import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
class SyncDemo1 {
static volatile int count;
public static void add() {
synchronized (Demo.getString1()) {
System.out.println("count1 : " + (count++));
}
}
}
class SyncDemo2 {
static volatile int count;
public static void add() {
synchronized (Demo.getString2()) {
System.out.println("count2 : " + (count++));
}
}
}
public class Demo {
public static String getString1() {
String str = "abc";
return str;
}
public static String getString2() {
char data[] = {'a', 'b', 'c'};
String str = new String(data);
return str;
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
System.out.println("test1");
ExecutorService executorService1 = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(20);
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
executorService1.submit(
SyncDemo1::add
);
}
ExecutorService executorService2 = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(20);
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
executorService2.submit(
SyncDemo2::add
);
}
}
}
run the codes I send you, at a multi-core machine.
count1 can remain sequential, but count2 not.
That is what I said several hours ago : never should，as Object can be use
as lock.
And String is a kind of Object.
Brian Goetz <brian.go...@oracle.com> 于2021年12月25日周六 00:29写道：
> As the language currently stands, new means new; it is guaranteed to
> create a new identity. (When Valhalla comes along, instances of certain
> classes will be identity-free, so the meaning of new will change somewhat,
> but String seems likely to stay as it is.)
>
> The language is allowed (in some cases required) to intern string
> _literals_, so the expression
>
> “foo” == “foo”
>
> can be true. That’s OK because no one said “new”.
>
> In your example, the two instances would not be ==, but would be .equals.
> But since “equivalent” is not a precise term, we can have an angels-on-pins
> debate about whether they are indeed equivalent. IMO equivalent here means
> “for practical purposes”; locking on an arbitrary string which you did not
> allocate is a silly thing to do, so it is reasonable that the doc opted for
> a common-sense interpretation of equivalent, rather than a more precise
> one.
>
>
>
> > On Dec 24, 2021, at 11:12 AM, Alan Snyder <javali...@cbfiddle.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Just when I thought the answer was simple, now it seems more complex.
> >
> > Are you saying that new would always create a new object but the GC
> might merge multiple instances of String into a single instance?
> >
> > Also, if new String() always creates a new instance, then it seems that
> this statement (from String.java) is not quite right:
> >
> > Because String objects are immutable they can be shared. For example:
> >
> > String str = "abc";
> > is equivalent to:
> >
> > char data[] = {'a', 'b', 'c'};
> > String str = new String(data);
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Dec 23, 2021, at 2:55 PM, Simon Roberts <
> si...@dancingcloudservices.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think there are two things at stake here, one is that as I understand
> it,
> >> "new means new", in every case. This is at least partly why the
> >> constructors on soon-to-be value objects are deprecated; they become
> >> meaningless. The other is that if the presumption is that we should
> >> always intern new Strings, I must disagree. Pooling takes time and
> memory
> >> to manage, and if there are very few duplicates, it's a waste of both. I
> >> believe it should be up to the programmer to decide if this is
> appropriate
> >> in their situation. Of course, the GC system seems to be capable of
> >> stepping in in some incarnations, which adds something of a
> counterexample,
> >> but that is, if I recall, configurable.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 2:53 PM Xeno Amess <xenoam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> never should，as Object can be use as lock.
> >>>
> >>> XenoAmess
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev-r...@openjdk.java.net> on behalf of
> >>> Bernd Eckenfels <e...@zusammenkunft.net>
> >>> Sent: Friday, December 24, 2021 5:51:55 AM
> >>> To: alan Snyder <fishgar...@cbfiddle.com>; core-libs-dev <
> >>> core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>
> >>> Subject: Re: a quick question about String
> >>>
> >>> new String() always creates a new instance.
> >>>
> >>> Gruss
> >>> Bernd
> >>> --
> >>> http://bernd.eckenfels.net
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> Von: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev-r...@openjdk.java.net> im Auftrag
> von
> >>> Alan Snyder <javali...@cbfiddle.com>
> >>> Gesendet: Thursday, December 23, 2021 6:59:18 PM
> >>> An: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>
> >>> Betreff: a quick question about String
> >>>
> >>> Do the public constructors of String actually do what their
> documentation
> >>> says (allocate a new instance), or is there some kind of compiler magic
> >>> that might avoid allocation?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Simon Roberts
> >> (303) 249 3613
> >>
> >
>
>
