RestTemplate is thread safe (emphasis added): Conceptually, it is very similar to the JdbcTemplate, JmsTemplate, and the various other templates found in the Spring Framework and other portfolio projects. This means, for instance, that the RestTemplate is thread-safe once constructed Objects of the RestTemplate class do not change any of their state information to process … Read more
Question: “is malloc reentrant”? Answer: no, it is not. Here is one definition of what makes a routine reentrant. None of the common versions of malloc allow you to re-enter it (e.g. from a signal handler). Note that a reentrant routine may not use locks, and almost all malloc versions in existence do use locks … Read more
You can use the TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext Method to get a TaskScheduler for the current synchronization context (which is the WPF dispatcher when you’re running a WPF application). Then use the ContinueWith overload that accepts a TaskScheduler: var scheduler = TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext(); Task.Factory.StartNew(…) .ContinueWith(r => AddControlsToGrid(r.Result), scheduler);
There is not an specific reason to stay away from thread-local variables, the main issues are: it’s harder to test them, as you will have to remember to set the thread-local variables when you’re testing out code that uses it classes that use thread locals will need knowledge that these objects are not available to … Read more
If you are using C++11, here is a right way to do this: Foo& getInst() { static Foo inst(…); return inst; } According to new standard there is no need to care about this problem any more. Object initialization will be made only by one thread, other threads will wait till it complete. Or you … Read more
You should make your thread support interrupts. Basically, you can call yourThread.interrupt() to stop the thread and, in your run() method you’d need to periodically check the status of Thread.interrupted() There is a good tutorial here.
I wouldn’t be suprised if it was someone who saw this: private readonly object lockObj = new object(); private void MyMethod() { lock(lockObj) { // do amazing stuff, so amazing it can only run once at a time // e.g. comands on the Mars Rover, or programs on iOS pre 4 / 5 ?? } … Read more
It is well known that static methods with immutable objects as parameters are thread safe and mutable objects are not. I would contest this. Arguments passed to a method are stored on a stack, which is a per-thread idiom. If your parameter is a mutable object such as a Date then you need to ensure … Read more
Yes, when you mark methods as synchronized, then you are really doing this: void method1() { synchronized (this) { method2() } } void method2() { synchronized (this) { } } When the thread call gets into method2 from method1, then it will ensure that it holds the lock to this, which it already has, and … Read more
None of the core data structures are thread safe. The only one I know of that ships with Ruby is the queue implementation in the standard library (require ‘thread’; q = Queue.new). MRI’s GIL does not save us from thread safety issues. It only makes sure that two threads cannot run Ruby code at the … Read more