>>>>> Christopher Hinds writes:
Christopher> [1 <multipart/alternative>]
Christopher> [1.1 <text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)>]
Christopher> The use of "this" is just plain redundant since
Christopher> Cliente.class is by default derived from
Christopher> "java.lang.Object" it is not nessassary to append
Christopher> "this." to wait() or notify() or any other of the
Christopher> monitor metheds in this case. Hint : take a look at
Christopher> the core API class hierarchy.
The use of 'this' is neither redundant nor allowed here -- the
methods (recibirPeticion() and enviarPeticion()) are static and
there is no 'this' in class methods. A 'synchronized static' method
synchronizes on the class object.
// in this example sm1 & sm2 are equivalent and so are m1 & m2
class C
{
synchronized static void sm1() {}
static void sm2() { synchronized(C.class) {}}
static void m1() {}
void m2() { synchronized(this) {}}
}
You will get compile time errors both for wait() and this.wait() in
static methods. this.waits() fails because there is no this.
wait() fails unless your class has a static method named wait()
[Note: there is no such thing as inheritence for static methods in Java].
The orignal author has several possiblities to fix his code, one
would be to use an explicit lock object , e.g.:
class C
{
static Object lock = new Object();
static void m()
{
synchronized (lock) {
lock.wait();
}
}
static void n()
{
synchronized (lock) {
lock.notifyAll();
}
}
}
Juergen
--
Juergen Kreileder, Universitaet Dortmund, Lehrstuhl Informatik V
Baroper Strasse 301, D-44221 Dortmund, Germany
Phone: ++49 231/755-5806, Fax: ++49 231/755-5802
