0

So I want an array with 10 volatile booleans, not a volatile array with 10 booleans. It probably does not even make sense to have a volatile array reference, correct me if I am wrong.

JohnPristine
  • 3,485
  • 5
  • 30
  • 49

2 Answers2

1

If it's only 10 and is always 10, you could simply write:

private volatile boolean b1, b2, ..., b10;

A possibly cleaner way would be to use an AtomicIntegerArray(10) and map between integers and booleans (0=false, 1=true).

You should clarify the reason why you need 10 volatile booleans: there may be a better way.

assylias
  • 321,522
  • 82
  • 660
  • 783
  • 10 was just an example. I would be needing N. But if we give it a thought we conclude that this is worthless. I can just use AtomicBoolean[], right? – JohnPristine Feb 22 '14 at 19:51
  • Yes you could have a `private volatile AtomicBoolean[]` so both the array and its components are volatile. – assylias Feb 22 '14 at 19:55
  • 1
    @John Since you probably don't want to ever replace the array itself, better make it `final` and non-volatile. As long as you initialize it in the constructor that's thread-safe too. – Voo Feb 22 '14 at 20:27
1

I believe the only way is to have a AtomicBoolean[] or an AtomicIntegerArray. Then they do not need to be volatile. Its elements will be.

If you want more fun, check this question: Which is "better". AtomicIntegerArray (1/0 as true/false) versus AtomicBoolean[]?

Community
  • 1
  • 1
JohnPristine
  • 3,485
  • 5
  • 30
  • 49