Win a copy of Clojure in Action this week in the Clojure forum!
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

Question on Thread..

 
medhaj hambi
Ranch Hand
Posts: 34
  • 0
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator


I thought the answer for this question should be 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
But the correct answer turned out to be that the result is unpredictable.
Can any body please explain the reason for that ???
I see that synchronization is playing its role here and I donot understand why the answer would be unpredictable despite some brain storming.




 
Lucas Smith
Ranch Hand
Posts: 808
1
Android Eclipse IDE Java
  • 0
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
synchronized(this)
The lock is for the current object.
You have 2 objects...
 
Jason Irwin
Ranch Hand
Posts: 327
  • 0
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
"this" is locking on the instance, and you have an instance of TheA and an instance of TheB.
Two objects, one lock on each, no way to predict outcome.

Even if you had two instances of TheA (or TheB) the answer would be the same; for the same reasons.

If, however, the lock was on the class of TheA (or TheB) or one a singular object (e.g. a TDemo instance) then you would have a predictable outcome

[Hmm...server went funny, Lukas beat me too it. Quick off the mark that guy ]
 
medhaj hambi
Ranch Hand
Posts: 34
  • 0
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I am not sure I understood the reason that you quoted....I understand that there are two objects...but when those threads run, there is no way a thread can come into execution when the other one is running right ??? Mean to say.......say for example....the A thread is running, it should always be executed completely and then , the B will done completely right ??? Is there any chance that you may get the output saying...

say....0,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,3,4.......??? I hope you understood my question ...
 
Jason Irwin
Ranch Hand
Posts: 327
  • 0
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Err...no. A thread can stop running without warning. The thread scheduler should try and give each thread an equal time at running. That's the theory at any rate - nothing is guaranteed and do not rely on this behaviour!

Anyway, what this means that any any time whilst a thread is running, the scheduler might decide that a thread has had long enough and move it from Running back to Runnable. It will then pick another thread to run and that may well be a different thread. Or the same one; I did say that nothing is guaranteed.

Thus, unless you are very careful with your locks, waits and notifies, there is no guarantee that the a thread will run to completion without being interrupted. In a real-world application you probably wouldn't want a single thread hogging all the processor time anyway.
 
medhaj hambi
Ranch Hand
Posts: 34
  • 0
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I think I am clear now. Thanks a ton. I appreciate that.
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic