For example, is this better?
try {
synchronized (bean) {
// Write something
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// Write something
}
Or it's better this:
synchronized (bean) {
try {
// Write something
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
// Write something
}
}
I was wondering which one is best practice. Obviously considering I have to synchronize all the code inside the try block. I'm not talking about the case I've to synchronize only part of the code inside the try (in this case I think it would be better to have the synch block inside the try). My doubts are about the case where I've to synchronize all the try block.
synchronized block has better performance as only the critical section is locked but synchronized method has poor performance than block. synchronized block provide granular control over lock but synchronized method lock either on current object represented by this or class level lock.
A Synchronized block is a piece of code that can be used to perform synchronization on any specific resource of the method. A Synchronized block is used to lock an object for any shared resource and the scope of a synchronized block is smaller than the synchronized method.
Synchronization of whole getinstance() method is costly and is only needed during the initialization on singleton instance, to stop creating another instance of Singleton. Therefore it is better to only synchronize critical section and not the whole method.
Synchronized Blocks in Static MethodsOnly one thread can execute inside any of these two methods at the same time. Had the second synchronized block been synchronized on a different object than MyClass. class , then one thread could execute inside each method at the same time.
There is no best practice. It only depends if you need the exception handling part inside the synchronized block or not. You might want one or the other, and should choose the one which makes the synchronized block the shortest, while still making the code correct and thread-safe.
It is better to have a synchronized block inside a try block or a try block inside a synchronized block?
Unless you explicitly need the catch
to be in the synchronized
block, I would make the synchronized
section of code as small as possible and have it inside the try/catch. So the first pattern would be better. Then if you do need to do operations in the catch
section (like log the exception or re-interrupt the thread, see below), these wouldn't block other threads.
That said, if the synchronized
block contains a number of lines (usually not a good idea of course) then I would consider moving the try/catch block closer to the method that throws the exception (prolly wait
or notify
). With a large number of lines, you run the risk of improperly handling exceptions with large try/catch blocks. Depends a bit on the frame of reference here.
As an aside, make sure that you at least log interrupted exceptions. Never just ignore them. You probably also want to re-interrupt the thread:
try {
...
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// always a good pattern
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
// handle the interrupt here by logging or returning or ...
}
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With