🚀 go-pugleaf

Your first method_x is synchronized in its entirety. Only one thread
can be executing it at a time - other threads that try will be blocked
until the first thread finishes.

The second method_x synchronizes on the same object, but only for
do_b(). Multiple threads can be in the do_a() part of the function 
at once, with the attendant possibility of confusing each other. Only
one thread at a time can get into the do_b() method however. Other
threads will have to wait their turn after finishing do_a().

I feel that the first approach is better for small methods, but that
larger methods where only a small section of the code actually needs
protecting from multi-threading are better off using the second 
approach.

Hope this helps, Steve.

//---------------------------------
Hugo Ferreira wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have a basic question about thread syncronization.
> What is the differenece between these two calls:
> 
> void syncrhonized method_x()
> {
>  do_a();
>  do_b();
> }
> 
> and
> 
> void method_x()
> {
>     do_a();
>     syncrhonized( this )
>     {
>     do_b();
>     }
> }
> 
> TIA.
> 
> Hugo Ferreira.