abstract synchronized methods not allowed.

[Mark Gabb]

Hi all,

Could anyone give me any information on why you can't have an abstract synchronized method like below:
I can't see why you can't do this, and the compiler is not giving me any information?
Also I can't find any useful information on google.

 public abstract synchronized void myNewMethod();   

Cheers

Mark

[Lucas Smith]

A thread which enters the synchronized method must get the lock of the object (or of the class) in which the method is defined. You can not instantiate an abstract class so there is no object with the lock.

[Mark Gabb]

Ahhh, I see :-)

I have just realised now that you can override a synchronized method with a non-synchronized version of the method so this would make sense.

Thank you for your help Lukas.

[Jesper de Jong]

You can also view it like this: Whether a method needs to be synchronized, really depends on the implementation of the method; it's an implementation detail. An abstract class only declares the interface of abstract methods, and doesn't know anything about the implementation (which is in a concrete subclass of the abstract class). It would be strange if an implementation detail is specified in the interface of a method.

You can use the 'synchronized' modifier on a concrete implementation of an abstract method, which is where it belongs.

[Mark Gabb]

Jesper Young wrote:You can also view it like this: Whether a method needs to be synchronized, really depends on the implementation of the method; it's an implementation detail. An abstract class only declares the interface of abstract methods, and doesn't know anything about the implementation (which is in a concrete subclass of the abstract class). It would be strange if an implementation detail is specified in the interface of a method.

You can use the 'synchronized' modifier on a concrete implementation of an abstract method, which is where it belongs.

Ok, thank you. :-)