Hi Matt, May be you are correct. I've used synchronized when working with threads and i *thought* synchronized also makes the statements wait for a call to return within that method.
For example, if a query was made, I'd want it to wait till there's a feedback from the query without using a callback. But this don't seem to be the correct way to do it. Prageeth On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Matt Giuca <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Prageeth, > > You added the 'synchronized' keyword to a bunch of static methods (e.g., in > data-wrapper > r57<http://bazaar.launchpad.net/%7Emugle-dev/mugle/data-wrapper/revision/57>). > I'm just wondering what the purpose of this was. > > I haven't ever used this keyword before, so forgive me if I misunderstood > something. I just read the documentation earlier. It seems that if you add > it to a static method, it will lock the class whenever any synchronized > static method is called, which means it is not possible for any two threads > to be executing any code in any synchronized static method at the same time. > That doesn't seem necessary given that the class has no static data. Is > there a reason for doing this? > > Matt > > -- > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~mugle-dev > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~mugle-dev > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > -- *Prageeth Silva*
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~mugle-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~mugle-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
