No - even accessing a simple field must be synchronized, for this reason: Suppose thread A is in the middle of calling clear() when thread B calls size(). Notice in clear() that the size is not changed until after all entries have been set to null, meaning that B will read a larger size than what is actually there. For thread safety reasons, if you have a synchronized object, EVERY public access point to information on that object must be synchronized.
Sascha Brawer wrote: > > Hello, > > the implementations of java.util.Hashtable.size() and > java.util.Hashtable.isEmpty() merely access a single integer member > field. Since accesses to integer variables are required to be atomic, I > think these two methods don't need to be synchronized. Do people agree? > (Yes, it's a micro-optimization). > -- This signature intentionally left boring. Eric Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] BYU student, free software programmer _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
