On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Oliver Schoett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Martin Gainty wrote: >> >> so the solution is put all updates/inserts to the arraylist into a >> synchronized method? > > You must synchronize all read and write methods, because nothing may run in > parallel with a write method, and so read methods must be prevented from > executing if a write method runs already. > > The only exception is if you can ensure that the ArrayList is read-only at > some point in your program (e. g., after a setup phase). > > Arguing that the size() function cannot loop does not help, because the size > function could be called internally in an infinite loop (this would be > visible in the call stack).
Oliver, I'm very sorry but i really don't see your point. The only possible need to synchronize access to ArrayList.size is when you a) access the list from different threads and b) need the result to be exact. Neither was the fact in my original post, in fact, as we already resolved it, the vm was getting out of old gen space and afterwards just behaving weird. In 99% of the cases you don't need to synchronize calls to ArrayList, because usually you will use it in a local scope or single thread. And you definitely don't need to synchronize .size(), the worst thing that can happen is that the result is inaccurate, because another thread just removed or added something (except for reasons stated in first part of the mail). regards Leon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
