Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #3315
| Path | csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!weretis.net!feeder5.news.weretis.net!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: A question about synchronized threads |
| Date | Sat, 30 Apr 2011 17:34:00 +0200 |
| Lines | 43 |
| Message-ID | <922offF2frU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <3f249d87-aaf8-4732-9ee8-fd112cf82553@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com> <ipemsm$7nc$1@news.albasani.net> <8b7289b0-2b52-44f9-96a9-fe1d2661de11@k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com> |
| Mime-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | quoted-printable |
| X-Trace | individual.net y6tRIRcrAi/Beog3BDA/hAepZNud8zQtZ8bIT82CYSWSte0Yg= |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:sEY9DaB+iUCv6MlU040TwqcIDc0= |
| User-Agent | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 |
| In-Reply-To | <8b7289b0-2b52-44f9-96a9-fe1d2661de11@k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com> |
| X-Antivirus | avast! (VPS 110430-0, 30.04.2011), Outbound message |
| X-Antivirus-Status | Clean |
| Xref | x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:3315 |
Show key headers only | View raw
On 29.04.2011 18:12, byhesed wrote: > On 4월30일, 오전12시53분, Lew<no...@lewscanon.com> wrote: >> What do you mean by "better"? What precisely is not the way you want it? >> What is your standard of effectuality? > If too much spaces are marked as critical regions, > then the program will not be optimized. > It wastes too much time in waiting for obtaining a right to access > critical regions. > > So, in my question, better means optimization when using threads. There is no one size fits all answer to that question. It completely depends on the nature of your application. For example, if read accesses vastly outnumber write accesses you will get significant improvements by using read write locks. If it is the other way round you won't notice a big difference between using "synchronized" and a read write lock (because most of the time the exclusive write lock will be used). In other situations not sharing mutable state (i.e. copying mutable state or using immutable state) might be the best solution. Or you use a thread safe data structure such as copy on write list. There is a whole, big toolbox for writing scalable thread safe applications. Eric has it exactly right with his suggestion because the nature of the state (shared, not shared, mutable, immutable) is the important aspect to reason about. I recommend reading Doug Lea's excellent book on the matter. Kind regards robert -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar
Re: A question about synchronized threads Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-30 17:34 +0200
Re: A question about synchronized threads byhesed <byhesed@gmail.com> - 2011-04-30 09:12 -0700
Re: A question about synchronized threads Deeyana <d.awlberg@hotmail.invalid> - 2011-04-30 19:43 +0000
Re: A question about synchronized threads Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-05-03 18:47 -0400
Re: A question about synchronized threads Deeyana <d.awlberg@hotmail.invalid> - 2011-05-04 00:12 +0000
Re: A question about synchronized threads Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-05-03 23:35 -0400
Re: A question about synchronized threads Deeyana <d.awlberg@hotmail.invalid> - 2011-05-04 07:05 +0000
Re: A question about synchronized threads Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-05-04 12:44 -0400
Re: A question about synchronized threads Deeyana <d.awlberg@hotmail.invalid> - 2011-05-04 19:57 +0000
csiph-web