Singleton Pattern
Singletons are classes which can be instantiated once, and can be accessed globally. This single instance can be shared throughout our application, which makes Singletons great for managing global state in an application.
First, let’s take a look at what a singleton can look like using an ES2015 class. For this example, we’re going to build a Counter
class that has:
- a
getInstance
method that returns the value of the instance - a
getCount
method that returns the current value of thecounter
variable - an
increment
method that increments the value ofcounter
by one - a
decrement
method that decrements the value ofcounter
by one
let counter = 0;
class Counter {
getInstance() {
return this;
}
getCount() {
return counter;
}
increment() {
return ++counter;
}
decrement() {
return --counter;
}
}
However, this class doesn’t meet the criteria for a Singleton! A
Singleton should only be able to get instantiated once. Currently,
we can create multiple instances of the Counter
class.
let counter = 0;
class Counter {
getInstance() {
return this;
}
getCount() {
return counter;
}
increment() {
return ++counter;
}
decrement() {
return --counter;
}
}
const counter1 = new Counter();
const counter2 = new Counter();
console.log(counter1.getInstance() === counter2.getInstance()); // false
By calling the new
method twice, we just set counter1
and counter2
equal to different instances. The values returned by the getInstance
method on counter1
and counter2
effectively returned references to different instances: they aren’t strictly equal!
Let’s make sure that only one instance of the Counter
class can be
created.
One way to make sure that only one instance can be created, is by creating a variable called instance
. In the constructor of Counter
, we can set instance
equal to a reference to the instance when a new instance is created. We can prevent new instantiations by checking if the instance
variable already had a value. If that’s the case, an instance already exists. This shouldn’t happen: an error should get thrown to let the user know
let instance;
let counter = 0;
class Counter {
constructor() {
if (instance) {
throw new Error("You can only create one instance!");
}
instance = this;
}
getInstance() {
return this;
}
getCount() {
return counter;
}
increment() {
return ++counter;
}
decrement() {
return --counter;
}
}
const counter1 = new Counter();
const counter2 = new Counter();
// Error: You can only create one instance!
Perfect! We aren’t able to create multiple instances anymore.
Let’s export the Counter
instance from the counter.js
file. But
before doing so, we should freeze the instance as well. The Object.freeze
method makes sure that consuming code cannot modify the Singleton. Properties on the frozen instance cannot be added or modified, which reduces the risk of accidentally overwriting the values on the Singleton.
let instance;
let counter = 0;
class Counter {
constructor() {
if (instance) {
throw new Error("You can only create one instance!");
}
instance = this;
}
getInstance() {
return this;
}
getCount() {
return counter;
}
increment() {
return ++counter;
}
decrement() {
return --counter;
}
}
const singletonCounter = Object.freeze(new Counter());
export default singletonCounter;
Let’s take a look at an application that implements the Counter
example. We have the following files:
counter.js
: contains theCounter
class, and exports aCounter
instance as its default exportindex.js
: loads theredButton.js
andblueButton.js
modulesredButton.js
: importsCounter
, and addsCounter
’sincrement
method as an event listener to the red button, and logs the current value ofcounter
by invoking thegetCount
methodblueButton.js
: importsCounter
, and addsCounter
’sincrement
method as an event listener to the blue button, and logs the current value ofcounter
by invoking thegetCount
method
Both blueButton.js
and redButton.js
import the same instance
from counter.js
. This instance is imported as Counter
in both
files.
When we invoke the increment
method in either redButton.js
or
blueButton.js
, the value of the counter
property on the Counter
instance updates in both files. It doesn’t matter whether we click on the red or blue button: the same value is shared among all instances. This is why the counter keeps incrementing by one, even though we’re invoking the method in different files.
Tradeoffs
Restricting the instantiation to just one instance could potentially save a lot of memory space. Instead of having to set up memory for a new instance each time, we only have to set up memory for that one instance, which is referenced throughout the application. However, Singletons are actually considered an anti-pattern, and can (or.. should) be avoided in JavaScript.
In many programming languages, such as Java or C++, it’s not possible to directly create objects the way we can in JavaScript. In those object-oriented programming languages, we need to create a class, which creates an object. That created object has the value of the instance of the class, just like the value of instance
in the JavaScript example.
However, the class implementation shown in the examples above is actually overkill. Since we can directly create objects in JavaScript, we can simply use a regular object to achieve the exact same result. Let’s cover some of the disadvantages of using Singletons!
Using a regular object
Let’s use the same example as we saw previously. However this time, the counter
is simply an object containing:
- a
count
property - an
increment
method that increments the value ofcount
by one - a
decrement
method that decrements the value ofcount
by one
Since objects are passed by reference, both redButton.js
and
blueButton.js
are importing a reference to the same counter
object. Modifying the value of count
in either of these files will modify the value on the counter
, which is visible in both files.
Testing
Testing code that relies on a Singleton can get tricky. Since we can’t create new instances each time, all tests rely on the modification to the global instance of the previous test. The order of the tests matter in this case, and one small modification can lead to an entire test suite failing. After testing, we need to reset the entire instance in order to reset the modifications made by the tests.
Dependency hiding
When importing another module, superCounter.js
in this case, it may not be obvious that module is importing a Singleton. In other files, such as index.js
in this case, we may be importing that module and invoke its methods. This way, we accidentally modify the values in the Singleton. This can lead to unexpected behavior, since multiple instances of the Singleton can be shared throughout the application, which would all get modified as well.
Global behavior
A Singleton instance should be able to get referenced throughout the entire app. Global variables essentially show the same behavior: since global variables are available on the global scope, we can access those variables throughout the application.
Having global variables is generally considered as a bad design decision. Global scope pollution can end up in accidentally overwriting the value of a global variable, which can lead to a lot of unexpected behavior.
In ES2015, creating global variables is fairly uncommon. The new let
and const
keyword prevent developers from accidentally polluting the global scope, by keeping variables declared with these two keywords block-scoped. The new module
system in JavaScript makes creating globally accessible values easier without polluting the global scope, by being able to export
values from a module, and import
those values in other files.
However, the common usecase for a Singleton is to have some sort of global state throughout your application. Having multiple parts of your codebase rely on the same mutable object can lead to unexpected behavior.
Usually, certain parts of the codebase modify the values within global state, whereas others consume that data. The order of execution here is important: we don’t want to accidentally consume data first, when there is no data to consume (yet)! Understanding the data flow when using a global state can get very tricky as your application grows, and dozens of components rely on each other.
State management in React
In React, we often rely on a global state through state management tools such as Redux or React Context instead of using Singletons. Although their global state behavior might seem similar to that of a Singleton, these tools provide a read-only state rather than the mutable state of the Singleton. When using Redux, only pure function reducers can update the state, after a component has sent an action through a dispatcher.
Although the downsides to having a global state don’t magically disappear by using these tools, we can at least make sure that the global state is mutated the way we intend it, since components cannot update the state directly.
References
- Do React Hooks replace Redux - Eric Elliott
- JavaScript Design Patterns: The Singleton - Samier Saeed
- Singleton - Refactoring Guru