views:

1374

answers:

4

I know that using the synchronize keyword before a method brings synchronization to that object.
That is, 2 threads running the same instance of the object will be synchronized.
However, since the synchronization is at the object level, 2 threads running different instances of the object will not be synchronized. So, if we have a static variable in a java class that is called by the method, we would like it to be synchronized across instances of the class.
The two instances are running in 2 different threads.
Can we achieve synchronization in the following way?

public class Test  
{  
   private static int count = 0;  
   private static final Object lock= new Object();    
   public synchronized void foo() 
  {  
      synchronized(lock)
     {  
         count++;  
     }  
  }  
}

Is it true that since we have defined an object 'lock' that is static and we are using the keyword synchronized for that lock, the static varibale count is now synchronized across instances of class Test?

+1  A: 

Yes it is true.

If you create two instance of your class

Test t1 = new Test();
Test t2 = new Test();

Then t1.foo and t2.foo both synchronize on the same static object and hence block each other.

richs
+1  A: 

If you're simply sharing a counter, consider using an AtomicInteger or another suitable class from the java.util.concurrent.atomic package:

public class Test {

    private final static AtomicInteger count = new AtomicInteger(0); 

    public void foo() {  
        count.incrementAndGet();
    }  
}
Kevin
+2  A: 

There are several ways.

1) Use a synchronized static method. This synchronizes on the class object.

public class Test {
    private static int count = 0;

    public static synchronized void incrementCount() {
        count++;
    }
} 

2) Explicitly synchronize on the class object.

public class Test {
    private static int count = 0;

    public void incrementCount() {
        synchronize (Test.class) {
            count++;
        }
    }
} 

3) Synchronize on some other static object.

public class Test {
    private static int count = 0;
    private static final Object countLock = new Object();

    public void incrementCount() {
        synchronize (countLock) {
            count++;
        }
    }
} 

Method 3 is best in many cases because the lock object is not exposed outside of your class.

Darron
A: 

If it is only about this one integer, you can also use

Interlocked.Increment(count)

( namespace is System.Threading ).

DarthCoder
The namespace System.Threading? Isn't that C#?
James Kingsbery