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 9223371
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 18, 20262026-06-18T04:03:46+00:00 2026-06-18T04:03:46+00:00

In an article on the double-checked locking idiom, I found this quote: One special

  • 0

In an article on the double-checked locking idiom, I found this quote:

One special case of lazy initialization that does work as expected without synchronization is the static singleton. When the initialized object is a static field of a class with no other methods or fields, the JVM effectively performs lazy initialization automatically.

Why is the emphasized part important? Why doesn’t it work if there are other methods or fields?

(The article is already more than 10 years old. Is the information still relevant?)

  • 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
    2026-06-18T04:03:47+00:00Added an answer on June 18, 2026 at 4:03 am

    What it means is probably that, if a class has no other methods or fields, then you only access it for the singleton, so the singleton is only created when demanded. Otherwise, for example

    class Foo 
    {
        public static final Foo foo = new Foo();
    
        public static int x() { return 0; }
    }
    
    class AnotherClass
    {
        void test() 
        {
            print(Foo.x());
        }
    }
    

    here, foo was instantiated, though it was never asked for.

    But it’s ok to have private static methods/fields, so others won’t trigger class initialization by accident.

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

Sidebar

Related Questions

I was reading this article about Double-Checked locking and out of the main topic
When I was reading Wikipedias's article about Double Checked Locking idiom, I'm confused about
In the examples mentioned for Out-of-order writes for double-checked locking scenarios (ref: IBM article
In few articles, it says that using of volatile fixes the Double Checked Locking
I figured out that double type on my machine corresponds to this Wikipedia article,
According to many, the somewhat common Double-Checked Locking idiom is broken for java unless
I came across this article discussing why the double-check locking paradigm is broken in
This article on memory leaks emphasizes that having superfluous event listeners leads to memory
This article explains how to correct an exception that's often seen when switching an
This article on MSDN states that you can use as many try catch blocks

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.