[concurrency-interest] Simple ScheduledFuture problem

Dhanji R. Prasanna dhanji at gmail.com
Wed Aug 30 20:36:27 EDT 2006


I hasten (too) to add, would it break atomicity if the synchronized
setter were called concurrently (say from a different class)? I assume
yes.

On 8/31/06, Dhanji R. Prasanna <dhanji at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/31/06, Dawid Kurzyniec <dawidk at mathcs.emory.edu> wrote:
> > Just my 2c (to explicitly point out what David and Brian smuggled
> > between the lines): the synchronization on setter can only be skipped if
> > there are no other setters.
> >
> > It is tempting to drop "synchronized" from set(newValue), but it would
> > be wrong: it would break atomicity of read-modify-write methods such as
> > getAndAdd etc. by allowing set(newValue) to perform the update in the
> > middle.
>
> yes, but presumably a more elegant solution is for the other "setting
> methods" to invoke the single setter, and treat the volatile field as
> a javabeans property.
>
> Just my 20c that we should be encouraging this approach. =)
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dawid
> >
> >
>
> Dhanji
>


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list