I understand that synchronization implies a performance penalty, but I wasn't sure what the advantage to using synchronized blocks over synchronized methods was.
Erik
Tobias Dittrich wrote:
The reason why you don't want to use synchronized methods is that a synchronized block can only be executed by one thread at a time. Every other thread wanting to access this method will be blocked during this time (well, basically). So you want to try to keep the synchonized blocks as small as possible.Having said that I wonder weather performance is an issue in the singleton vs only-static discussion. Is there a significant difference in execution speed? After all one has to make one additional method call every time when accessing a singleton method (the getInstance() which is synchronized, too). And since we're off topic anyway: is a call to a static method faster than a "normal" one to an object (well, I mean the overhead from the method call, not the execution speed of the method body ... )? Cheers Tobi From: "Erik Price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tomcat Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 1:46 PM Subject: Re: about singletons (ot)Mike Jackson wrote:The difference is that if you use a singleton there's one instance. If everything is static then you only have one copy. Usually when you use a singleton it's to control access to some resource, the intent is that you use thesingletonand some synchronized calls (note I don't mean synchronized methods, butsynchronizedcode blocks) to control threads using that resource.Why could you not use synchronized methods? Erik--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]