permaculture playing cards*
The moose likes Programmer Certification (SCJP/OCPJP) and the fly likes Threads blocking on static method.... or do they? Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Murach's Java Servlets and JSP this week in the Servlets forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Certification » Programmer Certification (SCJP/OCPJP)
Bookmark "Threads blocking on static method.... or do they?" Watch "Threads blocking on static method.... or do they?" New topic
Author

Threads blocking on static method.... or do they?

K Mudof
Greenhorn

Joined: May 09, 2010
Posts: 13

Hi everyone.... the first post Btw, congratulations for indeed a great forum!!!

My question is regarding K&B book, specificly about "threads calling static synchronized method in the same class will always block each other", page 739.

So I prepare a little piece of program below with expectation my computer will start to levitate when those threads will fight for my bueatyfull static method. Here is the code:



Unfortunatelly, when executing this little program, my computer does not leviate nor even JVM freezes. Instead I have rather boring console output:

T1 prints: 1 2 3 4 5 T2 prints: 1 2 3 4 5

My question is: why? Do I misunderstand what "blocking "means?

Thanks in advance,
k
Jesper de Jong
Java Cowboy
Saloon Keeper

Joined: Aug 16, 2005
Posts: 14074
    
  16

Welcome to JavaRanch!

Why exactly did you expect this program to make your computer levitate or freeze?

What happens is that first the first thread runs, it grabs the lock, and when it's finished, it releases the lock and the second thread runs. The second thread has to wait on the lock because the first thread has locked it. Static synchronized methods synchronize on the class object of the class that they're in. So this:


is equivalent to this:


Java Beginners FAQ - JavaRanch SCJP FAQ - The Java Tutorial - Java SE 7 API documentation
Scala Notes - My blog about Scala
K Mudof
Greenhorn

Joined: May 09, 2010
Posts: 13
Thanks Jesper. Yes, it works as you say. However K&B book suggests they will block each other becasue "they (both threads) lock on the same Class instance". So is it a mistake in the book or my misinterpretation of blocking each other meaning non of this threads will be able to execute the method, because both will wait for each other to grab and execute the method?

Ok, subquestion. How could I modify this code so both threads actually will block each other?

Thanks, k
K Mudof
Greenhorn

Joined: May 09, 2010
Posts: 13
I think I understand my mistake. In K&B book blocking actually means getting a lock and holding it when till the method execution is finished. So thats a good thing, thats what we want. Where as in the next example on the same page quote is: "synchronized, satic and non-static method will not block each other, ever". And thats bad, becase it defeats our intention of synchronization.

My mistake was misinterpretation of a word "blocking". I had in mind "deadlock".

k
Michael Clare
Greenhorn

Joined: Apr 03, 2010
Posts: 28
If they didn't block each other you might get something like T1: 1 2 T2: 1 T1: 3 T2: 2 3 T1: 4 5 T2: 4 5.
Which is not what you want in some cases.
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: Threads blocking on static method.... or do they?
 
Similar Threads
Synchronization lock
threads and uncaught exceptions
Runnable to Thread Casting
Thread Question about sleep method
Thread Synchronization