Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections

From	Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.help
Subject	Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections
References	(2 earlier) <e1ce2d29-dca1-4364-8cd3-5512dd0694c5@googlegroups.com> <msjre89stl98m7qo7amclqm7flhbe2q3n8@4ax.com> <772d9033-e4a4-467b-8957-6b9d13f5b32c@googlegroups.com> <T0lHs.46118$On7.4342@newsfe16.iad> <545e86d1-22b5-42bf-b56f-7c03ac186706@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID	<2ZmHs.43434$Sl.37958@newsfe27.iad> (permalink)
Date	2013-01-09 15:22 -0800

Show all headers | View raw

On 1/9/13 2:51 PM, Lew wrote:
> Daniel Pitts wrote:
>> Lew wrote:
>>> Roedy Green wrote:
>>>> Lew wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>>>>> Well, there's the fact that StringBuffer is not thread-safe.
>>>>
>>>> Sun advertised it as such even if it were not perfectly so.  When
>>
>>> Never saw it advertised as such myself.
>> ...
>> Directly in StringBuffer JavaDoc, where you'd expect.
>>
>>   From <http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/StringBuffer.html>
>>
>> The first two paragraphs:
>>
>>> A thread-safe, mutable sequence of characters. A string buffer is like a String, but can be modified. At any point in time it contains some particular sequence of characters, but the length and content of the sequence can be changed through certain method calls.
>>>
>>> String buffers are safe for use by multiple threads. The methods are synchronized where necessary so that all the operations on any particular instance behave as if they occur in some serial order that is consistent with the order of the method calls made by each of the individual threads involved.
>
> They lied.
>
> 'StringBuffer' is no more thread safe than any other class with synchronized methods.

Which is more safe than other classes without synchronized methods.

They are thread-safe to the point that each method call is atomic. What 
else could you ask for? They didn't lie.

Thread

Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Steve <tinker123@gmail.com> - 2013-01-01 15:46 -0500
  Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Knute Johnson <nospam@knutejohnson.com> - 2013-01-01 14:18 -0800
    Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-01 15:43 -0800
  Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-01-01 16:17 -0800
    Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-02 11:12 -0800
      Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-01-02 12:56 -0800
        Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-02 17:46 -0800
  Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-03 05:59 -0800
    Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-03 15:30 -0800
      Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-09 12:17 -0800
        Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-09 12:56 -0800
          Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-01-09 13:10 -0800
            Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-09 14:51 -0800
              Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-01-09 15:22 -0800
                Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-09 16:26 -0800
                Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-01-09 16:42 -0800
                Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-09 16:54 -0800
                Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-01-10 10:30 -0800
                Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-10 10:58 -0800
                Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-01-09 16:50 -0800
                Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-09 16:59 -0800
                Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-01-10 08:18 -0800
                Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-10 10:49 -0800
                Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Jukka Lahtinen <jtfjdehf@hotmail.com.invalid> - 2013-01-10 13:37 +0200
                Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-01-10 09:27 -0500
                Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Jukka Lahtinen <jtfjdehf@hotmail.com.invalid> - 2013-01-10 17:14 +0200
                Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-01-10 11:44 -0500
                Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Jukka Lahtinen <jtfjdehf@hotmail.com.invalid> - 2013-01-10 23:41 +0200
                Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-01-10 17:14 -0500
                Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Jukka Lahtinen <jtfjdehf@hotmail.com.invalid> - 2013-01-11 09:10 +0200
                Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-01-11 08:25 -0500

csiph-web