3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThey'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 agoDeadlocking 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 agonope, sorry, that's my mistake. I'm misremembering java, it has been too long :) thanks for the correction!