> > It probably wasn't very clear from my simplified example, but I'm looking > > to create a shared-reader-one-writer scenario. If I declare MyValue > > synchronized, only one thread can be inside the get() method at a time, > > which defeats the shared-reader requirement. Imagine this is a much larger > > more complex data structure, where get() requires walking through multiple > > levels of a tree and a binary search at the last level. > > > > Yup, I get it. But there is one point in it: write is not atomic operation in > sense that get() might return half written data, right?
No, that's why I want a read-write lock. Multiple threads can read the data, but writes take an exclusive lock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readers-writer_lock
