Skip to main content


At its core, the Singleton pattern is a design pattern that restricts the instantiation of a class to one single instance. This is useful when exactly one object is needed to coordinate actions across the system. Think of it like having a single control center that manages access to a resource or service throughout your application.

Why Use Singleton?​

  1. Shared Resource Access: It provides a single point of access to a resource or service that's shared across the app, like a database connection or a configuration manager.
  2. Consistency: Ensures that there's always a consistent state, as all parts of your app will use the same instance.
  3. Controlled Access: You can better manage how and when the instance is accessed.

Optimal Use Cases for the Singleton Pattern in Web Development​

Using the Singleton pattern is best suited for scenarios where a single, shared resource or service needs to be managed centrally and accessed consistently throughout the application. It's particularly useful in web development for several specific cases:

1. Configuration Management​

  • Scenario: Managing app-wide settings, such as API keys, environment-specific variables, or feature flags.
  • Benefit: Ensures that all parts of your application use the same configuration settings, maintaining consistency and ease of management.

2. Database Connection Pools​

  • Scenario: Managing a pool of database connections that can be reused across your application.
  • Benefit: Helps in efficiently handling database connections, ensuring that connections are reused and not over-created, which can be costly in terms of resources.

3. Logging​

  • Scenario: Implementing a logging utility to be used throughout your application for debugging and monitoring.
  • Benefit: Centralizes the logging mechanism, allowing uniform logging formats, levels, and optional integration with external logging services.

4. Caching​

  • Scenario: Implementing a cache system (like in-memory caching) to store and reuse frequently accessed data.
  • Benefit: Improves performance by reducing repetitive data fetching or computation, and by ensuring that all parts of the app have up-to-date, synchronized access to the cached data.

5. Service Classes in Web Applications​

  • Scenario: When you have service classes that provide a specific functionality (like payment processing or external API interactions) and don’t need to maintain state individually.
  • Benefit: Simplifies interaction with external services and ensures that these interactions are managed consistently.

6. Hardware Interface Access​

  • Scenario: In scenarios involving hardware interface access, like printer services or GPU management, especially in server-side JavaScript environments.
  • Benefit: Provides a single point of control and coordination for interacting with such hardware resources.


  • Testing: Be aware that Singletons can make unit testing harder due to the shared state and the global access. Mocking dependencies can be more challenging.
  • State Management: Overuse or inappropriate use can lead to issues with state management, as the global nature of a Singleton can lead to unexpected side effects and difficulties in tracking state changes.
  • Scalability: In distributed systems, using a Singleton can become problematic as it contradicts the principles of distributed architecture.

Remember, while the Singleton pattern can be incredibly useful, it should be used judiciously. It's a powerful tool in certain situations but can introduce complexity if not used appropriately in the context of your application's architecture.

Implementation in JavaScript/TypeScript​


Singletion in the Wikipedia

Implementing a Singleton in JavaScript or TypeScript is pretty straightforward. Here’s a basic example in TypeScript:

class Singleton {
private static instance: Singleton;

private constructor() {
// Private constructor to prevent direct construction calls

static getInstance(): Singleton {
if (!Singleton.instance) {
Singleton.instance = new Singleton();
return Singleton.instance;

someMethod() {
// Your method logic here

// Usage
const singletonInstance = Singleton.getInstance();

Points to Consider​

  1. Lazy Instantiation: The Singleton instance isn't created until it's needed, as seen in the getInstance method.
  2. Thread Safety: In multithreaded environments (not a typical concern in standard JavaScript environments, but can be in Node.js or with web workers), you need to ensure that the instance creation is thread-safe.
  3. Global State: While handy, Singletons can lead to issues with global state, which can make testing harder and lead to tightly coupled code.


While the Singleton pattern has its uses, it's also important to be aware of its potential downsides, like making code harder to test and maintain. It’s a powerful tool in your design pattern toolkit, but like any tool, it should be used wisely and in the right context.

Issues with Singletons in Testing​

  1. Global State: Singletons often carry global state, which can lead to tests affecting each other if they're not properly isolated. This is particularly problematic in unit testing, where tests should be independent.

  2. Difficulty in Mocking: Since singletons provide a global access point, it can be challenging to replace them with mock objects for testing purposes. This makes it hard to test components in isolation.

  3. Hidden Dependencies: Singletons can introduce hidden dependencies in your code, making it hard to understand what parts of your system are being used in a given test scenario.

  4. Lifecycle Management: Properly resetting the state of a singleton between tests can be tricky. Without a clear reset, the state may persist from one test to another, leading to unpredictable test results.

Handling Singleton Issues in Testing​

  1. Use Dependency Injection (DI):

    • Why: DI allows you to pass dependencies to objects (instead of using a global instance), making it easier to replace these dependencies with mocks during testing.
    • How: Instead of directly calling the singleton inside your components, pass it as a dependency. This could be done via constructor injection, method injection, or property injection.
  2. Reset State Before Tests:

    • Why: Ensuring a clean slate for each test avoids interference from previous tests.
    • How: Implement a method in your singleton that resets its state, and call this method in the setup phase of your tests.
  3. Use Factories:

    • Why: A factory can provide instances that might be singletons in production but can be unique instances in the testing environment.
    • How: Create a factory that, in the test environment, returns a new instance each time but returns a singleton instance in the production environment.
  4. Wrap the Singleton:

    • Why: Wrapping the singleton in another class or interface can allow you to mock or replace its functionality more easily.
    • How: Create an interface that represents the singleton's functionality, and then have your singleton and a mock implementation use this interface.
  5. Avoid Singleton When Possible:

    • Why: Sometimes the best way to deal with the complications of singletons is to avoid using them unless absolutely necessary.
    • How: Evaluate if a singleton is truly the best design pattern for your use case. Consider other patterns like dependency injection containers or service locators that might offer more flexibility for testing.
  6. Integration Testing:

    • Why: If it's too complex to isolate the singleton, you might want to rely more on integration testing rather than unit testing.
    • How: Create tests that check the integration of components using the actual singleton, rather than attempting to isolate each component.

In summary, while singletons offer certain advantages, they can complicate the testing process. Addressing these challenges typically involves architectural changes like dependency injection, using factories, or avoiding singletons when not necessary. This makes your code more testable and maintainable in the long run.


The Monostate pattern is a variation of the Singleton pattern, which ensures that all instances of a class share the same state. In Singleton, only one instance of a class exists, but in Monostate, multiple instances can exist, yet they share the same state.

Here's a brief overview of the Monostate pattern:

  1. Shared State: Unlike Singleton, where there's a single instance, Monostate allows the creation of multiple instances, but these instances share the same static members. This means that changing the state in one instance will reflect across all instances.

  2. Implementation: It is typically implemented by making all instance fields static. Thus, even though instances are distinct, their fields refer to the same static data.

  3. Use Cases: The Monostate pattern can be useful when you need instances to be in the same state but also need them to be distinct objects, for example, for identity comparison or to use different sets of behaviors (methods) that operate on the same data.

  4. Criticism: This pattern is somewhat controversial as it can introduce hidden global state in an application, which can lead to issues with maintainability and testing.

Here's a basic example in TypeScript, demonstrating the Monostate pattern:

class MonoState {
private static sharedState: any = {};

set(property: string, value: any) {
MonoState.sharedState[property] = value;

get(property: string): any {
return MonoState.sharedState[property];

// Usage
let obj1 = new MonoState();
let obj2 = new MonoState();

obj1.set("data", "value");
console.log(obj2.get("data")); // Outputs: 'value'

In this example, obj1 and obj2 are different instances of the MonoState class, but they share the same state through the static sharedState property. Changing the state in obj1 will reflect in obj2.

Tips for Fullstack Developers:​

  • When using design patterns like Monostate, always consider the implications on the application's architecture, especially regarding maintainability and testability.
  • In a React context, shared state management is often handled more effectively using libraries like Redux or React's own Context API, rather than applying traditional patterns like Monostate.
  • Keep in mind the principles of clean code and simplicity. Sometimes, using a design pattern can overcomplicate a solution that could be achieved more straightforwardly.

When is preferred over Singleton​

The Monostate pattern might be preferred over the Singleton pattern in certain scenarios due to its specific characteristics. Here are a few situations where Monostate could be more suitable:

  1. Polymorphism Support: Unlike Singleton, Monostate classes can be inherited and extended. This allows for polymorphism, where different subclasses can share the same state but have different behaviors. If you need both shared state and polymorphism, Monostate is a better choice.

  2. Testing and Mocking: Testing classes that use the Monostate pattern can be easier compared to Singleton. In Singleton, the global access to the single instance can make it hard to replace with a mock or a stub during testing. Monostate, by allowing multiple instances, can be easier to work with in tests, as each test can work with its own instance of the class.

  3. Avoiding Global State: While both patterns essentially share global state, Monostate does it less explicitly. In scenarios where you want to avoid the appearance of a global instance (as in Singleton), Monostate provides a way to have multiple instances that internally share the same state.

  4. Ease of Use with Frameworks: Some frameworks or libraries might not work well with the Singleton pattern due to their instantiation mechanisms. For example, in frameworks that rely heavily on dependency injection, Singletons can be tricky to implement. Monostate, on the other hand, doesn't interfere with how instances are created, making it more compatible with such frameworks.

  5. Serialization and Deserialization: If your application involves serializing and deserializing objects, Singletons can pose challenges since the process might inadvertently create multiple instances. Monostate, with its instance-independent state, avoids this issue.

However, it's important to note that both Singleton and Monostate share the downside of maintaining a global state, which can lead to issues with maintainability, scalability, and testing. In modern development practices, especially in full-stack development involving frameworks like React, state management is often handled through specific state management libraries (like Redux) or context APIs, which provide more control and flexibility.

Tips for Fullstack Developers:​

  • Evaluate the specific needs of your application before choosing a design pattern. Consider factors like scalability, maintainability, and testability.
  • In the context of React development, prefer using context or state management libraries for shared state rather than relying on patterns like Singleton or Monostate, as they integrate better with the React ecosystem.
  • Always consider the implications of global state in your application, as it can lead to tightly coupled components and make your application harder to debug and maintain.

Functional Approach​

In functional programming, we often avoid mutable state and the Singleton pattern as it's commonly implemented (with a class and a private constructor). However, we can achieve a similar effect using closures and modules, which aligns more with FP principles.

Here's how you might create a "singleton-like" structure in TypeScript using a closure to encapsulate state:

const createSingletonService = (() => {
let instance: { someData: string } | null = null;

return () => {
if (instance === null) {
// Initialize the instance only once
instance = { someData: 'Initial Data' };
return instance;

// Usage
const myService = createSingletonService();
console.log(myService.someData); // 'Initial Data'

const anotherService = createSingletonService();
console.log(anotherService === myService); // true


  1. Closure: The createSingletonService function uses a closure to encapsulate the instance. This instance is kept private and is only accessible through the closure.
  2. Lazy Initialization: The instance is only created the first time the createSingletonService is called.
  3. Immutability: While the instance is mutable within the closure, from an external perspective, it's effectively immutable. Once created, the same instance is always returned.

Functional Approach​

  • In functional programming, we generally favor immutability and pure functions. This example, while it encapsulates state (which is not purely functional), does so in a controlled manner that minimizes side effects.
  • This pattern can be useful in TypeScript when you need to ensure that only one instance of a particular shape or structure exists in your application, similar to how you might use a Singleton in a more object-oriented context.

Remember, this approach provides a singleton-like behavior in a functional style, but it's not a Singleton in the classical object-oriented sense. It's a way to balance functional programming principles with the need for a single, consistent instance in your application.

Singletons can pose several challenges when it comes to testing, especially in a web development context. Here's a breakdown of the issues and how you can address them: