Synchronised Vs. Non synchronised Thread

[Nabila Mohammad]

 public class AccountDanger1 implements Runnable
{
private Account acct=new Account();

public static void main(String args[])
{
AccountDanger1 r=new AccountDanger1();
Thread one=new Thread(r);
one.setName("Fred");
Thread two=new Thread(r);
two.setName("Lucy");

one.start();
two.start();
}
 

public void run()
{
for(int x=0;x<5;x++){
makeWithdrawal(10);  // Fred or Lucy with drawing 10 from bank
if (acct.getBalance()<0)
{
System.out.println("Account is over drawn.You are doomed!!!");
}
}
}

[B]private synchronized[/B] void makeWithdrawal(int amt)
{
if (acct.getBalance()>=amt) //Balance in the bank should be more then what they are withdrawing ie. 10
{
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " is going to withdraw ");

try{
Thread.sleep(500);
}catch (InterruptedException ex){}

acct.withdraw(amt);
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " completes withdrawal. " + "Now the balance left is " + acct.getBalance());
}
 
else
{
System.out.println("Not enough money in account for " + Thread.currentThread().getName() + " to withdraw " + acct.getBalance());
}

}
}
 

 
class Account
{
private int Balance=50;

public int getBalance()
{
return Balance;
}
 
public void withdraw(int amount)
{
Balance=Balance-amount;
}
}   

This is exactly the same exampl given in K & B book.
When I run this program with out synchronising the method , Fred and Lucy take turns in an irregular pattern (as expected)

But when I run this program with the keyword Synchronised exactly as mentioned in the above code - I donot see them taking turns.
Fred makes 5 transacation in a sequence till there is no Balance left.
Then Lucy makes the next five transaction in a sequence which gives the output "Not enough moeny for Lucy to withdraw 0" 5 times in a sequence.

It looks like when I donot synchronise the method , both the threads are woking simultaneously but when I Synchronize the method, the second thread only starts when the first thread is completed.

Is this how it is supposed to work ???

[Noam Wolf]

I don't see the same result as you do. When I run your code I see the following output:

Fred is going to withdraw
Fred completes withdrawal. Now the balance left is 40
Lucy is going to withdraw
Lucy completes withdrawal. Now the balance left is 30
Fred is going to withdraw
Fred completes withdrawal. Now the balance left is 20
Lucy is going to withdraw
Lucy completes withdrawal. Now the balance left is 10
Fred is going to withdraw
Fred completes withdrawal. Now the balance left is 0
Not enough money in account for Lucy to withdraw 0
Not enough money in account for Fred to withdraw 0
Not enough money in account for Lucy to withdraw 0
Not enough money in account for Fred to withdraw 0
Not enough money in account for Lucy to withdraw 0

[Nabila Mohammad]

That's what's written on the book and that's what I was expecting or something similiar..

But I am not getting that.
The out put I am getting is that the thread completes one after the other and NOT simultaneosly.

[Amit Ghorpade]

The out put I am getting is that the thread completes one after the other and NOT simultaneosly.

synchronization is meant for the same purpose only one thread at a time
so the output you are getting is also correct.
and remember the words from K & B book,
in thread execution nothing can be guranteed


Hope this helps

[Amit Ghorpade]

and yes the topic name reminds me of one more thing that is
thread is not synchronized the code is.


Hope this helps

[Nabila Mohammad]

Originally posted by Amit Ghorpade:

in thread execution nothing can be guranteed

Yes, I do understand that - but I thought we could predict it to some extent .
Isn't that the whole purpose of having Threads is that they work simulataneously and independent of one another.
And NOT one after the other.

Wonder if this has something to do with JVM...

[Amit Ghorpade]

To some extent you are correct that you want concurrency and not serial execution.
But remember that you can never even predict thread behavior because its entirely based on the thread schedular.

Just try using more than two threads, maybe you'll get closer to your desired output.


Hope this helps