On 5/30/12 5:32 AM, Regan Heath wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 10:21:00 +0100, deadalnix <[email protected]> wrote:
You don't want to synchronize on ANY object. You want to synchronize
on explicit mutexes.
+1 .. this is the key point/issue.
TDPL's design only allows for entire synchronized classes (not separate
synchronized and unsynchronized methods), which pair mutexes with the
data they protect. This is more restrictive than exposing mutexes, but
in a good way. We use such a library artifact in C++ at Facebook all the
time, to great success.
People shouldn't create designs that have synchronized classes referring
to one another naively. Designing with mutexes (explicit or implicit)
will always create the possibility of deadlock, so examples how that
could happen are easy to come across.
TDPL improves on deadlocks by introducing synchronized statements with
more than one argument, see 13.15.
The implicit mutexes used by synchronized classes are recursive.
Andrei
