On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 4:29 AM Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-11-09 at 15:36 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 3:33 PM Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> > > ... > > > > > > Yes, it is. What would be the point if every single method > > > synchronizes > > > on exchangeState instance? > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/httpcomponents-core/blob/master/httpcore5/src/examples/org/apache/hc/core5/http/examples/AsyncReverseProxyExample.java#L275 > > > > > > OK, I can buy that all of the synchronized blocks are correct and > > schedule > > thread access to those ivars. > > But what about the absence of volatile causing threads to miss > > updates to > > fields from other threads? > > > > Java runtime guarantees the state of variables inside synchronized > block to be consistent for all threads of execution. The reason for > making variables volatile is to avoid having to use > expensive synchronization. > Hi Oleg, I am looking for confirmation of this in the JLS to make sure my app is on solid ground. I found: "An unlock (synchronized block or method exit) of a monitor *happens-before* every subsequent lock (synchronized block or method entry) of that same monitor. And because the *happens-before* relation is transitive, all actions of a thread prior to unlocking *happen-before* all actions subsequent to any thread locking that monitor." in https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/package-summary.html#MemoryVisibility which I read as JLS-ese of your statement. Check? Gary > Oleg > > > > Gary > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oleg > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ---- > > > 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] > >
