ViewModels form part of the MVVM design pattern, with loads of examples available online.
For more info, have a look at the documentation
on a side-note, perhaps you can have a look at the google sunflower project for some ideas on how to implement the new architecture components, which includes usages of ViewModels.
Also worth adding, is that what you've created with your AppSettings solution, is a big dependency. Various things will depend on this single object and it will be needed throughout your application, most likely. You might consider, instead of creating it like this, to rather use dependency injection with your options, for android, probably being either Dagger 2 or Koin for kotlin (if you ever swap over to kotlin) or perhaps your own form of dependency injection without having to use these frameworks.
Hope this helps
Edit based on feedback from OP:
I use it to store app setting/configuration values (that's why the
name) to be available anywhere. For example, font color, font size,
whatever.
this sounds like a better use case for Shared preferences, especially if these are settings defined by a user, otherwise you should be savings these into strings.xml etc. and making use of localization
I use it to store temporary data/values. For example, my main activity
creates a small video in the background using "VideoHelper" class and
called through an AsyncTask, and as video generation process needs
some parameters from main activity, I use AppSettings getters/setters
to send them through.
if you have a VideoHelper class, you might be better off either creating a Builder design pattern for this object, or having static variables for this helper to change its functionality as you need to, if these are variables for your VideoHelper, then they should be located with your VideoHelper.
Things which change together should usually stay together.
Your approach doesn't qualify as "best practices" in modern android development.
The recommended way of handling configuration changes is by using the new architecture component: ViewModel
It have the property of surviving the onDestroy triggered when a configuration change occurs.
Basically, you will need to move this AppSettings code to a ViewModel.
I’m new to Dagger 2. I have this scenario, I wan't to inject an object across my app (in presenters, in api)
I do not have a way to provide it initially. It is not created till after authentication at some stage in my app.
From the documentation http://google.github.io/dagger/
I see Lazy loading might be a way to solve this e.g
#Inject
Lazy<Grinder> lazyGrinder;
and then get the value like this using:
lazyGrinder.get().grind();
My questions are:
Can I safely swap the object after this with a new one?
Are there any other recommended ways to do this?
Thanks
This isn't a good match for Lazy. Lazy is a great way to delay expensive object initialization, but it implies some semantics that you don't want or need, particularly regarding the "safely swap" behavior you want.
To put it simply, Lazy is a Provider wrapper that memoizes locally:
If you never call get, Dagger never creates the object in question.
The first call to get creates and stores the object instance.
The second call to get returns the same instance, and so on forever, regardless of whether the object was marked as Singleton.
This makes Lazy an excellent choice for an expensive object that would otherwise be a field (but may never be used). However, if the reference is likely to change (as your will), Lazy will simply be confusing: It will store the value at first use and never locally update, so multiple out-of-date copies might be floating around in your application regardless of what the "right" value is at any given time.
To borrow the use of Grinder from your example, better solutions include:
Using a #Provides method that returns a field in a Module, which can be updated later. You'll need to inject Provider<Grinder> for every long-lived object instance, because injected references to Grinder alone won't update. This still might be the best bet if you have a lot of short-lived objects.
The reference is implicitly singleton, but is not annotated as such, because you're controlling the instance yourself. Dagger will call your getGrinder method frequently.
#Module public class YourModule {
private Grinder grinder;
public void setGrinder(Grinder grinder) {
this.grinder = grinder;
}
#Provides public Grinder getGrinder() {
return grinder;
}
}
/* elsewhere */
YourModule module = new YourModule();
YourComponent component = DaggerYourComponent.builder()
.yourModule(module)
.build();
/* ... */
module.setGrinder(latestAndGreatestGrinder);
As EpicPandaForce mentioned in the comments, create/bind a singleton GrinderHolder, GrinderController, or AtomicReference object that provides the current instance and allows for updating. That way it's impossible to inject a Grinder directly, but easy and obvious to inject the object that fetches the current correct Grinder. If your singleton GrinderHolder implementation doesn't create the Grinder until the first time you ask for it, then you have effectively created a Lazy singleton on your own.
If you aren't able to provide the object at the time of Component creation, don't add it to your Component graph! That is asking for confusing graph dependencies and inconsistency. A better solution to what you are considering is a #Subcomponent approach, which allows you to create a new component which inherits the dependencies from the parent, but also adds new one. Here's an example:
#Component
interface RegularComponent {
#AppInstanceId String appInstanceId(); // unique per app install; not related to logging in
AuthenticatedComponent newAuthenticatedComponent();
}
#Subcomponent
interface AuthenticatedComponent {
Set<Friend> friends();
#AccountId String accountId();
}
Here, the #AccountId in the subcomponent could use the appInstanceId to provide the account ID (if it needed to) since the Subcomponent shares dependencies with its parent component.
If you need to supply state to your modules for the subcomponent (with the accountId, auth token, etc) feel free to pass it in as a parameter to the #Module and store it in a private final field. You can read more on how to supply subcomponent modules in the documentation.
There are many questions and answers on how to implement a global variable in Android/Java.
So it seems one can either implement a singleton or use a data class itself with static variables.
I am about to start a larger project and would like to start on the right foot.
I am just not sure which one to use.
Pro singleton/con Data Class
supposedly "cleaner" way (but I really don't know why)
ensures that there is really always just one representation
creates a new instance should the old one be "cleaned away" (whenever this may happen?)
Con singleton/pro Data Class
not recommendet by some (but did not find convincng reasons)
ensures that there is only one representation by design
very easy to access just by writing MyDataClass.x (vs accessing singleton requires getting access to it first somehow)
no need to pass it as a parameter
So in summary I tend to use DataClass but I am unsure because I read that this is supposedly not good programming style.
I like to add
the data this global object has to hold is quite big, more than 30k strings/keys. And this should not be cleaned at any stage so that when the app return it may crash because of that - as I read in other places eg Singletons vs. Application Context in Android? (the 3rd answer)
it's not a web application, I use only one classloader
it is multithread but only one thread is actually accessing this data
one may certainly also use this approach How to declare global variables in Android?, but isn't an ObjectClass just easier to use and access in this case?
And checking this http://developer.android.com/resources/faq/framework.html, esp under "Persistent Objects", implies that there is no real advantage for on or the other in those cases anyway.
Many thanks
Best way to implement singleton is to use enum.
public enum Singleton
{
INSTANCE;
public void someMethod()
{
// your code here
}
}
For more details you can read Effective Java (2nd Edition)
First of all: There's not much difference between a class with public static member variables and a singleton class. A lot of developers prefer the singleton pattern because the code looks more natural and more Java. E.g. Singleton.Data looks like a constant access and Singleton.getData() looks like you're accessing some kind of static data.
Personally I use the static Application pattern: See Accessing resources without an Activity or Context reference
You can use onCreate to setup any kind of static data or even other singletons. E.g. I prefer to setup a singleton SQLite database like that and access it then via App.getDb(). You can use this pattern to access the application context or resources.
While using static data you should think about memory leeks. I would recommend to take a look at this article then.