We Keep Coding

Why we can't declare whole class as synchronized in Java?

I am new to Java I just want to know what if whole class in Java will be synchronized, what will be the possible problems? I know the concept of class level locking, which is different.

Marking the whole class synchronized would be misleading. Although there are situations when it makes perfect sense to make all methods of a class synchronized, a class typically contains other declarations that cannot be synchronized.
For example, class constructor cannot be marked synchronized. Same goes for fields of a class. One could mistakingly assume that fields in a class marked synchronized would be accessed in a synchronized way, but that is not something that Java does automatically. Of course language designers could declare that synchronized on class level applies only to methods, but such decision would be somewhat arbitrary.

The synchronized keyword can only be used on method declarations and as synchronized blocks. When used on a method declaration, it's the same as adding a synchronized block around the contents of the method, synchronizing on this. There is nothing preventing you from synchronizing every method of a class. If you use synchronized keyword on every method declaration that would mean that only one method of the class can execute concurrently. In a multi-threaded application this could cause poor performance, but there isn't anything to prevent you doing it.

Why "synchronized" has no role in polymorphism

synchronized is not part of method signature. But when we override a method, its not only the method signature which decides whether the overridden method will compile or not.
For example, we cannot add or widen a checked exception
Why does synchronized have no role in polymorphism. A synchronized method should not be overridden without putting synchronized. As the person who is using super class variable might think that all methods are thread safe.
But a non synchronized methods should be allowed to be overridden with synchronized as it is adding more functionality but on the other hand user will not face any error except time lag.
I am looking a logical explanation which can throw some light on "why is designed so".

A "synchronized" method should not be overridden without putting "synchronized".
Wrong. A base class might not be thread-safe, but a subclass might have its own synchronization, such as a lock, lock-free thread-safe data structure, etc. Not all thread-safe methods are synchronized, and not all synchronized methods are thread-safe.
The same can go in the other direction (but may break other principles, depending on the case)
synchronized isn't an object-oriented thing, but rather a runtime/execution phenomenon, and an implementation detail. All it does is acquire a monitor the same way synchronized(this){ } (or synchronizing on the java.lang.Class object if static) would. As an implementation detail, it makes no sense to expose it to OOP considerations.
Note: This doesn't mean that a compile-time annotation such as #ThreadSafe doesn't make sense. It does, since it references the method's contract to be thread-safe. synchronized doesn't do this.

You can see JDK-4294756 for an explanation of it is OK for a method to override another without preserving the synchronized modifier. This bug report asked for a warning to be shown by the compiler when a method overrides a synchronized method but does not declare itself synchronized, and it was closed as "Won't Fix". The key reason is the following:
The use of the synchronized modifier, as well as other synchronization via
explicit 'synchronized' statements, is a part of the implementation of an
abstraction represented by a class, and an alternate implementation captured
in a subclass may use a different synchronization strategy in order to
implement equivalent semantics. As an example, consider the case in which a
small critical section (protected by a 'synchronized' statement) within a larger
unsynchronized method replaces a smaller method that was protected in its
entirety by a synchronized method modifier.
So the absence of a synchronized modifier does not necessarily mean the method is not thread-safe. Thread-safety can be fine-grained inside the method.

Let me put it a different way:
Suppose we have two classes:
class Foo {
public synchronized void doSomething(...) { ... }
}
class Bar extends Foo {
public void doSomething(...) { ... }
}
Foo and Bar are different classes. foo.doSomething(...) and bar.doSomething(...) are different methods.
The synchronized keyword is not there for the benefit of the caller: It says nothing about what foo.doSomething(...) does. The synchronized keyword is just a detail of how that method is implemented.
The Foo class needs its doSomething(...) method to be synchronized in order to correctly fulfill its API contract in a multi-threaded environment. The bar.doSomething(...) method is implemented differently and it doesn't need synchronization.
So long as a Bar instance can be used wherever a Foo instance is wanted, everyone should be happy. There's no reason why the caller should want the method to be synchronized: The caller should just want the method to work.

Why is "final" not allowed in Java 8 interface methods?

One of the most useful features of Java 8 are the new default methods on interfaces. There are essentially two reasons (there may be others) why they have been introduced:
Providing actual default implementations. Example: Iterator.remove()
Allowing for JDK API evolution. Example: Iterable.forEach()
From an API designer's perspective, I would have liked to be able to use other modifiers on interface methods, e.g. final. This would be useful when adding convenience methods, preventing "accidental" overrides in implementing classes:
interface Sender {
// Convenience method to send an empty message
default final void send() {
send(null);
}
// Implementations should only implement this method
void send(String message);
}
The above is already common practice if Sender were a class:
abstract class Sender {
// Convenience method to send an empty message
final void send() {
send(null);
}
// Implementations should only implement this method
abstract void send(String message);
}
Now, default and final are obviously contradicting keywords, but the default keyword itself would not have been strictly required, so I'm assuming that this contradiction is deliberate, to reflect the subtle differences between "class methods with body" (just methods) and "interface methods with body" (default methods), i.e. differences which I have not yet understood.
At some point of time, support for modifiers like static and final on interface methods was not yet fully explored, citing Brian Goetz:
The other part is how far we're going to go to support class-building
tools in interfaces, such as final methods, private methods, protected
methods, static methods, etc. The answer is: we don't know yet
Since that time in late 2011, obviously, support for static methods in interfaces was added. Clearly, this added a lot of value to the JDK libraries themselves, such as with Comparator.comparing().
Question:
What is the reason final (and also static final) never made it to Java 8 interfaces?

This question is, to some degree, related to What is the reason why “synchronized” is not allowed in Java 8 interface methods?
The key thing to understand about default methods is that the primary design goal is interface evolution, not "turn interfaces into (mediocre) traits". While there's some overlap between the two, and we tried to be accommodating to the latter where it didn't get in the way of the former, these questions are best understood when viewed in this light. (Note too that class methods are going to be different from interface methods, no matter what the intent, by virtue of the fact that interface methods can be multiply inherited.)
The basic idea of a default method is: it is an interface method with a default implementation, and a derived class can provide a more specific implementation. And because the design center was interface evolution, it was a critical design goal that default methods be able to be added to interfaces after the fact in a source-compatible and binary-compatible manner.
The too-simple answer to "why not final default methods" is that then the body would then not simply be the default implementation, it would be the only implementation. While that's a little too simple an answer, it gives us a clue that the question is already heading in a questionable direction.
Another reason why final interface methods are questionable is that they create impossible problems for implementors. For example, suppose you have:
interface A {
default void foo() { ... }
}
interface B {
}
class C implements A, B {
}
Here, everything is good; C inherits foo() from A. Now supposing B is changed to have a foo method, with a default:
interface B {
default void foo() { ... }
}
Now, when we go to recompile C, the compiler will tell us that it doesn't know what behavior to inherit for foo(), so C has to override it (and could choose to delegate to A.super.foo() if it wanted to retain the same behavior.) But what if B had made its default final, and A is not under the control of the author of C? Now C is irretrievably broken; it can't compile without overriding foo(), but it can't override foo() if it was final in B.
This is just one example, but the point is that finality for methods is really a tool that makes more sense in the world of single-inheritance classes (generally which couple state to behavior), than to interfaces which merely contribute behavior and can be multiply inherited. It's too hard to reason about "what other interfaces might be mixed into the eventual implementor", and allowing an interface method to be final would likely cause these problems (and they would blow up not on the person who wrote the interface, but on the poor user who tries to implement it.)
Another reason to disallow them is that they wouldn't mean what you think they mean. A default implementation is only considered if the class (or its superclasses) don't provide a declaration (concrete or abstract) of the method. If a default method were final, but a superclass already implemented the method, the default would be ignored, which is probably not what the default author was expecting when declaring it final. (This inheritance behavior is a reflection of the design center for default methods -- interface evolution. It should be possible to add a default method (or a default implementation to an existing interface method) to existing interfaces that already have implementations, without changing the behavior of existing classes that implement the interface, guaranteeing that classes that already worked before default methods were added will work the same way in the presence of default methods.)

In the lambda mailing list there are plenty of discussions about it. One of those that seems to contain a lot of discussion about all that stuff is the following: On Varied interface method visibility (was Final defenders).
In this discussion, Talden, the author of the original question asks something very similar to your question:
The decision to make all interface members public was indeed an
unfortunate decision. That any use of interface in internal design
exposes implementation private details is a big one.
It's a tough one to fix without adding some obscure or compatibility
breaking nuances to the language. A compatibility break of that
magnitude and potential subtlety would seen unconscionable so a
solution has to exist that doesn't break existing code.
Could reintroducing the 'package' keyword as an access-specifier be
viable. It's absence of a specifier in an interface would imply
public-access and the absence of a specifier in a class implies
package-access. Which specifiers make sense in an interface is unclear
- especially if, to minimise the knowledge burden on developers, we have to ensure that access-specifiers mean the same thing in both
class and interface if they're present.
In the absence of default methods I'd have speculated that the
specifier of a member in an interface has to be at least as visible as
the interface itself (so the interface can actually be implemented in
all visible contexts) - with default methods that's not so certain.
Has there been any clear communication as to whether this is even a
possible in-scope discussion? If not, should it be held elsewhere.
Eventually Brian Goetz's answer was:
Yes, this is already being explored.
However, let me set some realistic expectations -- language / VM
features have a long lead time, even trivial-seeming ones like this.
The time for proposing new language feature ideas for Java SE 8 has
pretty much passed.
So, most likely it was never implemented because it was never part of the scope. It was never proposed in time to be considered.
In another heated discussion about final defender methods on the subject, Brian said again:
And you have gotten exactly what you wished for. That's exactly what
this feature adds -- multiple inheritance of behavior. Of course we
understand that people will use them as traits. And we've worked hard
to ensure that the the model of inheritance they offer is simple and
clean enough that people can get good results doing so in a broad
variety of situations. We have, at the same time, chosen not to push
them beyond the boundary of what works simply and cleanly, and that
leads to "aw, you didn't go far enough" reactions in some case. But
really, most of this thread seems to be grumbling that the glass is
merely 98% full. I'll take that 98% and get on with it!
So this reinforces my theory that it simply was not part of the scope or part of their design. What they did was to provide enough functionality to deal with the issues of API evolution.

It will be hard to find and identify "THE" answer, for the resons mentioned in the comments from #EJP : There are roughly 2 (+/- 2) people in the world who can give the definite answer at all. And in doubt, the answer might just be something like "Supporting final default methods did not seem to be worth the effort of restructuring the internal call resolution mechanisms". This is speculation, of course, but it is at least backed by subtle evidences, like this Statement (by one of the two persons) in the OpenJDK mailing list:
"I suppose if "final default" methods were allowed, they might need rewriting from internal invokespecial to user-visible invokeinterface."
and trivial facts like that a method is simply not considered to be a (really) final method when it is a default method, as currently implemented in the Method::is_final_method method in the OpenJDK.
Further really "authorative" information is indeed hard to find, even with excessive websearches and by reading commit logs. I thought that it might be related to potential ambiguities during the resolution of interface method calls with the invokeinterface instruction and and class method calls, corresponding to the invokevirtual instruction: For the invokevirtual instruction, there may be a simple vtable lookup, because the method must either be inherited from a superclass, or implemented by the class directly. In contrast to that, an invokeinterface call must examine the respective call site to find out which interface this call actually refers to (this is explained in more detail in the InterfaceCalls page of the HotSpot Wiki). However, final methods do either not get inserted into the vtable at all, or replace existing entries in the vtable (see klassVtable.cpp. Line 333), and similarly, default methods are replacing existing entries in the vtable (see klassVtable.cpp, Line 202). So the actual reason (and thus, the answer) must be hidden deeper inside the (rather complex) method call resolution mechanisms, but maybe these references will nevertheless be considered as being helpful, be it only for others that manage to derive the actual answer from that.

I wouldn't think it is neccessary to specify final on a convienience interface method, I can agree though that it may be helpful, but seemingly the costs have outweight the benefits.
What you are supposed to do, either way, is to write proper javadoc for the default method, showing exactly what the method is and is not allowed to do. In that way the classes implementing the interface "are not allowed" to change the implementation, though there are no guarantees.
Anyone could write a Collection that adheres to the interface and then does things in the methods that are absolutely counter intuitive, there is no way to shield yourself from that, other than writing extensive unit tests.

We add default keyword to our method inside an interface when we know that the class extending the interface may or may not override our implementation. But what if we want to add a method that we don't want any implementing class to override? Well, two options were available to us:
Add a default final method.
Add a static method.
Now, Java says that if we have a class implementing two or more interfaces such that they have a default method with exactly same method name and signature i.e. they are duplicate, then we need to provide an implementation of that method in our class. Now in case of default final methods, we can't provide an implementation and we are stuck. And that's why final keyword isn't used in interfaces.

Why can't an abstract method be synchronized?

I was reading a thread from CodeRanch saying that abstract methods could not be synchronized due to the fact that an abstract class cannot be instantiated, meaning no object to lock.
This doesn't make sense since an abstract class is a definition (contract) for a child class. The abstract definition of a synchronized method does not need to lock, the child does. All the abstract heading would indicate is that the child must synchronize this method. Is my logic on this correct? If not can someone explain why I'm wrong?

The comment about not being able to instantiate the abstract class is garbage. Given that it has to be an instance method to be abstract, there certainly is a reference which could be locked on. Concrete methods in abstract classes can still refer to this. However, that still doesn't mean that abstract classes should be able to be synchronized.
Whether or not a method is synchronized is an implementation detail of the method. Synchronization isn't specified anywhere as a declarative contract - it's not like you can synchronize in interfaces, either.
How a class implements whatever thread safety guarantees it provides is up to it. If an abstract class wants to mandate a particular approach, it should use the template method pattern:
// I hate synchronizing on "this"
private final Object lock = new Object();
public final void foo() {
synchronized(lock) {
fooImpl();
}
}
protected abstract void fooImpl();
That's pretty dangerous in itself though, given that it's effectively calling "unknown" code within a lock, which is a recipe for deadlocks etc.

Locking behavior shouldn't be specified using abstract methods or interface methods because it shouldn't be part of the contract.
Probably the idea was that locking behavior is fundamentally part of the implementation -- different implementations will want to perform locking differently -- and it would be counterproductive to specify it at that level of abstraction.
Remember the keyword synchronized is specifically for implementing implicit locking (acquiring the lock on the object that the instance method is called on), and there are ways to do locking using alternatives like ReentrantLock, where that keyword is not applicable, or possibly to use CAS or otherwise avoid locking altogether.

synchronized void foo()
{
body
}
is defined to be equivalent to
void foo()
{
synchronized(this)
{
body
}
}
(if static, synchronized on the class instead of this)
Since an abstract method has no body, synchronized keyword on the method is undefined.

I think one logic behind that could be that whether or not to synchronize that method should be decided by the implementing class. Meaning, it gives the freedom to the implementer to choose on whether to provide a synchronized or unsynchronized implementation. Plus, the client would also have option to to select the unsynchronized version so as to avoid synchronization overhead if thread-safety is not an issue.

Preventing API users from using some methods

Hi I'm implementing a given design in java. Basically I have an abstract class which is called base and I have a number of concrete classes which are extending Base and implementing an interface from a different package. Each concrete class will be implementing a different interface. Now these interfaces contain both event-based and non event-based method signatures in them. My question here is; I'm only expected to implement non-event based methods in my concrete classes, however because of the implements keyword java forces me to insert an auto generated method body, which is basically return null. They might be implementing those event based methods later on but not at the moment. What would be an appropriate way to let the API user know that these methods do not contain an implementation. Here are my thoughts;
Use deprecated keyword
Create an exception class and throw that exception inside of the method and let the API user handle it.
I do not have the option of making changes to the existing architecture. Any idea really appreciated. Thank you.

According to Oracle, the reasons to deprecate an API include
It is insecure, buggy, or highly inefficient
It is going away in a future release
It encourages bad coding practices
neither of which actually fits your case.
Personally, I would favor throwing an UnsupportedOperationException which is already provided by the Standard Library in order to
indicate that the requested operation is not supported.
To me, this sounds more like what you actually want.

You can create your own interface which lists all the method you want users of your component to be able to access. Make this the only interface they use and additional public methods will not be visible.

Option (2) is good, but as you are following interfaces you'll want unchecked exceptions. And document the methods as unimplemented.
Deprecated implies a history, i.e., it works but should no longer be used. Since you are explicitly stating that the methods do not work, marking as deprecated will not prevent use nor indicate that the methods are unimplemented.

I would suggest use some mix bag of design patterns. That will help you solve this problem efficiently and make the code maintainable as well.
Based on my knowledge, you can use the Abstract Factory pattern here. See the design sketch below in the figure.
Method1 and method2 in subclass1 and subclass2 are the ones which are supposed to be exposed while method3 and method4 in subclass1 and subclass2 are the ones which we don't want to expose.
Create a Genericsubclass interface and create some methods in this interface depending upon the nature of methods you have in subclasses. For ex: i have create one method in this interface called nonEventbasedmethod1
Create a factory corresponding to every sub class and each factory will implement the GenericSubclass interface. Then implementation of nonEventbasedmethod1 method in subclass1Factory would be some thing like
nonEventbasedmethod1(){
subclass1.method1();
}
and implementation of nonEventbasedmethod1 method in subclass2Factory would be some thing like
nonEventbasedmethod1(){
subclass2.method3();
}
Then create a SubclassAbstract Factory which will return one of the subclass factories and then without worrying about which factory has been returned (that decision has already been taken in SubclassAbstractFactory before returning the appropriate factory) simply call the desired method from GenericSubclass interface and underneath one of the methods from the subclass1 or subclass2 will be invoked.
Hope this helps.

If you plain to throw an exception for "NotSupported" or "NotImplemented" Exception - consider the exception of NotImplementedException (at org.apache.commons).
However, I would reconsider to revisit your design and see if you can avoid having this - maybe you need to define another interface, which will hold the methods that are always implemented, and extend it in another interface (or provide an interface with no extension to the previous one) for the methods you not always implement.