You are correct, synchronization in readObject is superfluous. Serialization is different indeed, yet readObject is irrelevant.
-- WBR, Alexey > > In this case, readObject play a role like constructor, initialize the > object, so I guess it could be safe here without "synchornized" block. But > serialization may be different, is there any chance that someone could hold > a reference to a incompletely deserialized object and then invoke methods on > it? > > -- > Best Regards, > Regis. >
