This week's book giveaway is in the OO, Patterns, UML and Refactoring forum. We're giving away four copies of Refactoring for Software Design Smells: Managing Technical Debt and have Girish Suryanarayana, Ganesh Samarthyam & Tushar Sharma on-line! See this thread for details.
because its better not to do it since its better to synchronize your code at block levels instead of making the whole method as synchronized, however note that when you define a concrete implmentation of the method you can specify that its synchronized.
Omar Al Kababji - Electrical & Computer Engineer
[SCJP - 90% - Story] [SCWCD - 94% - Story] [SCBCD - 80% - Story] | My Blog
Just to make it more clear, if you have an abstract method, then while overriding you can add the synchronized keyword to the method. And if a method is synchronized (non-abstract method of course), then while overriding it, you can remove the synchronized keyword. So there's no point in making an abstract method synchronized as the overriding code can add or remove the synchronized keyword on will. This behavior of the synchronized keyword is because synchronized is not a part of method signature...