# 10 Object Oriented Design Principles Java Programmer should know

Object Oriented Design Principles are core of OOP programming, but I have seen most of the Java programmers chasing design patterns like Singleton pattern, Decorator pattern or Observer pattern, and not putting enough attention on learning Object oriented analysis and design. It’s important to learn basics of Object oriented programming like Abstraction, Encapsulation, Polymorphism and Inheritance. But, at the same time, it’s equally important to know object oriented design principles, to create clean and modular design. I have regularly seen Java programmers and developers of various experience level, who either doesn’t heard about these OOP and SOLID design principle, or simply doesn’t know what benefits a particular design principle offers, or how to apply these design principle in coding.

Bottom line is, always strive for highly cohesive and loosely couple solution, code or design. Looking open source code from Apache and Sun are good examples of learning Java and OOPS design principles. They show us,  how design principles should be used in coding and Java programs. Java Development Kit follows several design principle like Factory Pattern in BorderFactory class,  Singleton pattern in Runtime class, Decorator pattern on various java.io classes. By the way if you really interested more on Java coding practices then read Effective Java by Joshua Bloch , a gem by the guy who wrote Java Collection API.

If you are interested in learning object oriented principles and patterns, then you can look at my another personal favorite Head First Object Oriented Analysis and Design. This an excellent book and probably the best material available in object oriented analysis and design, but it often shadowed by its more popular cousin Head First Design Pattern by Eric Freeman. Later is more about how these principle comes together to create pattern you can use directly to solve known problems. These books helps a lot to write better code, taking full advantage of various Object oriented and SOLID design principles.

Though best way of learning any design principle or pattern is real world example and understanding the consequences of violating that design principle, subject of this article is Introducing Object oriented design principles for Java Programmers, who are either not exposed to it or in learning phase. I personally think each of these OOPS and SOLID design principle need an article to explain them clearly, and I will definitely try to do that here, but for now just get yourself ready for quick bike ride on design principle town 🙂

DRY (Don’t repeat yourself)

Our first object oriented design principle is DRY, as name suggest DRY (don’t repeat yourself) means don’t write duplicate code, instead use Abstraction to abstract common things in one place. If you have block of code in more than two place consider making it a separate method, or if you use a hard-coded value more than one time make them public final constant. Benefit of this Object oriented design principle is in maintenance. It’s important  not to abuse it, duplication is not for code, but for functionality . It means, if you used common code to validate OrderID and SSN it doesn’t mean they are same or they will remain same in future. By using common code for two different functionality or thing you closely couple them forever and when your OrderID changes its format , your SSN validation code will break. So beware of such coupling and just don’t combine anything which uses similar code but are not related.

## Encapsulate What Changes

Only one thing is constant in software field and that is “Change”, So encapsulate the code you expect or suspect to be changed in future. Benefit of this OOPS Design principle is that Its easy to test and maintain proper encapsulated code. If you are coding in Java then follow principle of making variable and methods private by default and increasing access step by step e.g. from private to protected and not public. Several of design pattern in Java uses Encapsulation, Factory design pattern is one example of Encapsulation which encapsulate object creation code and provides flexibility to introduce new product later with no impact on existing code.

## Open Closed Design Principle

Classes, methods or functions should be Open for extension (new functionality) and Closed for modification. This is another beautiful SOLID design principle, which prevents some-one from changing already tried and tested code. Ideally if you are adding new functionality only than your code should be tested and that’s the goal of Open Closed Design principle. By the way, Open Closed principle is “O” from SOLID acronym.

## Single Responsibility Principle (SRP)

Single Responsibility Principle is another SOLID design principle, and represent  “S” on SOLID acronym. As per SRP, there should not be more than one reason for a class to change, or a class should always handle single functionality. If you put more than one functionality in one Class in Java  it introduce coupling between two functionality and even if you change one functionality there is chance you broke coupled functionality,  which require another round of testing to avoid any surprise on production environment.

## Dependency Injection or Inversion principle

Don’t ask for dependency it will be provided to you by framework. This has been very well implemented in Spring framework, beauty of this design principle is that any class which is injected by DI framework is easy to test with mock object and easier to maintain because object creation code is centralized in framework and client code is not littered with that.There are multiple ways to  implemented Dependency injection like using  byte code instrumentation which some AOP (Aspect Oriented programming) framework like AspectJ does or by using proxies just like used in Spring. See this example of IOC and DI design pattern to learn more about this SOLID design principle. It represent “D” on SOLID acronym.

## Favor Composition over Inheritance

Always favor composition over inheritance ,if possible. Some of you may argue this, but I found that Composition is lot more flexible than Inheritance. Composition allows to change behavior of a class at run-time by setting property during run-time and by using Interfaces to compose a class we use polymorphism which provides flexibility of to replace with better implementation any time. Even Effective Java advise to favor composition over inheritance. See here to learn more about why you Composition is better than Inheritance for reusing code and functionality.

## Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP)

According to Liskov Substitution Principle, Subtypes must be substitutable for super type i.e. methods or functions which uses super class type must be able to work with object of sub class without any issue”. LSP is closely related to Single responsibility principle and Interface Segregation Principle. If a class has more functionality than subclass might not support some of the functionality ,and does violated LSP. In order to follow LSP SOLID design principle, derived class or sub class must enhance functionality, but not reduce them. LSP represent  “L” on SOLID acronym.

## Interface Segregation principle (ISP)

Interface Segregation Principle stats that, a client should not implement an interface, if it doesn’t use that. This happens mostly when one interface contains more than one functionality, and client only need one functionality and not other.Interface design is tricky job because once you release your interface you can not change it without breaking all implementation. Another benefit of this design principle in Java is, interface has disadvantage to implement all method before any class can use it so having single functionality means less method to implement.

## Programming for Interface not implementation

Always program for interface and not for implementation this will lead to flexible code which can work with any new implementation of interface. So use interface type on variables, return types of method or argument type of methods in Java. This has been advised by many Java programmer including in Effective Java and Head First design pattern book.

## Delegation principle

Don’t do all stuff  by yourself,  delegate it to respective class. Classical example of delegation design principle is equals() and hashCode() method in Java. In order to compare two object for equality we ask class itself to do comparison instead of Client class doing that check. Benefit of this design principle is no duplication of code and pretty easy to modify behavior.
Here is nice summary of all these OOP design principles :

All these object oriented design principle helps you write flexible and better code by striving high cohesion and low coupling. Theory is first step, but what is most important is to develop ability to find out when to apply these design principle. Find out, whether we are violating any design principle and compromising flexibility of code, but again as nothing is perfect in this world, don’t always try to solve problem with design patterns and design principle they are mostly for large enterprise project which has longer maintenance cycle.

# 9 Anti-Patterns Every Programmer Should Be Aware Of

A healthy dose of self-criticism is fundamental to professional and personal growth. When it comes to programming, this sense of self-criticism requires the ability to detect unproductive or counter-productive patterns in designs, code, processes, and behaviour. This is why a knowledge of anti-patterns is very useful for any programmer. This article is a discussion of anti-patterns that I have found to be recurring, ordered roughly based on how often I have come across them, and how long it took to undo the damage they caused.

Some of the anti-patterns discussed have elements in common with cognitive biases, or are directly caused by them. Links to relevant cognitive biases are provided as we go along in the article. Wikipedia also has a nice list of cognitive biases for your reference.

And before starting, let’s remember that dogmatic thinking stunts growth and innovation so consider the list as a set of guidelines and not written-in-stone rules. And if I missed anything that you consider to be important, feel free to comment below!

## 1   Premature Optimization

We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil. Yet we should not pass up our opportunities in that critical 3%.

Although never is often better than *right* now.

### What is it?

Optimizing before you have enough information to make educated conclusions about where and how to do the optimization.

It is very difficult to know exactly what will be the bottleneck in practice. Attempting to optimize prior to having empirical data is likely to end up increasing code complexity and room for bugs with negligible improvements.

### How to avoid it

Prioritize writing clean and readable code that works first, using known and tested algorithms and tools. Use profiling tools when needed to find bottlenecks and optimize the priorities. Rely on measurements and not guesses and speculation.

### Examples and signs

Caching before profiling to find the bottlenecks. Using complicated and unproven “heuristics” instead of a known mathematically correct algorithm. Choosing a new and untested experimental web framework that can theoretically reduce request latency under heavy loads while you are in early stages and your servers are idle most of the time.

### The tricky part

The tricky part is knowing when the optimization is premature. It’s important to plan in advance for growth. Choosing designs and platforms that will allow for easy optimization and growth is key here. It’s also possible to use “premature optimization” as an excuse to justify writing bad code. Example: writing an O(n2) algorithm to solve a problem when a simpler, mathematically correct, O(n) algorithm exists, simply because the simpler algorithm is harder to understand.

### tl;dr

Profile before optimizing. Avoid trading simplicity for efficiency until it is needed, backed by empirical evidence.

## 2   Bikeshedding

Every once in a while we’d interrupt that to discuss the typography and the color of the cover. And after each discussion, we were asked to vote. I thought it would be most efficient to vote for the same color we had decided on in the meeting before, but it turned out I was always in the minority! We finally chose red. (It came out blue.)

### What is it?

Tendency to spend excessive amounts of time debating and deciding on trivial and often subjective issues.

It’s a waste of time. Poul-Henning Kamp goes into depth in an excellent email here.

### How to avoid it

Encourage team members to be aware of this tendency, and to prioritize reaching a decision (vote, flip a coin, etc. if you have to) when you notice it. Consider A/B testing later to revisit the decision, when it is meaningful to do so (e.g. deciding between two different UI designs), instead of further internal debating.

### Examples and signs

Spending hours or days debating over what background color to use in your app, or whether to put a button on the left or the right of the UI, or to use tabs instead of spaces for indentation in your code base.

### The tricky part

Bikeshedding is easier to notice and prevent in my opinion than premature optimization. Just try to be aware of the amount of time spent on making a decision and contrast that with how trivial the issue is, and intervene if necessary.

### tl;dr

Avoid spending too much time on trivial decisions.

## 3   Analysis Paralysis

Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel […] these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.

Now is better than never.

### What is it?

Over-analyzing to the point that it prevents action and progress.

Over-analyzing can slow down or stop progress entirely. In the extreme cases, the results of the analysis can become obsolete by the time they are done, or worse, the project might never leave the analysis phase. It is also easy to assume that more information will help decisions when the decision is a difficult one to make ― see information bias and validity bias.

### How to avoid it

Again, awareness helps. Emphasize iterations and improvements. Each iteration will provide more feedback with more data points that can be used for more meaningful analysis. Without the new data points, more analysis will become more and more speculative.

### Examples and signs

Spending months or even years deciding on a project’s requirements, a new UI, or a database design.

### The tricky part

It can be tricky to know when to move from planning, requirement gathering and design, to implementation and testing.

### tl;dr

Prefer iterating to over-analyzing and speculation.

## 4   God Class

Simple is better than complex.

### What is it?

Classes that control many other classes and have many dependencies and lots of responsibilities.

God classes tend to grow to the point of becoming maintenance nightmares ― because they violate the single-responsibility principle, they are hard to unit-test, debug, and document.

### How to avoid it

Avoid having classes turn into God classes by breaking up the responsibilities into smaller classes with a single clearly-defined, unit-tested, and documented responsibility. Also see “Fear of Adding Classes” below.

### Examples and signs

Look for class names containing “manager”, “controller”, “driver”, “system”, or “engine”. Be suspicious of classes that import or depend on many other classes, control too many other classes, or have many methods performing unrelated tasks.

God classes know about too many classes and/or control too many.

### The tricky part

As projects age and requirements and the number of engineers grow, small and well-intentioned classes turn into God classes slowly. Refactoring such classes can become a significant task.

### tl;dr

Avoid large classes with too many responsibilities and dependencies.

## 5   Fear of Adding Classes

Sparse is better than dense.

### What is it?

Belief that more classes necessarily make designs more complicated, leading to a fear of adding more classes or breaking large classes into several smaller classes.

Adding classes can help reduce complexity significantly. Picture a big tangled ball of yarns. When untangled, you will have several separated yarns instead. Similarly, several simple, easy-to-maintain and easy-to-document classes are much preferable to a single large and complex class with many responsibilities (see the God Class anti-pattern above).

### How to avoid it

Be aware of when additional classes can simplify the design and decouple unnecessarily coupled parts of your code.

### Examples and signs

As an easy example consider the following:

class Shape:
def __init__(self, shape_type, *args):
self.shape_type = shape_type
self.args = args

def draw(self):
if self.shape_type == "circle":
center = self.args[0]
# Draw a circle...
elif self.shape_type == "rectangle":
pos = self.args[0]
width = self.args[1]
height = self.args[2]
# Draw rectangle...


Now compare it with the following:

class Shape:
def draw(self):
raise NotImplemented("Subclasses of Shape should implement method 'draw'.")

class Circle(Shape):
self.center = center

def draw(self):
# Draw a circle...

class Rectangle(Shape):
def __init__(self, pos, width, height):
self.pos = pos
self.width = width
self.height = height

def draw(self):
# Draw a rectangle...


Of course, this is an obvious example, but it illustrates the point: larger classes with conditional or complicated logic in them can, and often should, be broken down into simpler classes. The resulting code will have more classes but will be simpler.

### The tricky part

Adding classes is not a magic bullet. Simplifying the design by breaking up large classes requires thoughtful analysis of the responsibilities and requirements.

### tl;dr

More classes are not necessarily a sign of bad design.

## 6   Inner-platform Effect

Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.

Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp.

### What is it?

The tendency for complex software systems to re-implement features of the platform they run in or the programming language they are implemented in, usually poorly.

Platform-level tasks such as job scheduling and disk cache buffers are not easy to get right. Poorly designed solutions are prone to introduce bottlenecks and bugs, especially as the system scales up. And recreating alternative language constructs to achieve what is already possible in the language leads to difficult to read code and a steeper learning curve for anyone new to the code base. It can also limit the usefulness of refactoring and code analysis tools.

### How to avoid it

Learn to use the platform or features provided by your OS or platform instead. Avoid the temptation to create language constructs that rival existing constructs (especially if it’s because you are not used to a new language and miss your old language’s features).

### Examples and signs

Using your MySQL database as a job queue. Reimplementing your own disk buffer cache mechanism instead of relying on your OS’s. Writing a task scheduler for your web-server in PHP. Defining macros in C to allow for Python-like language constructs.

### The tricky part

In very rare cases, it might be necessary re-implement parts of the platform (JVM, Firefox, Chrome, etc.).

## 7   Magic Numbers and Strings

Explicit is better than implicit.

### What is it?

Using unnamed numbers or string literals instead of named constants in code.

The main problem is that the semantics of the number or string literal is partially or completely hidden without a descriptive name or another form of annotation. This makes understanding the code harder, and if it becomes necessary to change the constant, search and replace or other refactoring tools can introduce subtle bugs. Consider the following piece of code:

def create_main_window():
window = Window(600, 600)
# etc...


What are the two numbers there? Assume the first is window width and the second in window height. If it ever becomes necessary to change the width to 800 instead, a search and replace would be dangerous since it would change the height in this case too, and perhaps other occurrences of the number 600 in the code base.

String literals might seem less prone to these issues but having unnamed string literals in code makes internationalization harder, and can introduce similar issues to do with instances of the same literal having different semantics. For example, homonyms in English can cause a similar issue with search and replace; consider two occurrences of “point”, one in which it refers to a noun (as in “she has a point”) and the other as a verb (as in “to point out the differences…”). Replacing such string literals with a string retrieval mechanism that allows you to clearly indicate the semantics can help distinguish these two cases, and will also come in handy when you send the strings for translation.

### How to avoid it

Use named constants, resource retrieval methods, or annotations.

### Examples and signs

Simple example is shown above. This particular anti-pattern is very easy to detect (except for a few tricky cases mentioned below.)

### The tricky part

There is a narrow grey area where it can be hard to tell if certain numbers are magic numbers or not. For example the number 0 for languages with zero-based indexing. Other examples are use of 100 to calculate percentages, 2 to check for parity, etc.

### tl;dr

Avoid having unexplained and unnamed numbers and string literals in code.

## 8   Management by Numbers

Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring aircraft building progress by weight.

### What is it?

Strict reliance on numbers for decision making.

Numbers are great. The main strategy to avoid the first two anti-patterns mentioned in this article (premature optimization and bikeshedding) was to profile or do A/B testing to get some measurements that can help you optimize or decide based on numbers instead of speculating. However, blind reliance on numbers can be dangerous. For example, numbers tend to outlive the models in which they were meaningful, or the models become outdated and no longer accurately represent reality. This can lead to poor decisions, especially if they are fully automated ― see automation bias.

Another issue with reliance on numbers for determining (and not merely informing) decisions is that the measurement processes can be manipulated over time to achieve the desired numbers instead ― see observer-expectancy effect. Grade inflation is an example of this. The HBO show The Wire (which, by the way, if you haven’t seen, you must!) does an excellent job of portraying this issue of reliance on numbers, by showing how the police department and later the education system have replaced meaningful goals with a game of numbers. Or if you prefer charts, the following one showing the distribution of scores on a test with a passing score of 30%, illustrates the point perfectly.

### How to avoid it

Use measurements and numbers wisely, not blindly.

### Examples and signs

Using only lines of code, number of commits, etc. to judge the effectiveness of programmers. Measuring employee contribution by the numbers of hours they spend at their desks.

### The tricky part

The larger the scale of operations, the higher the number of decisions that will need to be made, and this means automation and blind reliance on numbers for decisions begins to creep into the processes.

### tl;dr

Use numbers to inform your decisions, not determine them.

## 9   Useless (Poltergeist) Classes

It seems that perfection is attained, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away.

### What is it?

Useless classes with no real responsibility of their own, often used to just invoke methods in another class or add an unneeded layer of abstraction.

Poltergeist classes add complexity, extra code to maintain and test, and make the code less readable—the reader first needs to realize what the poltergeist does, which is often almost nothing, and then train herself to mentally replace uses of the poltergeist with the class that actually handles the responsibility.

### How to avoid it

Don’t write useless classes, or refactor to get rid of them. Jack Diederich has a great talk titled Stop Writing Classes that is related to this anti-pattern.

### Examples and signs

A couple of years ago, while working on my master’s degree, I was a teaching assistant for a first-year Java programming course. For one of the labs, I was given the lab material which was to be on the topic of stacks and using linked lists to implement them. I was also given the reference “solution”. This is the solution Java file I was given, almost verbatim (I removed the comments to save some space):

import java.util.EmptyStackException;

public class LabStack<T> {

public LabStack() {
}

public boolean empty() {
return list.isEmpty();
}

public T peek() throws EmptyStackException {
if (list.isEmpty()) {
throw new EmptyStackException();
}
return list.peek();
}

public T pop() throws EmptyStackException {
if (list.isEmpty()) {
throw new EmptyStackException();
}
return list.pop();
}

public void push(T element) {
list.push(element);
}

public int size() {
return list.size();
}

public void makeEmpty() {
list.clear();
}

public String toString() {
return list.toString();
}
}


You can only imagine my confusion looking at the reference solution, trying to figure what the point of the LabStack class was, and what the students were supposed to learn from the utterly pointless exercise of writing it. In case it’s not painfully obvious what’s wrong with the class, it’s that it does absolutely nothing! It simply passes calls through to the LinkedList object it instantiates. The class changes the names of a couple of methods (e.g. makeEmpty instead of the commonly used clear), which will only lead to user confusion. The error checking logic is completely unnecessary since the methods in LinkedListalready do the same (but throw a different exception, NoSuchElementException, yet another possible source of confusion). To this day, I can’t imagine what was going through the authors’ minds when they came up with this lab material. Anytime you see classes that do anything similar to the above, reconsider whether they are really needed or not.

Update (May 23rd, 2015): There were interesting discussions over whether the LabStack class example above is a good example or not on Hacker News as well below in the comments. To clarify, I picked this class as a simple example for two reasons: firstly, in the context of teaching students about stacks, it is (almost) completely useless; and secondly, it adds unnecessary and duplicated code with the error-handling code that is already handled by LinkedList. I would agree that in other contexts, such classes can be useful but even in those cases, duplicating the error checking and throwing a semi-deprecated exception instead of the standard one and renaming methods to less-commonly-used names would be bad practice.

### The tricky part

The advice here at first glance looks to be in direct contradiction of the advice in “Fear of Adding Classes”. It’s important to know when classes perform a valuable role and simplify the design, instead of uselessly increasing complexity with no added benefit.

### tl;dr

Avoid classes with no real responsibility.

# What is Double-checked locking in java?

In software engineering, double-checked locking (also known as “double-checked locking optimization”[1]) is a software design pattern used to reduce the overhead of acquiring a lock by first testing the locking criterion (the “lock hint”) without actually acquiring the lock. Only if the locking criterion check indicates that locking is required does the actual locking logic proceed.

The pattern, when implemented in some language/hardware combinations, can be unsafe. At times, it can be considered an anti-pattern.[2]

It is typically used to reduce locking overhead when implementing “lazy initialization” in a multi-threaded environment, especially as part of the Singleton pattern. Lazy initialization avoids initializing a value until the first time it is accessed.

Consider, for example, this code segment in the Java programming language as given by [2] (as well as all other Java code segments):

// Single-threaded version
class Foo {
private Helper helper;
public Helper getHelper() {
if (helper == null) {
helper = new Helper();
}
return helper;
}

// other functions and members...
}


The problem is that this does not work when using multiple threads. A lock must be obtained in case two threads call getHelper() simultaneously. Otherwise, either they may both try to create the object at the same time, or one may wind up getting a reference to an incompletely initialized object.

The lock is obtained by expensive synchronizing, as is shown in the following example.

// Correct but possibly expensive multithreaded version
class Foo {
private Helper helper;
public synchronized Helper getHelper() {
if (helper == null) {
helper = new Helper();
}
return helper;
}

// other functions and members...
}


However, the first call to getHelper() will create the object and only the few threads trying to access it during that time need to be synchronized; after that all calls just get a reference to the member variable. Since synchronizing a method could in some extreme cases decrease performance by a factor of 100 or higher,[5] the overhead of acquiring and releasing a lock every time this method is called seems unnecessary: once the initialization has been completed, acquiring and releasing the locks would appear unnecessary. Many programmers have attempted to optimize this situation in the following manner:

1. Check that the variable is initialized (without obtaining the lock). If it is initialized, return it immediately.
2. Obtain the lock.
3. Double-check whether the variable has already been initialized: if another thread acquired the lock first, it may have already done the initialization. If so, return the initialized variable.
4. Otherwise, initialize and return the variable.
// Broken multithreaded version
// "Double-Checked Locking" idiom
class Foo {
private Helper helper;
public Helper getHelper() {
if (helper == null) {
synchronized(this) {
if (helper == null) {
helper = new Helper();
}
}
}
return helper;
}

// other functions and members...
}


Intuitively, this algorithm seems like an efficient solution to the problem. However, this technique has many subtle problems and should usually be avoided. For example, consider the following sequence of events:

1. Thread A notices that the value is not initialized, so it obtains the lock and begins to initialize the value.
2. Due to the semantics of some programming languages, the code generated by the compiler is allowed to update the shared variable to point to a partially constructed object before A has finished performing the initialization. For example, in Java if a call to a constructor has been inlined then the shared variable may immediately be updated once the storage has been allocated but before the inlined constructor initializes the object.[6]
3. Thread B notices that the shared variable has been initialized (or so it appears), and returns its value. Because thread B believes the value is already initialized, it does not acquire the lock. If B uses the object before all of the initialization done by A is seen by B (either because A has not finished initializing it or because some of the initialized values in the object have not yet percolated to the memory B uses (cache coherence)), the program will likely crash.

One of the dangers of using double-checked locking in J2SE 1.4 (and earlier versions) is that it will often appear to work: it is not easy to distinguish between a correct implementation of the technique and one that has subtle problems. Depending on the compiler, the interleaving of threads by the scheduler and the nature of other concurrent system activity, failures resulting from an incorrect implementation of double-checked locking may only occur intermittently. Reproducing the failures can be difficult.

As of J2SE 5.0, this problem has been fixed. The volatile keyword now ensures that multiple threads handle the singleton instance correctly. This new idiom is described in [4] and [5].

// Works with acquire/release semantics for volatile in Java 1.5 and later
// Broken under Java 1.4 and earlier semantics for volatile
class Foo {
private volatile Helper helper;
public Helper getHelper() {
Helper result = helper;
if (result == null) {
synchronized(this) {
result = helper;
if (result == null) {
helper = result = new Helper();
}
}
}
return result;
}

// other functions and members...
}


Note the local variable result, which seems unnecessary. The effect of this is that in cases where helper is already initialized (i.e., most of the time), the volatile field is only accessed once (due to “return result;” instead of “return helper;”), which can improve the method’s overall performance by as much as 25 percent.[7]

If the helper object is static (one per class loader), an alternative is the initialization-on-demand holder idiom[8] (See Listing 16.6[9] from the previously cited text.)

// Correct lazy initialization in Java
class Foo {
private static class HelperHolder {
public static final Helper helper = new Helper();
}

public static Helper getHelper() {
return HelperHolder.helper;
}
}


This relies on the fact that nested classes are not loaded until they are referenced.

Semantics of final field in Java 5 can be employed to safely publish the helper object without using volatile:[10]

public class FinalWrapper<T> {
public final T value;
public FinalWrapper(T value) {
this.value = value;
}
}

public class Foo {
private FinalWrapper<Helper> helperWrapper;

public Helper getHelper() {
FinalWrapper<Helper> tempWrapper = helperWrapper;

if (tempWrapper == null) {
synchronized(this) {
if (helperWrapper == null) {
helperWrapper = new FinalWrapper<Helper>(new Helper());
}
tempWrapper = helperWrapper;
}
}
return tempWrapper.value;
}
}


The local variable tempWrapper is required for correctness: simply using helperWrapper for both null checks and the return statement could fail due to read reordering allowed under the Java Memory Model.[11] Performance of this implementation is not necessarily better than the volatile implementation.