Singleton pattern is the most pervasive pattern in the Spring containerization approach. If we look at that in terms of architectural primitives - they form a blackboard graph of objects, to which every thread can read and write. They do the dramatic act of synchronizing between multiple threads. The very reason why multiple threads need to synchronize is because there are always resources that underlie a computational program, over which contention might occur. Consider what is called a 'last seat problem'. A flight is being booked, but there are multiple ways to do it. For simplicity lets assume that the data about the flight occupancy is stored in a flat file rather than a database. Now, if there are two threads, each functionally different (i.e represented by different endpoints in the webapp) and let one of these threads A, be the thread which a prospective passenger uses to make a booking and the other one B is which a flight manager uses to close the booking - virtually closing the boarding door. Then, if these threads do not use singleton, the flight object would be detached from the real resource out-there, which we say not the actual aeroplane but the entry in the flat file. The A thread would have reference to an object, while the passenger is still fighting a dilemma whether to fly or not and then finally when he makes up his mind, the B thread would already have closed the door. But the object referenced by the A thread would still show one more seat to go. Now, cutting out the RDBMS due to our initial assumption, the system would write a ticket for the passenger and issue it to him eventhough the boarding is closed. Now, in a singleton implementation, the moment the theread B accesses the system, the universal object Flight is updated with status closed. Hence, if the passenger finally makes up his mind and clicks confirm, he would get an error right away. All this would not have been possible without the singleton. Hence, singleton allows you to stay close to the resources and avoids thread contention.

共享资源。特别是在PHP中，数据库类、模板类和全局变量库类。所有这些都必须由代码中使用的所有模块/类共享。

这是一个真正的对象使用——>模板类包含正在构建的页面模板，它被添加到页面输出的模块塑造、添加、更改。它必须保持为单个实例，这样才能实现这一点，数据库也是如此。使用共享数据库单例，所有模块的类都可以访问查询，并且无需重新运行查询。

全局变量仓库单例为您提供了一个全局的、可靠的、易于使用的变量仓库。它极大地整理了你的代码。想象一下，所有配置值都在一个单例数组中，如下所示:

美元gb - > problem[’hostname’]

或者将所有的语言值放在一个数组中，比如:

gb - >朗(“ENTER_USER”)

在运行页面代码的最后，你会得到，比如说，一个现在成熟的:

美元的模板

Singleton，一个$gb的Singleton，其中有lang数组用于替换，所有输出都已加载并准备就绪。您只需将它们替换为现在在成熟模板对象的页面值中呈现的键，然后将其提供给用户。

这样做的最大好处是你可以对任何东西做任何你喜欢的后期处理。您可以将所有语言值输送到谷歌translate或其他翻译服务，并将它们返回，并将它们替换到它们的位置，例如，已翻译。或者，您可以根据需要替换页面结构或内容字符串。

一个实例可以在Test::Builder中找到，这个类支持几乎所有现代Perl测试模块。Builder单例存储并代理测试流程的状态和历史记录(历史测试结果，计算运行的测试次数)以及测试输出流向等内容。这些都是协调由不同作者编写的多个测试模块以在单个测试脚本中一起工作所必需的。

The history of Test::Builder's singleton is educational. Calling new() always gives you the same object. First, all the data was stored as class variables with nothing in the object itself. This worked until I wanted to test Test::Builder with itself. Then I needed two Test::Builder objects, one setup as a dummy, to capture and test its behavior and output, and one to be the real test object. At that point Test::Builder was refactored into a real object. The singleton object was stored as class data, and new() would always return it. create() was added to make a fresh object and enable testing.

Currently, users are wanting to change some behaviors of Test::Builder in their own module, but leave others alone, while the test history remains in common across all testing modules. What's happening now is the monolithic Test::Builder object is being broken down into smaller pieces (history, output, format...) with a Test::Builder instance collecting them together. Now Test::Builder no longer has to be a singleton. Its components, like history, can be. This pushes the inflexible necessity of a singleton down a level. It gives more flexibility to the user to mix-and-match pieces. The smaller singleton objects can now just store data, with their containing objects deciding how to use it. It even allows a non-Test::Builder class to play along by using the Test::Builder history and output singletons.

似乎在数据的协调和行为的灵活性之间存在着一种推拉关系，这种关系可以通过在共享数据周围使用尽可能少的行为来缓解，以确保数据的完整性。

在我寻求真相的过程中，我发现实际上很少有“可接受的”理由使用Singleton。

在互联网上反复出现的一个原因是“日志记录”类(你提到过)。在这种情况下，可以使用Singleton来代替类的单个实例，因为日志类通常需要被项目中的每个类反复使用，令人作呕。如果每个类都使用这个日志类，依赖注入就变得很麻烦。

日志记录是“可接受的”单例的一个特定示例，因为它不会影响代码的执行。禁用日志记录，代码执行保持不变。启用它，一样。Misko在《单例的根本原因》中这样说:“这里的信息单向流动:从应用程序流向记录器。即使记录器是全局状态，由于没有信息从记录器流入应用程序，记录器也是可以接受的。”

我相信还有其他合理的原因。Alex Miller在“我讨厌的模式”中谈到，服务定位器和客户端UI也可能是“可接受的”选择。

阅读更多在Singleton我爱你，但你让我失望。

管理到数据库的连接(或连接池)。

我还会使用它来检索和存储外部配置文件中的信息。

当需要管理共享资源时，可以使用单例。例如打印机假脱机程序。您的应用程序应该只有一个假脱机程序实例，以避免对相同资源的请求冲突。

或者数据库连接或者文件管理器等等。