이희승 (Trustin Lee) wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:47:32 +0900, Emmanuel Lecharny
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
이희승 (Trustin Lee) wrote:
The problem is we have so many properties which needs visibility
independent from each other.
Do we have a list of all the properties we need to protect? This
could be a good start to discuss about the best mechanism to use to
protect them.
If we are going to use a lock, we will need as many lock objects as
the number of the properties, which is way too much IMO.
You can also synchronize the get() and set() methods, and you don't
need a lock anymore. Actually, this might be even more performant
than using volatile, if the property is read many times.
using synchronized modifier for a method is same with synchronized
(this) {...}, and it means all properties of one object will share one
single lock and cause serious contention.
Fair enough. In this case, in order to protect the property, AtomicXXX
is the best solution for simple types (what a burden to create a lock to
protect an int or a long ... !). If we have access to imutable data
(like String), we don't care about synchronization, as the data are
immutable. For any other data structure, we can do a synchronize(data)
inside the get() and set() (and any other methods), so no need to use a
dedicated lock.
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
