We Keep Coding

How to create thread safe object array in Java?

I've searched for this question and I only found answer for primitive type arrays.
Let's say I have a class called MyClass and I want to have an array of its objects in my another class.
class AnotherClass {
[modifiers(?)] MyClass myObjects;
void initFunction( ... ) {
// some code
myObjects = new MyClass[] { ... };
}
MyClass accessFunction(int index) {
return myObjects[index];
}
}
I read somewhere that declaring an array volatile does not give volatile access to its fields, but giving a new value of the array is safe.
So, if I understand it well, if I give my array a volatile modifier in my example code, it would be (kinda?) safe. In case of I never change its values by the [] operator.
Or am I wrong? And what should I do if I want to change one of its value? Should I create a new instance of the array an replace the old value with the new in the initial assignment?
AtomicXYZArray is not an option because it is only good for a primitive type arrays. AtomicIntegerArray uses native code for get() and set(), so it didn't help me.
Edit 1:
Collections.synchronizedList(...) can be a good alternative I think, but now I'm looking for arrays.
Edit 2: initFunction() is called from a different class.
AtomicReferenceArray seems to be a good answer. I didn't know about it, up to now. (I'm still interested in that my example code would work with volatile modifier (before the array) with only this two function called from somewhere else.)
This is my first question. I hope I managed to reach the formal requirements. Thanks.

Yes you are correct when you say that the volatile word will not fulfill your case, as it will protect the reference to the array and not its elements.
If you want both, Collections.synchronizedList(...) or synchronized collections is the easiest way to go.
Using modifiers like you are inclining to do is not the way to do this, as you will not affect the elements.
If you really, must, use and array like this one: new MyClass[]{ ... };
Then AnotherClass is the one that needs to take responsibility for its safety, you are probably looking for lower level synchronization here: synchronized key word and locks.
The synchonized key word is the easier and yuo may create blocks and method that lock in a object, or in the class instance by default.
In higher levels you can use Streams to perform a job for you. But in the end, I would suggest you use a synchronized version of an arraylist if you are already using arrays. and a volatile reference to it, if necessary. If you do not update the reference to your array after your class is created, you don't need volatile and you better make it final, if possible.

For your data to be thread-safe you want to ensure that there are no simultaneous:
write/write operations
read/write operations
by threads to the same object. This is known as the readers/writers problem. Note that it is perfectly fine for two threads to simultaneously read data at the same time from the same object.
You can enforce the above properties to a satisfiable level in normal circumstances by using the synchronized modifier (which acts as a lock on objects) and atomic constructs (which performs operations "instantaneously") in methods and for members. This essentially ensures that no two threads can access the same resource at the same time in a way that would lead to bad interleaving.
if I give my array a volatile modifier in my example code, it would be (kinda?) safe.
The volatile keyword will place the array reference in main memory and ensure that no thread can cache a local copy of it within their private memory, which helps with thread visibility although it won't guarantee thread safety by itself. Also the use of volatile should be used sparsely unless by experienced programmers as it may cause unintended effects on the program.
And what should I do if I want to change one of its value? Should I create a new instance of the array an replace the old value with the new in the initial assignment?
Create synchronized mutator methods for the mutable members of your class if they need to be changed or use the methods provided by atomic objects within your classes. This would be the simplest approach to changing your data without causing any unintended side-effects (for example, removing the object from the array whilst a thread is accessing the data in the object being removed).

Volatile does actually work in this case with one caveat: all the operations on MyClass may only read values.
Compared to all what you might read about what volatile does, it has one purpose in the JMM: creating a happens-before relationship. It only affects two kinds of operations:
volatile read (eg. accessing the field)
volatile write (eg. assignment to the field)
That's it. A happens-before relationship, straight from the JLS §17.4.5:
Two actions can be ordered by a happens-before relationship. If one action happens-before another, then the first is visible to and ordered before the second.
A write to a volatile field (§8.3.1.4) happens-before every subsequent read of that field.
If x and y are actions of the same thread and x comes before y in program order, then hb(x, y).
These relationships are transitive. Taken all together this implies some important points: All actions taken on a single thread happened-before that thread's volatile write to that field (third point above). A volatile write of a field happens-before a read of that field (point two). So any other thread that reads the volatile field would see all the updates, including all referred to objects like array elements in this case, as visible (first point). Importantly, they are only guaranteed to see the updates visible when the field was written. This means that if you fully construct an object, and then assign it to a volatile field and then never mutate it or any of the objects it refers to, it will be never be in an inconsistent state. This is safe taken with the caveat above:
class AnotherClass {
private volatile MyClass[] myObjects = null;
void initFunction( ... ) {
// Using a volatile write with a fully constructed object.
myObjects = new MyClass[] { ... };
}
MyClass accessFunction(int index) {
// volatile read
MyClass[] local = myObjects;
if (local == null) {
return null; // or something else
}
else {
// should probably check length too
return local[index];
}
}
}
I'm assuming you're only calling initFunction once. Even if you did call it more than once you would just clobber the values there, it wouldn't ever be in an inconsistent state.
You're also correct that updating this structure is not quite straightforward because you aren't allowed to mutate the array. Copy and replace, as you stated is common. Assuming that only one thread will be updating the values you can simply grab a reference to the current array, copy the values into a new array, and then re-assign the newly constructed value back to the volatile reference. Example:
private void add(MyClass newClass) {
// volatile read
MyClass[] local = myObjects;
if (local == null) {
// volatile write
myObjects = new MyClass[] { newClass };
}
else {
MyClass[] withUpdates = new MyClass[local.length + 1];
// System.arrayCopy
withUpdates[local.length] = newClass;
// volatile write
myObjects = withUpdates;
}
}
If you're going to have more than one thread updating then you're going to run into issues where you lose additions to the array as two threads could copy and old array, create a new array with their new element and then the last write would win. In that case you need to either use more synchronization or AtomicReferenceFieldUpdater

Initialization safety in java

Just to make sure I understand the concepts presented in java concurrency in practice.
Lets say I have the following program:
public class Stuff{
private int x;
public Stuff(int x){
this.x=x;
}
public int getX(){return x;}
}
public class UseStuff(){
private Stuff s;
public void makeStuff(int x){
s=new Stuff(x);
}
public int useStuff(){
return s.getX();
}
}
If I let multiple threads to play with this code, then I'm not only in trouble because s might be pointing to multiple instances if two or more threads are entering to the makeStuff method, but even if just one thread creates a new Stuff, then an other thread who is just entered to useStuff can return the value 0 (predefined int value) or the value assigned to "x" by its constructor.
That all depends on whether the constructor has finished initializing x.
So at this point, to make it thread safe I must do one thing and then I can choose from two different ways.
First I must make makeStuff() atomic, so "s" will point to one object at a time.
Then I either make useStuff synchronized as well which ensures the I get back the Stuff object x var only after its constructor has finished building it, OR i can make Stuff's x final, and by this the JMM makes sure that x's value will only be visible after it has been initialized.
Do I understand the importance of final fields in the context of concurrency and JMM?

Do I understand the importance of final fields in the context of concurrency and JMM?
Not quite. The spec writes:
final fields also allow programmers to implement thread-safe immutable objects without synchronization. A thread-safe immutable object is seen as immutable by all threads, even if a data race is used to pass references to the immutable object between threads. This can provide safety guarantees against misuse of an immutable class by incorrect or malicious code
If you make x final, this guarantees that every thread that obtains a reference to a Stuff instance will observe x to have been assigned. It does not guarantee that any thread will obtain such a reference.
That is, in the absence of synchronization action in useStuff(), the runtime is permitted to satisfy a read of s from a register, which might return a stale value.
The cheapest correctly synchronized variant of this code is declaring s volatile, which ensures that writes to s happen-before (and are therefore visible to) subsequent reads of s. If you do that, you need not even make x final (because the write to x happens-before the write of s, the read of s happens-before the read of x, and happens-before is transitive).

Some answers claim that s can only refer to one object at a time. This is wrong; because there is no memory barrier, different threads can have their own notion about the value of s. In order for all threads to see a consistent value assigned to s, you need to declare s as volatile, or use some other memory barrier.
If you do this, you won't need to declare x as final for the correct value to be visible to all threads (but you might still want to; fields shouldn't be mutable without a reason). That's because the initialization of x happens-before the assignment of s in "source code order," and the write of the volatile field s happens-before other thread reads that value from s. If you subsequently modified the value of a non-final field x, however, you could run into trouble because the modification isn't guaranteed to be visible to other threads. Making Stuff immutable would eliminate that possibility.
Of course, there's nothing to stop threads from clobbering the value assigned to s, so different threads could still see different values for x. This isn't really a threading issue though. Even a single thread could write and then read different values of x over time. But preventing this behavior in a multi-threaded environment requires atomicity, that is, checking to see whether s has a value and assigning one if not should appear as one indivisible action to other threads. An AtomicReference would be the best solution, but the synchronized keyword would work too.

What are you trying to protect by making things synchronized? Are you concerned that thread A will call makeStuff and then thread B will call getStuff afterwards and the value won't be there? I'm not sure how synchronizing any of this will help that. Depending on what problem you are trying to avoid, it might be as simple as marking s as volatile.

I'm not sure what you're doing there. Why are you trying to create an object and then assign it to a field? Why save it if it can be overwritten by other call to makeStuff? It seems like you use UseStuff both as an proxy and as a factory to your actual Stuff model object. You better separate the two:
public class StuffFactory {
public static Stuff createStuff(int value) {
return new StuffProxy(value);
}
}
public class StuffProxy extends Stuff {
// Replacement for useStuff from your original UseStuff class
#Override
public int getX() {
//Put custom logic here
return super.getX();
}
}
The logic here is that each thread is responsible for creation of their own Stuff objects (using the factory) so concurrent access no longer an issue.

Thread Safe - final local method variable passed on to threads?

Will the following code cause same problems, if variable 'commonSet' of this method was instead a class level field. If it was a class level field, I'll have to wrap adding to set operation within a synchronized block as HashSet is not thread safe. Should I do the same in following code, since multiple threads are adding on to the set or even the current thread may go on to mutate the set.
public void threadCreatorFunction(final String[] args) {
final Set<String> commonSet = new HashSet<String>();
final Runnable runnable = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
commonSet.add(newValue());
}
}
};
new Thread(runnable, "T_A").start();
new Thread(runnable, "T_B").start();
}
The reference to 'commonSet' is 'locked' by using final. But multiple threads operating on it can still corrupt the values in the set(it may contain duplicates?). Secondly, confusion is since 'commonSet' ia a method level variable - it's same reference will be on the stack memory of the calling method (threadCreatorFunction) and stack memory of run methods - is this correct?
There are quite a few questions related to this:
Why do variables passed to runnable need to be final?
Why are only final variables accessible in anonymous class?
But, I cannot see them stressing on thread safe part of such sharing/passing of mutables.

No, this is absolutely not thread-safe. Just because you've got it in a final variable, that means that both threads will see the same reference, which is fine - but it doesn't make the object any more thread-safe.
Either you need to synchronize access, or use ConcurrentSkipListSet.

An interesting example.
The reference commonSet is thread safe and immutable. It is on the stack for the first thread and a field of your anonymous Runnable class as well. (You can see this in a debugger)
The set commonSet refers to is mutable and not thread safe. You need to use synchronized, or a Lock to make it thread safe. (Or use a thread safe collection instead)

I think you're missing a word in your first sentence:
Will the following code cause same problems if variable 'commonSet' of this method was a ??? instead a class level field.
I think you're a little bit confused though. The concurrency issues have nothing to do with whether or not the reference to your mutable data structure is declared final. You need to declare the reference as final because you're closing over it inside the anonymous inner class declaration for your Runnable. If you're actually going to have multiple threads reading/writing the data structure then you need to either use locks (synchronize) or use a concurrent data structure like java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentHashMap.

The commonSet is shared among two Threads. You have declared it as final and thus you made the reference immutable (you can not re-assign it), but the actual data inside the Set is still mutable. Suppose that one Thread puts some data in and some other Thread reads some data out. Whenever the first thread puts data in, you most probably want to lock that Set so that no other Thread could read until that data is written. Does that happen with a HashSet? Not really.

As others have already commented, you are mistaking some concepts, like final and synchronized.
I think that if you explain what you want to accomplish with your code,it would be much easier to help you. I've got the impression that this code snippet is more an example that the actual code.
Some questions: Why is the set defined inside the function? should it be shared among threads? Something that puzzles me is that you crate two threads with the same instance of the runnable
new Thread(runnable, "T_A").start();
new Thread(runnable, "T_B").start();

Whether commonset is used by single thread or multiple it is only the reference that is immutable for final objects(i.e, once assigned you cannot assign another obj reference again) however you can still modify the contents referenced by this object using that reference.
If it were not final one thread could have initialized it again and changed the reference
commonSet = new HashSet<String>();
commonSet.add(newValue());
in which case these two threads may use two different commonsets which is probably not what you want

Thread Safe Copying of Objects in Java

I have a static array of classes similar to the following:
public class Entry {
private String sharedvariable1= "";
private String sharedvariable2= "";
private int sharedvariable3= -1;
private int mutablevariable1 = -1
private int mutablevariable2 = -2;
public Entry (String sharedvariable1,
String sharedvariable2,
int sharedvariable3) {
this.sharedvariable1 = sharedvariable1;
this.sharedvariable2 = sharedvariable2;
this.sharedvariable3 = sharedvariable 3;
}
public Entry (Entry entry) { //copy constructor.
this (entry.getSharedvariable1,
entry.getSharedvariable2,
entry.getSharedvaraible3);
}
....
/* other methods including getters and setters*/
}
At some point in my program I access an instance of this object and make a copy of it using the copy constructor above. I then change the value of the two mutable variables above. This program is running in a multithreaded environment. Please note. ALL VARIABLES ARE SET WITH THEIR INITIAL VALUES PRIOR TO THREADING. Only after the program is threaded an a copy is made, are the variables changed. I believe that it is thread safe because I am only reading the static object, not writing to it (even shared variable3, although an int and mutable is only read) and I am only making changes to the copy of the static object (and the copy is being made within a thread). But, I want to confirm that my thinking is correct here.
Can someone please evaluate what I am doing?

It is not thread-safe. You need to wrap anything that modifies the sharedvariables thusly:
synchronized (this) {
this.sharedvariable1 = newValue;
}
For setters, you can do this instead:
public synchronized void setSharedvariable1(String sharedvariable1) {
this.sharedvariable1 = sharedvariable1;
}
Then in your copy constructor, you'll do similarly:
public Entry (Entry entry) {
this();
synchronized(entry) {
this.setSharedvariable1(entry.getSharedvariable1());
this.setSharedvariable2(entry.getSharedvariable2());
this.setSharedvariable3(entry.getSharedvariable3());
}
}
This ensures that if modifications are being made to an instance, the copy operation will wait until the modifications are done.

It is not thread-safe, you should synchronize in your copy constructor. You are reading each of the three variables from the original object in your copy constructor. These operations are not atomic together. So it could be that while you are reading the first value the third value gets changed by another thread. In this case you have a "copied" object in an inconsistent state.

It's not thread safe. And I mean that is does not guarantee thread safety for multiple threads that use the same Entry instance.
The problem I see here is as follows:
Thread 1 starts constructing an Entry instance. It does not keep that instance hidden from other threads access.
Thread 2 accesses that instance, using its copy constructor, while it is still in the middle of construction.
Considering the initial value for Entry's field private int sharedvariable3= -1;, the result might be that the new "copied" instance created by Thread 2 will have its sharedvariable3 field set to 0 (the default for int class fields in java).
That's the problem.
If it bothers you, you've got to either synchronize the read/write operations, or take care of Entry instances publication. Meaning, don't allow access of other threads to an Entry instance that is in the middle of construction.

I don't really get, why you consider private instance variables as shared. Usually shared fields are static and not private - I recommend you not to share private instance variables. For thread-safety you should synchronize the operations that mutate the variables values.
You can use the synchronized keyword for that but choose the correct monitor object (I think the entry itself should do). Another alternative is to use some lock implementation from java.util.concurrent. Usually locks offer higher throughput and better granularity (for example multiple parallel reads but only one write at any given time).
Another thing you have to think about is what is called the memory barrier. Have a look at this interesting article http://java.dzone.com/articles/java-memory-model-programer%E2%80%99s
You can enforce the happens before semantic with the volatile keyword. Explicit synchronization (locks or synchonized code) also crosses the memory barrier and enforces happens before semantics.
Finally a general piece of advice: You should avoid shared mutable state at all costs. Synchronization is a pain in the ass (performance and maintenance wise). Bugs that result from incorrect synchronization are incredibly hard to detect. It is better to design for immutability or isolated mutability (e.g. actors).

The answer is that it is thread safe under the conditions outlined since I am only reading from the variables in their static state and only changing the copies.

When to use Volatile modifier? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
When exactly do you use the volatile keyword in Java?
When and why volatile modifier is required in java?
I am interested in seeing a real world usage of a volatile modified primitive or object reference.

volatile modifier will tell the JVM to be cautious of the threads which runs concurrently. Essentially, volatile is used to indicate that a variable's value will be modified by different threads.
Declaring a volatile Java variable means:
The value of this variable will never be cached thread-locally: all reads and writes will go straight to "main memory"
Access to the variable acts as though it is enclosed in a synchronized block, synchronized on itself.
We say "acts as though" in the second point, because to the programmer at least (and probably in most JVM implementations) there is no actual lock object involved.
The volatile modifier tells the compiler that the variable modified by volatile can be changed unexpectedly by other parts of your program. One of these situations involves multithreaded programs.
In a multithreaded program, sometimes, two or more threads share the same instance variable. For efficiency considerations, each thread can keep its own, private copy of such a shared variable.
The real (or master) copy of the variable is updated at various times, such as when a synchronized method is entered. While this approach works fine, it may be inefficient at times. In some cases, all that really matters is that the master copy of a variable always reflects its current state.
To ensure this, simply specify the variable as volatile, which tells the compiler that it must always use the master copy of a volatile variable (or, at least, always keep any private copies up to date with the master copy, and vice versa). Also, accesses to the master variable must be executed in the precise order in which they are executed on any private copy.

If you are working with the multi-threaded programming, the volatile keyword will be more useful. When multiple
threads using the same variable, each thread will have its own copy of the local cache for that variable. So, when it’s
updating the value, it is actually updated in the local cache not in the main variable memory. The other thread which
is using the same variable doesn’t know anything about the values changed by the another thread. To avoid this problem,
if you declare a variable as volatile, then it will not be stored in the local cache. Whenever thread are updating the
values, it is updated to the main memory. So, other threads can access the updated value.
Declaring a variable volatile means
There will be no cache maintained means all the changes made in main memory.
Access to this variable acts as synchronized block, even though it is in synchronized unit.
Example -
public class Snippet implements Runnable{
volatile int num =0;
public void run(){
Thread t = Thread.currentThread();
String name = t.getName();
if(name.equals("Thread1")){
num=10;
}
else{
System.out.println("value of num is :"+num);
}
}
public static void main(String args[]) throws InterruptedException{
Runnable r = new Snippet();
Thread t1 = new Thread(r);
t1.setName("Thread1");
t1.start();
Thread.sleep(1000);
Thread t2 = new Thread(r);
t2.setName("Thread2");
t2.start();
}
}

(This answer assumes Java 5+ -- before that, volatile had weaker guarantees.)
It's useful when you want to ensure a memory barrier, aka a formal "happens-before" relationship, between a write to a field and a subsequent read to that field by a separate thread. Synchronization can also give you that relationship, as well as other multithreading guarantees, but it's a tad slower and can create synchronization bottlenecks.
One use case is in concurrent collection classes (like ConcurrentHashMap, or LinkedBlockingQueue) where, in conjunction with things like atomic compare-and-set (CAS) operations, you can write correct thread-safe code without having to use synchronized.

You got good answers for the first question. The second one:
Can any one give me real time scenario of it
IMO, you should never ever you volatile. There are better tools for multithreaded apps. It's a bit bizarre that such a high level language has this keyword. Here is a good read (It's about C#, but Java is similar in this matter).