mugle-dev team mailing list archive

[Prageeth Silva <prageethsilva@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with what you said. So should I take the 'synchronized' keyword off?

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Matt Giuca <matt.giuca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> May be you are correct. I've used synchronized when working with threads
>> and i *thought* synchronized also makes the statements wait for a call to
>> return within that method.
>>
>> For example, if a query was made, I'd want it to wait till there's a
>> feedback from the query without using a callback.
>>
>
> Ah, no, that can't possibly be. In Java (and all other languages), calls to
> a method *always* wait for a return statement before continuing (this is
> called "synchronous calling"), so normally this is already the behaviour you
> would expect.
>
> The reason in GWT we are getting calls to methods which *don't* wait for a
> return (this is called "asynchronous calling") is that we are calling across
> the client/server boundary, and the JavaScript which GWT is generating has
> no idea *how* to wait for a return (this is sort of a failing of
> JavaScript). This is why we are forced to use the Async classes with
> callbacks. It's the only way to have code run when you finally receive a
> response from the method (which is on the server side), and there is no way
> to abstract over it.
>
> Therefore, if I am right about what "synchronized" actually does, I would
> avoid using it for static methods unless you need thread-safe access to
> static variables -- otherwise it will just slow down threaded code, and
> possibly deadlock.
>



-- 
*Prageeth Silva*