If you really need synchronization of the rest of the constructor versus any threads which anyhow gets a reference to your not-yet-totally-constructed object, you can use a synchronized-block:
public class Test {
public Test() {
final Test me = this;
synchronized(this) {
new Thread() {
@Override
public void run() {
// ... Reference 'me,' the object being constructed
synchronized(me) {
// do something dangerous with 'me'.
}
}
}.start();
// do something dangerous with this
}
}
}
Usually it is considered bad style to “give out” your not-yet-constructed object like this, so a synchronized constructor is not necessary.
In some corner cases a synchronized constructor would be useful. Here is a more realistic example, from the discussion of Bozho’s answer:
public abstract class SuperClass {
public SuperClass() {
new Thread("evil") { public void run() {
doSomethingDangerous();
}}).start();
try {
Thread.sleep(5000);
}
catch(InterruptedException ex) { /* ignore */ }
}
public abstract void doSomethingDangerous();
}
public class SubClass extends SuperClass {
int number;
public SubClass () {
super();
number = 2;
}
public synchronized void doSomethingDangerous() {
if(number == 2) {
System.out.println("everything OK");
}
else {
System.out.println("we have a problem.");
}
}
}
We want that the doSomethingDangerous() method is only called after construction of our SubClass object is complete, e.g. we only want the “everything OK” output. But in this case, when you only can edit your SubClass, you have no chance of achieving this. If the constructor could be synchronized, it would solve the problem.
So, what we learn about this: never do something like I did here in the superclass constructor, if your class is not final – and don’t call any non-final methods of your own class from your constructor.