sorry i meant to put the following code
Main Topics
Browse All Topicsthe following code results in deadlock because the bone would be locked by the synchronized statement that calls .chew(this) correct? and the solution is to instead of using synchronized(this) use synchronized(otherLockObje
This Question has been solved and asker verified All Experts Exchange premium technology solutions are available to subscription members.
Experts Exchange has been collecting answers to technology questions since 1996…3 million and counting! If you have a question, chances are we already have your answer.
If you can't find the exact answer you're looking for, ask our exclusive community of 50,000 experts. You’ll get a personalized answer from a trusted professional.
Thousands of free tech tips, tricks, how-to’s and tutorials are available in our peer reviewed articles section. See for yourself how smart our experts are, no login required.
Access the answers to your technology questions today.
30-day free trial. Register in 60 seconds.
Members of the expert community talk about why the experience at Experts Exchange is different than what you will find anywhere else.

Try it out and discover for yourself.
30-day free trial. Register in 60 seconds.
Join the community of experts here and help other tech pros by answering question in your area of expertise. You can earn FREE access to all Experts Exchange's premium features and resources.
I think this code won't create deadlock.
One point we have to remember that is " A synchronized block can call other synchronized block "
So ,,,(Synchronized block)Dog.getInstance().ch
But before these thing ....Synchronization only apply to method ....Not for class....Here u synchronized the block in class level....Probely it won't work
Business Accounts
Answer for Membership
by: imladrisPosted on 2009-11-06 at 15:40:59ID: 25764061
HMmm, no.
First the two classes (Bone and Dog) are separate, and the synchronized statements are made to the different this's respectively. So there is, in fact, no possibility of deadlock whatsoever.
Secondly your question appear to imply that the "Bone" is locked. Indicating that the chew statement can't use the Bone because it is locked. However, synchronizing does not "lock" classes. What it does is block access to the code in the synchronized block or method, until it is done. This is always about paths of execution, and always involves multiple threads running.
Also, declaring a method (chew) in a synchronized block is weird, at best.
And no, synchronizing on different things is not a solution. While it may solve the deadlock (as would not synchronizing at all), it won't solve the inevitable data corruption that comes of multiple threads accessing the same global resources.