Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections

From	Jukka Lahtinen <jtfjdehf@hotmail.com.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.help
Subject	Re: Safety Of Non-Synchronized Collections
Organization	N/A
References	(3 earlier) <msjre89stl98m7qo7amclqm7flhbe2q3n8@4ax.com> <772d9033-e4a4-467b-8957-6b9d13f5b32c@googlegroups.com> <T0lHs.46118$On7.4342@newsfe16.iad> <545e86d1-22b5-42bf-b56f-7c03ac186706@googlegroups.com> <2ZmHs.43434$Sl.37958@newsfe27.iad>
Message-ID	<lvd2xdw9p0.fsf@saunalahti.fi> (permalink)
Date	2013-01-10 13:37 +0200

Show all headers | View raw

Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> writes:
> On 1/9/13 2:51 PM, Lew wrote:

>> '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.

Whenever thread safety is needed, you mostly need to synchronize not
only the single method call to an instance of StringBuffer or some other
class of the jdk, but also some context around it.
And when you add a synchronized block around some code containing the
StringBuffer call, the synchronization of the StringBuffer method is
most likely not needed any more, because of your own synchronized
block. And then you can just use StringBuilder.

Of course, there may be situations where the StringBuffer method
is all that needs to be syncrhonized, and that's where StringBuffer
should be used.

-- 
Jukka Lahtinen

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