Related
For each position: I have a ConcurrentHashMap where I do the following: sequences = new ConcurrentHashMap<Class<?>, AtomicLong>();
if(!sequences.containsKey(table)) {
synchronized (sequences) {
if(!sequences.containsKey(table))
initial
For each position: I have a ConcurrentHashMap where I do the following: sequences = new ConcurrentHashMap<Class<?>, AtomicLong>();
if(!sequences.containsKey(table)) {
synchronized (sequences) {
if(!sequences.containsKey(table))
initial
Eli I'm maintaining some legacy code and found some synchronizedimplementations of the keyword on ConcurrentHashMap. It doesn't seem necessary to me: public class MyClass{
private final Map<MyObj, Map<String, List<String>>> conMap = new ConcurrentHashMap<
Eli I'm maintaining some legacy code and found some synchronizedimplementations of the keyword on ConcurrentHashMap. It doesn't seem necessary to me: public class MyClass{
private final Map<MyObj, Map<String, List<String>>> conMap = new ConcurrentHashMap<
Maxim Dmitriev The code is from the Java Concurrency Guidelines by Fred Long . I understand that a set of atomic operations is not atomic. Therefore, the following code does not meet the requirements. To find the code, see page 23. public class Adder {
pr
jddxf On the one hand, according to the following Javadoc: If multiple threads access an ArrayList instance concurrently, and at least one thread structurally modifies the list, it must be synchronized externally. (A structural modification is any operation th
Maxim Dmitriev The code is from the Java Concurrency Guidelines by Fred Long . I understand that a set of atomic operations is not atomic. Therefore, the following code does not meet the requirements. To find the code, see page 23. public class Adder {
pr
jddxf On the one hand, according to the following Javadoc: If multiple threads access an ArrayList instance concurrently, and at least one thread structurally modifies the list, it must be synchronized externally. (A structural modification is any operation th
Songxiang ArrayList is not synchronized. But there is a way to get sync, as described java.util.ArrayListin the JavaDoc: List list = Collections.synchronizedList(new ArrayList(...));
In the java.util.CollectionsJavaDoc you can read " As the user traverses the
Songxiang ArrayList is not synchronized. But there is a way to get sync, as described java.util.ArrayListin the JavaDoc: List list = Collections.synchronizedList(new ArrayList(...));
In the java.util.CollectionsJavaDoc you can read " As the user traverses the
Bobo When using code like this def execute_run(list_out):
... do something
pool = ThreadPoolExecutor(6)
for i in list1:
for j in list2:
pool.submit(myfunc, list_out)
pool.join()
Assuming threads modify list_out, do they operate in a sync
Petro Semeniuk： Consider the following code sniper: package sync;
public class LockQuestion {
private String mutable;
public synchronized void setMutable(String mutable) {
this.mutable = mutable;
}
public String getMutable() {
snow leopard Probably a very stupid question. Just wanted to confirm my understanding. class Test
{
private volatile String id;
public void setID(String id)
{
this.id = id;
}
public String getID()
{
Cyrillic I'm trying to create a factory for an angular module that returns a JSON object received through angular $http.get(). In the for's callback function success(), I am trying to assign an object to a variable products. It seems to productsbe returned fro
snow leopard Probably a very stupid question. Just wanted to confirm my understanding. class Test
{
private volatile String id;
public void setID(String id)
{
this.id = id;
}
public String getID()
{
Bobo When using code like this def execute_run(list_out):
... do something
pool = ThreadPoolExecutor(6)
for i in list1:
for j in list2:
pool.submit(myfunc, list_out)
pool.join()
Assuming threads modify list_out, do they operate in a sync
Petro Semeniuk： Consider the following code sniper: package sync;
public class LockQuestion {
private String mutable;
public synchronized void setMutable(String mutable) {
this.mutable = mutable;
}
public String getMutable() {
snow leopard Probably a very stupid question. Just wanted to confirm my understanding. class Test
{
private volatile String id;
public void setID(String id)
{
this.id = id;
}
public String getID()
{
Creator Suppose I have an array defined as follows: volatile char v[2];
I have two threads (represented by A, B respectively) manipulating an array v. If I make sure that A, B use different indices at any time, that is, if A is operating now v[i], then B is e
Samuel Martin I have a lot of this additional pattern in my code. Basically it is equivalent to a first kernel for filtering a large dataset where the selected entries returned will be very sparse, then a second kernel for performing more complex computations
Creator Suppose I have an array defined as follows: volatile char v[2];
I have two threads (represented by A, B respectively) manipulating an array v. If I make sure that A, B use different indices at all times, that is, if A is operating now v[i], then B is
Creator Suppose I have an array defined as follows: volatile char v[2];
I have two threads (represented by A, B respectively) manipulating an array v. If I make sure that A, B use different indices at all times, that is, if A is operating now v[i], then B is
Creator Suppose I have an array defined as follows: volatile char v[2];
I have two threads (represented by A, B respectively) manipulating an array v. If I make sure that A, B use different indices at all times, that is, if A is operating now v[i], then B is
Chapter 135 If I have a class that extends Thread with static methods (this is very simplified): public class MyThread extends Thread {
private static long SLEEP_INT = 30000;
private static Map<Integer, String> myData;
//every 30 seconds, update
user4759317： I've been working on a REST API as part of some tricks. The current implementation has a small concurrency issue when inserting objects into the ConcurrentHashMap. My code checks to see if the consumed JSON contains an ID. If not, create a new uni
user4759317： I've been working on a REST API as part of some tricks. The current implementation has a small concurrency issue when inserting objects into the ConcurrentHashMap. My code checks to see if the consumed JSON contains an ID. If not, create a new uni
user4759317： I've been working on a REST API as part of some tricks. The current implementation has a small concurrency issue when inserting objects into the ConcurrentHashMap. My code checks to see if the consumed JSON contains an ID. If not, create a new uni
ef2011： Why would I use an AtomicInteger since AtomicIntegerit's at least an order of magnitude slower than the intprotected object ?synchronized For example, if I just want to increment a value in a intthread-safe way , why not always use: synchronized(thread
ef2011： Why would I use an AtomicInteger since AtomicIntegerit's at least an order of magnitude slower than the intprotected object ?synchronized For example, if I just want to increment a value in a intthread-safe way , why not always use: synchronized(thread