Question

This is a question concerning what is the proper way to synchronize a shared object in java. One caveat is that the object that I want to share must be accessed from static methods. My question is, If I synchronize on a static field, does that lock the class the field belongs to similar to the way a synchronized static method would? Or, will this only lock the field itself?

In my specific example I am asking: Will calling PayloadService.getPayload() or PayloadService.setPayload() lock PayloadService.payload? Or will it lock the entire PayloadService class?

public class PayloadService extends Service {   


private static PayloadDTO payload = new PayloadDTO();


public static  void setPayload(PayloadDTO payload){
    synchronized(PayloadService.payload){
        PayloadService.payload = payload;
    }
}

public static  PayloadDTO getPayload() {
    synchronized(PayloadService.payload){
        return PayloadService.payload ;
    }
}

...

Is this a correct/acceptable approach ?

In my example the PayloadService is a separate thread, updating the payload object at regular intervals – other threads need to call PayloadService.getPayload() at random intervals to get the latest data and I need to make sure that they don’t lock the PayloadService from carrying out its timer task

Based on the responses, I refactored to the following:

public class PayloadHolder {

private static PayloadHolder holder;    
private static PayloadDTO payload;

private PayloadHolder(){        
}

public static synchronized PayloadHolder getInstance(){
    if(holder == null){
        holder = new PayloadHolder();
    }
    return holder;
}

public static synchronized void initPayload(){      
    PayloadHolder.payload = new PayloadDTO();       
}
public static synchronized PayloadDTO getPayload() {
    return payload;
}
public static synchronized void setPayload(PayloadDTO p) {
    PayloadHolder.payload = p;
}

}

public class PayloadService extends Service {   

  private static PayloadHolder payloadHolder = PayloadHolder.getInstance();

  public static  void initPayload(){        
            PayloadHolder.initPayload();        
  }

  public static  void setPayload(PayloadDTO payload){       
        PayloadHolder.setPayload(payload);      
  }

  public static  PayloadDTO getPayload() {      
    return PayloadHolder.getPayload();      
  }

     ...

Is this approach legitimate? I am also curious if it is better to do it this way or using the AtomicReference approach mentioned by Hardcoded …?
– I am keeping an instance of PayloadHolder on PayloadService simply to keep a reference to the PayloadHolder class active in the jvm for as long as the PayloadService is running.

Answer 1

You could, as mentioned in other posts, synchronize on the class or on an explicit monitor.

There are 2 other ways, if we assume that your are using the sychnronize only for thread-safe getting and setting of the property: volatile and AtomicReference.

volatile

The volatile keyword will make access to the variable atomic, meaning that reading and assigning the variable won’t be optimized by the CPUs local registers and are done atomically.

AtomicReference

The AtomicReference is a special class at the java.util.concurrent.atomic package, which allows atomic access to a variable-like reference. It is very similiar to volatile, but gives you some additional atomic operations, like compareAndSet.

Example:

public class PayloadService extends Service {   

private static final AtomicReference<PayloadDTO> payload 
          = new AtomicReference<PayloadDTO>(new PayloadDTO());

public static void setPayload(PayloadDTO payload){
    PayloadService.payload.set(payload);
}

public static PayloadDTO getPayload() {
    return PayloadService.payload.get ;
}

Edit:

Your Holder seems quite confused, since you are instantiating classes only to call static Methods. A try to get it fixed with AtomicReference:

public class PayloadHolder {

  private static AtomicReference<PayloadHolder> holder = new AtomicReference<PayloadHolder();    

  //This should be fetched through the holder instance, so no static
  private AtomicReference<PayloadDTO> payload = new AtomicReference<PayloadDTO>();

  private PayloadHolder(){        
  }

  public static PayloadHolder getInstance(){
    PayloadHolder instance = holder.get();

    //Check if there's already an instance
    if(instance == null){

      //Try to set a new PayloadHolder - if no one set it already.
      holder.compareAndSet(null, new PayloadHolder());
      instance = holder.get();

    }
    return instance;
  }

  public void initPayload(){      
    payload.set(new PayloadDTO());

    //Alternative to prevent a second init:
    //payload.compareAndSet(null, new PayloadDTO());
  }

  public PayloadDTO getPayload() {
    return payload.get;
  }

  public void setPayload(PayloadDTO p) {
    payload.set(p);
  }

}

public class PayloadService extends Service {   

  private final PayloadHolder payloadHolder = PayloadHolder.getInstance();

  public void initPayload(){        
    payloadHolder.initPayload();        
  }

  public void setPayload(PayloadDTO payload){       
    payloadHolder.setPayload(payload);      
  }

  public PayloadDTO getPayload() {      
    return payloadHolder.getPayload();      
  }
}