Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #30920
| From | Robbie Brown <rob@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: a simple multi-thread question |
| Date | 2015-01-26 18:08 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <ma5vpo$vu7$2@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <60c8877a-8321-4ba5-ab9a-8ccabd77874b@googlegroups.com> <ma5o15$s9p$1@dont-email.me> <ma5vk9$vu7$1@dont-email.me> |
On 26/01/15 18:05, Robbie Brown wrote:
> On 26/01/15 15:55, Eric Sosman wrote:
>> On 1/26/2015 10:40 AM, John wrote:
>>>
>>> I am amazed at what I saw:
>>>
>>> synchronized private void print()
>>> {
>>> System.out.println("printing A");
>>> System.out.println("printing B");
>>> System.out.println("printing C");
>>> }
>>> [... he gets interleaved output ...]
>>
>> Each Java object has its own lock ("monitor"), independent of the
>> locks belonging to other Java objects. When you call a synchronized
>> instance method, Java acquires the lock of the "this" object before
>> proceeding, and releases it when the method finishes. If there are
>> several object instances floating around, there are several "this"
>> and several independent locks.
>>
>>> I thought the method is atomic.
>>
>> No. Synchronization is not about methods (or code blocks), but
>> about objects: You lock the *object*, not a method.
>
> Are you sure?
>
> If you have a class with two methods and one (or more) of them is
> synchronized and one (or more) isn't then a thread can obtain the lock
> on an instance of that class which locks out all other threads from the
> synchronized methods but the non synchronized methods of that instance
> are still available to other threads.
>
> At least that's how I remember it.
Ooops that should have read "If you have a class with *several* methods ..."
--
Not floundering ... just fishing
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
a simple multi-thread question John <xsli2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-26 07:40 -0800
Re: a simple multi-thread question Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-01-26 10:53 -0500
Re: a simple multi-thread question Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2015-01-26 07:54 -0800
Re: a simple multi-thread question Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-01-26 10:55 -0500
Re: a simple multi-thread question Robbie Brown <rob@example.com> - 2015-01-26 18:05 +0000
Re: a simple multi-thread question Robbie Brown <rob@example.com> - 2015-01-26 18:08 +0000
Re: a simple multi-thread question Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-01-26 17:19 -0500
Re: a simple multi-thread question Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-01-26 13:27 -0500
Re: a simple multi-thread question Robbie Brown <rob@example.com> - 2015-01-26 19:51 +0000
Re: a simple multi-thread question Jukka Lahtinen <jtfjdehf@hotmail.com.invalid> - 2015-01-28 21:55 +0200
csiph-web