In an application I'm working on I found the following code snippet:
public class MyClass {
private AtomicBoolean atomicBoolean = new AtomicBoolean(false);
public void Execute() {
// Whole lot of business logic
// ....
synchronized (this.atomicBoolean) {
// Want to make sure that execution is stopped if Stop() was called
if (this.atomicBoolean.get()) {
throw new SpecificException("...");
}
// Some more business logic...
}
}
public void Stop() {
synchronized (this.atomicBoolean) {
this.atomicBoolean.set(true);
}
}
}
According to FindBugs this is not correct as I can't use an AtomicBoolean
together with synchronized
and expect it to block the object.
My question is: What is the correct way to rewrite this methods? I've read about using an lock Object together with a boolean attribute instead but it appears kinda clumsy to introduce two new attributes for this lock.
Edit: As stated in a comment below: I think the intention is that in the two synchronized
blocks, the AtomicBoolean
can't be changed and that while one Thread is in one of the synchronized
blocks, none other such block could be entered.
just replace the synchronized (this.atomicBoolean) {
part from both methods, AtomicBoolean::get
and AtomicBoolean::set
is already atomic.