问题
Could anyone explain what is the difference between these examples?
Example # 1.
public class Main {
private Object lock = new Object();
private MyClass myClass = new MyClass();
public void testMethod() {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
synchronized (myClass) {
// TODO: modify myClass variable
}
}
}
Example # 2.
package com.test;
public class Main {
private MyClass myClass = new MyClass();
private Object lock = new Object();
public void testMethod() {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
synchronized (lock) {
// TODO: modify myClass variable
}
}
}
What should I use as a monitor lock if I need to take care about synchronization when modifying the variable?
回答1:
Assuming that Main is not intended to be a "leaky abstraction", here is minimal difference between the first and second examples.
It may be better to use an Object rather than some other class because an Object instance has no fields and is therefore smaller. And the Object-as-lock idiom makes it clear that the lock variable is intended to only ever used as a lock.
Having said that, there is a definite advantage in locking on an object that nothing else will ever see. The problem with a Main method synchronizing on a Main (e.g. this) is that other unrelated code could also be synchronizing on it for an unrelated purpose. By synchronizing on dedicated (private) lock object you avoid that possibility.
In response to the comment:
There is a MAJOR difference in the two cases. In the first you're locking the object that you want to manipulate. In the second you're locking some other object that has no obvious relationship to the object being manipulated. And the second case takes more space, since you must allocate the (otherwise unused) Object, rather than using the already-existing instance you're protecting.
I think you are making an INCORRECT assumption - that MyClass is the data structure that needs protecting. In fact, the Question doesn't say that. Indeed the way that the example is written implies that the lock is intended to protect the entire Main class ... not just a part of its state. And in that context, there IS an obvious connection ...
The only case where it would be better to lock the MyClass would be if the Main was a leaky abstraction that allowed other code to get hold of its myClass reference. That would be bad design, especially in a multi-threaded app.
Based on the revision history, I'm pretty sure that is not the OP's intention.
回答2:
The statement synchronization is useful when changing variables of an object.
You are changing variables of myClass so you want to lock on myClass object. If you were to change something in lock then you want to lock on lock object.
In example #2 you are modifying myClass but locking on lock object which is nonsense.
回答3:
In first case you lock on object that it known only within this method, so it is unlikely that anybody else will use the same object to lock on, so such lock is almost useless. Second variant makes much more sense for me.
At the same time, myClass variable is also known only within this method, so it is unlikely that other thread will access it, so probably lock is not necessary here at all. Need more complete example to say more.
回答4:
In general, you want to lock on the "root" object of the data you're manipulating. If you're, eg, going to subtract a value from a field in object A and add that value to object B, you need to lock some object that is somehow common (at least by convention) between A and B, possibly the "owner" object of the two. This is because you're doing the lock to maintain a "contract" of consistency between separate pieces of data -- the object locked must be common to and conceptually encompassing of the entire set of data that must be kept consistent.
The simple case, of course, is when you're modifying field A and field B in the same object, in which case locking that object is the obvious choice.
A little less obvious is when you're dealing with static data belonging to a single class. In that case you generally want to lock the class.
A separate "monitor" object -- created only to serve as a lockable entity -- is rarely needed in Java, but might apply to, say, elements of two parallel arrays, where you want to maintain consistency between element N of the two arrays. In that case, something like a 3rd array of monitor objects might be appropriate.
(Note that this is all just a "quick hack" at laying out some rules. There are many subtleties that one can run into, especially when attempting to allow the maximum of concurrent access to heavily-accessed data. But such cases are rare outside of high-performance computing.)
Whatever you choose, it's critical that the choice be consistent across all references to the protected data. You don't want to lock object A in one case and object B in another, when referencing/modifying the same data. (And PLEASE don't fall into the trap of thinking you can lock an arbitrary instance of Class A and that will somehow serve to lock another instance of Class A. That's a classical beginner's mistake.)
In your above example you'd generally want to lock the created object, assuming the consistency you're assuring is all internal to that object. But note that in this particular example, unless the constructor for MyClass somehow lets the object address "escape", there is no need to lock at all, since there is no way that another thread can get the address of the new object.
回答5:
The difference are the class of the lock and its scope - Both topics are pretty much orthogonal with synchronization
objects with different classes may have different sizes
objects in different scopes may be available in different contexts
Basically both will behave the same in relation to synchronization
回答6:
Both examples are not good syncronisation practise.
The lock Object should be placed in MyClass as private field.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14735500/what-should-i-use-as-a-lock-object-of-a-synchronized-statement-in-java