Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #39164
| From | Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: Thread and synchonized question |
| Date | 2019-09-30 10:10 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <slrnqp3l52.36g.avl@logic.at> (permalink) |
| References | <55e14769-2ee7-4e11-8f66-69c1b7bf0241@googlegroups.com> |
mike <mikaelpetterson@hotmail.com> wrote:
> We have class A with method synchronized connect(int) that calls
> class B that has synchronized connect() (main thread)
> I guess the lock will be on class A?
There are some relevant details missing, so there are two options:
A) either or both of the methods are static, or there are two objects
one of A and one of B that you call the method on: then the locks
are independent, and main thread just hold both.
B) One of the methods is just a superclass method, and both "synchronize"s
address the same object, and the main thread holds that one twice.
> What if class B and synchronized connect()is called by another
> thread ( reconnect thread) I guess lock is on class B.
> So does this mean that both main and reconnect threads can access
> the synchronized connect() on class B?
That can be pretty surely excluded in either of the above cases.
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Thread and synchonized question mike <mikaelpetterson@hotmail.com> - 2019-09-30 00:32 -0700
Re: Thread and synchonized question Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> - 2019-09-30 10:10 +0000
Re: Thread and synchonized question mike <mikaelpetterson@hotmail.com> - 2019-09-30 04:38 -0700
Re: Thread and synchonized question Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> - 2019-09-30 13:48 +0000
Re: Thread and synchonized question Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2019-09-30 17:07 -0400
Re: Thread and synchonized question Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2019-09-30 19:48 -0400
csiph-web