4 ms·

In less technical language, "creation of the object is not atomic". You could switch threads in the middle of the creation. Also, "reading of the data is not a

In less technical language, "creation of the object is not atomic". You could switch threads in the middle of the creation. Also, "reading of the data is not atomic" - you can switch threads in the middle of reading the data. In order to program THREADED CODE sanely with that in mind, you need to minimize the amount of shared data, and be sure to lock / synchronize around the writing AND READING of any shared data. If you're not writing threaded code then there is no shared data, and you don't care about these rules. Writing threaded code isn't like dusting crops, but it's not impossible. EDIT: you also said "the println statement [...] is synchronized" but it doesn't look like that's true - there's nothing in the synchronized(this) {} block, and even if there was, all it would do is keep "this" from entering that block twice; it has no effect on other threads in this code.

Eiwatah4 13y ago
You misunderstood the part about println. The implementation of println() uses synchronized internally. You can't see it without downloading the Java source code, but it's there.
- xsmasher 13y ago
  Ah, thanks. I don't do much Java. So "println() uses synchronized internally" means two println statements will never overlap each other, but still says nothing about their interaction with other objects, right? Does nothing to prevent switching threads in the middle of the println and getting two different values?
  - ddeck 13y ago
    Correct. It synchronizes on the instance of the PrintStream, which has no effect here. The bottom line is that the Point object should have been immutable, which would have made it safe for publication. That requires its fields to be final (among other things), which was not the case.
- Someone 13y ago
  In general, you shouldn't assume that tomorrow's implementation behaves like today's, or today's implementation X behaves like today's implementation Y, unless there is documentation that says so. Looking at http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9459657/synchronization-and-system-out-println http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9459657/synchronization-a..., it seems that Java does not guarantee that println will synchronize. The exception is if you have tight control over your environment, have tests in place to verify that environment upgrades do not break your assumptions, and you desperately need to bend the rules, but even then, you should look really hard for better alternatives.
- ScottBurson 13y ago
  But the argument to println is evaluated before println is called! Whatever synchronization it's doing internally therefore can't affect what it prints. Seems to me, either there's something synchronized in Integer.toString (which seems undesirable and therefore unlikely) or, statistically, in the rare cases that the writes don't take effect in time for the 'if' predicate, they do take effect a few nanoseconds later, in time for the conversions involved in the string construction. (Actually p.x is the only one at risk here, statistically speaking; the conversion of its value to a string will take plenty long enough for the write of p.y to take effect. Combine that with the fact that the write of p.x probably still precedes that of p.y, so that the one that's wrong in the 'if' statement is probably p.y, and you see that the odds of the wrong values being printed are vanishingly small.)
ScottBurson 13y ago
The comment about println being synchronized is indeed incorrect. See my reply to Eiwatah4.

Eiwatah4 13y ago

You misunderstood the part about println. The implementation of println() uses synchronized internally. You can't see it without downloading the Java source code, but it's there.

xsmasher 13y ago
Ah, thanks. I don't do much Java. So "println() uses synchronized internally" means two println statements will never overlap each other, but still says nothing about their interaction with other objects, right? Does nothing to prevent switching threads in the middle of the println and getting two different values?
- ddeck 13y ago
  Correct. It synchronizes on the instance of the PrintStream, which has no effect here. The bottom line is that the Point object should have been immutable, which would have made it safe for publication. That requires its fields to be final (among other things), which was not the case.
Someone 13y ago
In general, you shouldn't assume that tomorrow's implementation behaves like today's, or today's implementation X behaves like today's implementation Y, unless there is documentation that says so. Looking at http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9459657/synchronization-and-system-out-println http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9459657/synchronization-a..., it seems that Java does not guarantee that println will synchronize. The exception is if you have tight control over your environment, have tests in place to verify that environment upgrades do not break your assumptions, and you desperately need to bend the rules, but even then, you should look really hard for better alternatives.
ScottBurson 13y ago
But the argument to println is evaluated before println is called! Whatever synchronization it's doing internally therefore can't affect what it prints. Seems to me, either there's something synchronized in Integer.toString (which seems undesirable and therefore unlikely) or, statistically, in the rare cases that the writes don't take effect in time for the 'if' predicate, they do take effect a few nanoseconds later, in time for the conversions involved in the string construction. (Actually p.x is the only one at risk here, statistically speaking; the conversion of its value to a string will take plenty long enough for the write of p.y to take effect. Combine that with the fact that the write of p.x probably still precedes that of p.y, so that the one that's wrong in the 'if' statement is probably p.y, and you see that the odds of the wrong values being printed are vanishingly small.)

ScottBurson 13y ago

The comment about println being synchronized is indeed incorrect. See my reply to Eiwatah4.