Do I still need to synchronize static methods in this class?

Asked Jun 29 '17 at 21:35

Active Oct 06 '18 at 07:45

Viewed 30 times

class Writer{
    static int a;
    static int b;

   public static void write(String inFile, String outFile){
        ...
   }
}

Now I use this class this way:

 Writer.write(f1, f2)

This line of code will be accessed by multiple threads. I feel I still need to protect the 'write()' method with the keyword "synchronized". But my question is, since Writer class only has static variables and static methods, the client code doesn't need to create any instance out of it. Do I still need to synchronize the write method?

edited Oct 06 '18 at 07:45

Cœur

37,241
25
195
267

asked Jun 29 '17 at 21:35

user697911

10,043
25
95
169

Don't use the class this way. If the class has state, make the state per-instance. – chrylis -cautiouslyoptimistic- Jun 29 '17 at 21:37
What do you mean by "the class has state"? – user697911 Jun 29 '17 at 21:38
It depends on the implementation. Does the `write` method modify `a` and `b`? – Andrew Rueckert Jun 29 '17 at 21:39
Of course, it does. In the method, it computes the value of a and b. – user697911 Jun 29 '17 at 21:40
If you do synchronize it, make sure to give it a specific monitor and not leave out the monitor statement, so as to avoid using the class itself as the default monitor. – Hovercraft Full Of Eels Jun 29 '17 at 21:42
I believe that `static` has ***nothing*** to do with whether or not the method should be synchronized (it should), but may have some bearing on *how* you synchronize. – Hovercraft Full Of Eels Jun 29 '17 at 21:56

Do I still need to synchronize static methods in this class?

0 Answers0