ThreadLocal was meant for different purpose as per oracle documentation.
Have a look at intent of this class:
This class provides thread-local variables. These variables differ from their normal counterparts in that each thread that accesses one (via its get or set method) has its own, independently initialized copy of the variable. ThreadLocal instances are typically private static fields in classes that wish to associate state with a thread (e.g., a user ID or Transaction ID).
Below code block generates unique identifiers local to each thread. A thread's id is assigned the first time it invokes ThreadId.get() and remains unchanged on subsequent calls.
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class ThreadId {
// Atomic integer containing the next thread ID to be assigned
private static final AtomicInteger nextId = new AtomicInteger(0);
// Thread local variable containing each thread's ID
private static final ThreadLocal<Integer> threadId =
new ThreadLocal<Integer>() {
@Override protected Integer initialValue() {
return nextId.getAndIncrement();
}
};
// Returns the current thread's unique ID, assigning it if necessary
public static int get() {
return threadId.get();
}
}
Coming back to your query:
When we need to get a variable specific to a thread, can't we just declare that variable as a local variable inside a method? Because every thread has its own stack and thus it gets its own copy of variables. Am I missing something here?
Yes. You are missing something here.
The scope of variable , which was declared inside a method ends with the method life cycle.
In case of ThreadLocal varaibles, each thread holds an implicit reference to its copy of a thread-local variable as long as the thread is alive and the ThreadLocal instance is accessible. You can re-enter the thread multiple times in it's life cycle and still you can retain the variable.
