Side effects of throwing an exception inside a synchronized clause?
I see no side-effect. The lock is guaranteed to be terminated in all cases, and an exception is no exception (pun intended).
I see no side-effect. The lock is guaranteed to be terminated in all cases, and an exception is no exception (pun intended).
If a synchronized method calls another non-synchronized method, is there a lock on the non-synchronized method The answer depends on the context. If you are in a synchronized method for an object, then calls by other threads to other methods of the same object instance that are also synchronized are locked. However calls by other … Read more
Two things: First, it is not possible for two invocations of synchronized methods on the same object to interleave. When one thread is executing a synchronized method for an object, all other threads that invoke synchronized methods for the same object block (suspend execution) until the first thread is done with the object. Second, when … Read more
No, you will always have to write synchronized. If you call the synchronized method of the super class this will of course be a synchronized call. synchronized is not part of the method signature. See http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/cpj/mechanics.html for detailed description from Doug Lea, Java threading boss (or so).
While at first it might seem obvious that one would want to support the synchronized modifier on default methods, it turns out that doing so would be dangerous, and so was prohibited. Synchronized methods are a shorthand for a method which behaves as if the entire body is enclosed in a synchronized block whose lock … Read more
If t1 access the m1 method (synchronized method), could t2 thread access m2 method (synchronized method) simultaneously? The synchronized keyword applies on object level, and only one thread can hold the lock of the object. So as long as you’re talking about the same object, then no, t2 will wait for t1 to release the … Read more
Using synchronized makes a method / block accessible by only on thread at a time. So, yes, it’s thread-safe. The two concepts are combined, not mutually-exclusive. When you use wait() you need to own the monitor on that object. So you need to have synchronized(..) on it before that. Using .wait() makes the current thread … Read more
Maybe it’s not as bad as you think It used to be terrible (which is possibly why you read that it was “very expensive”). These memes can take a long time to die out How expensive is synchronization? Because of the rules involving cache flushing and invalidation, a synchronized block in the Java language is … Read more
You must understand , threads scheduling is controlled by thread scheduler.So, you cannot guarantee the order of execution of threads under normal circumstances. However, you can use join() to wait for a thread to complete its work. For example, in your case ob1.t.join(); This statement will not return until thread t has finished running. Try … Read more
You do not need to use volatile inside of synchronized, synchronized already guarantees the correct behavior for local caching of variables when used consistently (on every access). volatile works on primitive values, and can be a nice shortcut for atomic accesses to a primitive type. Note that the behavior of volatile has changed in JDK … Read more