我认为如果你的应用程序有多个层次，如表示，领域和模型。Singleton是横切层的一个很好的候选者。并为系统各层提供服务。

从本质上讲，单例包装了一个服务，例如日志记录、分析，并将其提供给系统中的其他层。

是的，单例需要遵循单一责任原则。

将特定的基础设施关注点配置为单例或全局变量是非常实用的。我最喜欢的例子是依赖注入框架，它使用单例作为框架的连接点。

在这种情况下，您将依赖于基础设施来简化库的使用并避免不必要的复杂性。

I use it for an object encapsulating command-line parameters when dealing with pluggable modules. The main program doesn't know what the command-line parameters are for modules that get loaded (and doesn't always even know what modules are being loaded). e.g., main loads A, which doesn't need any parameters itself (so why it should take an extra pointer / reference / whatever, I'm not sure - looks like pollution), then loads modules X, Y, and Z. Two of these, say X and Z, need (or accept) parameters, so they call back to the command-line singleton to tell it what parameters to accept, and the at runtime they call back to find out if the user actually has specified any of them.

在很多方面，处理CGI参数的单例方式与你每次查询只使用一个进程类似(其他mod_*方法不这样做，所以这很糟糕——因此这个参数说你不应该在mod_cgi世界中使用单例，以防你移植到mod_perl或其他世界)。

首先，让我们区分一下单对象和单对象。后者是前者的许多可能实现之一。而且单对象的问题与单例的问题是不同的。单对象本身并不坏，有时是做事情的唯一方法。简而言之:

单对象-我只需要程序中对象的一个实例 Singleton -创建一个带有静态字段的类。添加一个返回此字段的静态方法。在第一次调用时惰性地实例化一个字段。总是返回相同的对象。

public class Singleton {
    private static Singleton instance;

    private Singleton() {}

    public static Singleton instance() {
        if (instance == null) {
            instance = new Singleton();
        }
        return instance;
    }
}

如您所见，规范形式的“单例”模式对测试不是很友好。不过，这个问题很容易解决:只要让Singleton实现一个接口。让我们称它为“可测试单例”:)

public class Singleton implements ISingleton {
    private static Singleton instance;

    private Singleton() {}

    public static ISingleton instance() {
        if (instance == null) {
            instance = new Singleton();
        }
        return instance;
    }
}

现在我们可以模拟Singleton了，因为我们通过接口来使用它。其中一项索赔消失了。让我们看看是否可以去掉另一个声明-共享全局状态。

如果我们剥离单例模式，它的核心是惰性初始化:

public static ISingleton instance() {
    if (instance == null) {
        instance = new Singleton();
    }
    return instance;
}

这就是它存在的全部原因。这就是单对象模式。我们把它拿走，放到工厂方法中，例如:

public class SingletonFactory {
    private static ISingleton instance;

    // Knock-knock. Single Object here
    public static ISingleton simpleSingleton() {
        if (instance == null) {
            instance = new Singleton();
        }
        return instance;
    }
}

与我们的可测试单例有什么不同?没有，因为这是单对象模式的本质——不管你是把它实现为单例、工厂方法还是服务定位器。你仍然有一些共享的全局状态。如果从多个线程访问它，这可能会成为一个问题。您将不得不使simpleSingleton()同步并处理所有多线程问题。

再说一遍:无论你选择什么方法，你都必须付出单一对象的代价。使用依赖注入容器只是将复杂性转移到框架，它将不得不处理单对象的固有问题。

回顾:

Most of people who mention Singleton mean Single Object One of the popular ways to implement it is the Singleton pattern It has its flaws that can be mitigated However, the most of Singleton's complexity roots in Single Object's complexity Regardless of how you instantiate your Single Object, it's still there, be it a Service Locator, a Factory Method or something else You can shift the complexity to a DI container which is (hopefully) well-tested Sometimes using the DI container is cumbersome - imagine injecting a LOGGER to every class

单例候选人必须满足三个要求:

控制对共享资源的并发访问。 将从系统的多个不同部分请求对资源的访问。 只能有一个对象。

如果你提议的单例只有其中的一两个需求，那么重新设计几乎总是正确的选择。

例如，打印机假脱机程序不太可能从多个位置(打印菜单)调用，因此可以使用互斥来解决并发访问问题。

简单的日志记录器是可能有效的单例的最明显的例子，但这可能会在更复杂的日志记录方案中发生变化。

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.