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.

读取应该只在启动时读取的配置文件，并将它们封装在Singleton中。

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)。

我不认为Singleton的场景与记录器、打印机池或任何示例相关。

单例决策的目的是优化硬件资源，而不是只有一个地方来控制任何记录器或打印机池

我个人认为单例应该在以下情况下使用:

我们正在谈论的对象总是以相同的方式实例化(即任何共享资源，如Logger或打印机池) 它被多次调用(这可以是100或1000，这与您的资源有关) 你的硬件资源是有限的(例如内存、处理能力等)。

如果你有大量的内存空间和处理能力，我认为没有必要使用单例。

Singleton将确保你只有一个实例，并且是惰性加载的，那么如果它被调用一百万次，你就只创建了一个对象。

正如大家所说，共享资源——特别是不能处理并发访问的资源。

我所见过的一个具体例子是Lucene搜索索引写入器。

因此，我正在为学校阅读单例模式，教授们策划了一份关于该主题的当前观点和最佳实践的列表。似乎有一个共识，即如果构建时不向代码中添加任何内容，则可以使用单例。如果您使单例使用可以被开启和关闭，并且除了工作负载之外没有其他副作用，那么使用这种设计模式是安全的，也是可取的。