protected constructor in Singleton class

[Anuj Prashar]

Hello friends ... I have a doubt related to access modifier of constructor of singleton class

class Singleton{
public static Singleton Instance() {
if (_instance == null)
_instance = new Singleton();
return _instance;
}
protected Singleton() {}
private static Singleton _instance = null;
}

I know that if we use protected constructor other classes can create Singleton instance using new Singleton();

But in many tutorials available on internet like on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singleton_pattern
protected constructor is used with comment // Protected constructor is sufficient to suppress unauthorized calls to the constructor
Please clear my doubt why they have used protected constructor.
Is it correct to use protected constructor in a Singleton class?

Thanks,
Anuj

[Balu Sadhasivam]

I know that if we use protected constructor other classes can create Singleton instance using new Singleton();

There by you create more than one object, which means its not singleton anymore

Is it correct to use protected constructor in a Singleton class?

I m not sure of the authenticity of the article . but its very bad practise to provide protected constructor just for the sake of inheritance.

[Anuj Prashar]

Thanks for replying

But if using protected as a modifier for constructor is a bad practice why people use protected
and what is the meaning of this reason they have given-- Protected constructor is sufficient to suppress unauthorized calls to the constructor
Thanks

[Balu Sadhasivam]

Anuj Prashar wrote: what is the meaning of this reason they have given-- Protected constructor is sufficient to suppress unauthorized calls to the constructor
Thanks

By providing protected constructor , you can limit your class to be instantiated only by its subclasses.
Well the statement (in wiki) is true about "protected" access specifier , but certainly not with "singleton" and "protected" together.

[Anuj Prashar]

Thanks again for your reply

But still my doubt is unclear that

why they have used protected constructor in Singleton class?

[Nitesh Kant]

The choice of using the protected access modifier is totally upto the implementer and is not mandatory.
If you foresee someone sub-classing your singleton then you should provide a protected constructor otherwise it would be impossible to subclass it.
On the other hand, if you are sure that nobody will ever subclass your singleton, then you should specify a private constructor.

Having said the above, we at javaranch do not really suggest using Singleton pattern, for reasons see this faq entry: http://faq.javaranch.com/java/SingletonPattern