Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 9298043
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 18, 20262026-06-18T22:13:23+00:00 2026-06-18T22:13:23+00:00

I often use the following pattern to create a cancellable thread: public class CounterLoop

  • 0

I often use the following pattern to create a cancellable thread:

public class CounterLoop implements Runnable {

    private volatile AtomicBoolean cancelPending = new AtomicBoolean(false);

    @Override
    public void run() {
        while (!cancelPending.get()) {
            //count
        }
    }

    public void cancel() {
        cancelPending.set(true);
    }
}

But I’m not sure that cancelPending MUST be a AtomicBoolean. Can we just use a normal boolean in this case?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-06-18T22:13:24+00:00Added an answer on June 18, 2026 at 10:13 pm

    Using both volatile and AtomicBoolean is unnecessary. If you declare the cancelPending variable as final as follows:

    private final AtomicBoolean cancelPending = new AtomicBoolean(false);
    

    the JLS semantics for final fields mean that synchronization (or volatile) will not be needed. All threads will see the correct value for the cancelPending reference. JLS 17.5 states:

    “An object is considered to be completely initialized when its constructor finishes. A thread that can only see a reference to an object after that object has been completely initialized is guaranteed to see the correctly initialized values for that object’s final fields.”

    … but there are no such guarantees for normal fields; i.e. not final and not volatile.

    You could also just declare cancelPending as a volatile boolean … since you don’t appear to be using the test-and-set capability of AtomicBoolean.

    However, if you used a non-volatile boolean you would need to use synchronized to ensure that all threads see an up-to-date copy of the cancelPending flag.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I'll often have objects with properties that use the following pattern: private decimal? _blah;
I have a custom class called Rows that implements IEnumerable<Row> . I often use
I am working on a PHP project. There, I often use following syntax to
Which of the following two is better? Why? Ex. 1: public class TestClass {
When constructing a std::string from a const char* , I often use the following
So I find myself doing something like the following pattern often. Instead of: if
When using Visual Studio console applications I often use the following line of code:
I find myself often repeating the following pattern of operations. I usually go into
We often use the following lambda expression MyList.Select(x => x.Id).ToList(); Is possible to get
I need to use the following very often diff <filename.c> standard How can I

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.