This is a question from Niko's on Threads. What is the result of the following code:
The possible choices are:
a. It prints 0.
b. It prints 999999.
c. The output is not guaranteed to be any of the above.
The answer is choice b.
But b is guaranteed only if line 1 executes before line 2 and the main thread gets the lock on thread object BEFORE the second thread. That cannot be guaranteed. If the reverse happens & line 2 executes first, the program will basically hang at thread.wait() [since notify() has already happened, and wait() doesn't know that].
So shouldn't the answer be choice c?
"A problem well stated is a problem half solved.” - Charles F. Kettering
SCJP 6, OCPJWCD
Taken from K & B (SCJP 1.6) page no.: 748 and 749:
This program contains two objects with threads: ThreadA contains the main
thread and ThreadB has a thread that calculates the sum of all numbers from 0
through 99. As soon as line 4 calls the start() method, ThreadA will continue
with the next line of code in its own class, which means it could get to line 11
before ThreadB has finished the calculation. To prevent this, we use the wait()
method in line 9.
Even it is stated that "As soon as line 4 calls the start() method, ThreadA will continue with the next line of code in its own class...". What I do not understand is, how can we be so sure?
For my next trick, I'll need the help of a tiny ad ...