3 ms·

Unless it's synchronized. Then you could deadlock.

• mrkeen 2y ago
  This got me curious, so I tried it out. I was unable to put a synchronized onto the field directly: error: modifier synchronized not allowed here public synchronized final Object field; But when I locked it in code: synchronized (field) { while(true) { .. I was still able to access the synchronized field directly without triggering a deadlock - whereas a getter() could be synchronized and trigger a deadlock. In any case, the article already made a strong points for immutability so you don't need to mess around with deadlocking crap.
  • jayd16 2y ago
    They're saying multiple things can synchronize on the same public field. Same reason you don't want to use this. Although I suppose they could mean the concept and not the keyword. A field might not be thread safe and there's no way for an object to guarantee thread safe access of to a field.
    • mrkeen 2y ago
      Deadlocking was raised as the objection to using public instead of getter. But in regard to deadlocking, using public is strictly better than a getter. You have to take a lock in order to deadlock in the public version. In the getter version, you can take a lock without realising it and then deadlock.
  • Groxx 2y ago
    nope, sorry, that's my mistake. I'm misremembering java, it has been too long :) thanks for the correction!