Test your might

> > Are the elements synchronized

>

> What do you mean?

>

> or the collection?

>

> Sure. The collection is synchronized.

Just trying to understand the context of your question. I didn't know what you meant by the elements are synchronized? Also don't know what you mean by issues? What are you attempting to do with it?

zadoka at 2007-7-9 0:08:39 >

Sure, there are lots of ways you could have threading problems. Even with simple code likeif (!collection.contains(thing)) {

collection.add(thing);

}

it isn't sufficient to synchronize the call to contains() and the call to add() separately. Which is what you are doing.

DrClapa at 2007-7-9 0:08:39 >

> only if the elemnts added are not immutable?

> synchronized is a lil different from thread safe I

> guess.

Even if you had immutable objects you could still have issues

consider the equals method. First off, equals is defined in Object as not synchonized, so your equals method probably isn't synchronized. BUT even if it was, or even if you synchronized on it. But then the list you're comparing to might change, so you synchronize on that... even then you could STILL have thread race conditions if that other list wasn't synchronized

... Or you could just make your own collection where the underlying data structure is a public member variable :)

tjacobs01a at 2007-7-9 0:08:39 >

> What I'm saying is that even if you try to make your

> list as threadsafe as possible, there is no way to

> make equals totally threadsafe because things could

> be changing with the object you are comparing to. Not

Not if the object is immutable.

>

> My head hearts. I'm going to get a beer.

kilyasa at 2007-7-9 0:08:39 >