The second synchronizes the entire method. The internal synchronized
block lets you lock a specific chunk of code. Better, you get to lock on
a specific object, so you can control access to the object rather than the
method.
On 31 Dec 2000, Mr.Bad wrote:
> Hey, so, just wondering here, for my own edification: is there an
> advantage to doing this:
>
> public void gar(int foo) {
> synchronized(this) {
> // stuff happens here;
> }
> }
>
> ...rather than this:
>
> public synchronized void gar(int foo) {
> // stuff happens here;
> }
>
> ? The first is an idiom I've run across a few times in Fred code, and
> I've never seen it used before.
>
> ~Mr. Bad
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> /\____/\ Mr. Bad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> \ / Pigdog Journal | http://pigdog.org/ | *Stay*Real*Bad*
> | (X \x)
> ( ((**) "If it's not bad, don't do it.
> \ <vvv> If it's not crazy, don't say it." - Ben Franklin
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freenet-dev mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
>
>
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
