Best way to control concurrent access to Java collections

Question

Should I use old synchronized Vector collection, ArrayList with synchronized access or Collections.synchronizedList or some other solution for concurrent access?

I don't see my question in Related Questions nor in my search (Make your collections thread-safe? isn't the same).

Recently, I had to make kind of unit tests on GUI parts of our application (basically using API to create frames, add objects, etc.). Because these operations are called much faster than by a user, it shown a number of issues with methods trying to access resources not yet created or already deleted.

A particular issue, happening in the EDT, came from walking a linked list of views while altering it in another thread (getting a ConcurrentModificationException among other problems). Don't ask me why it was a linked list instead of a simple array list (even less as we have in general 0 or 1 view inside...), so I took the more common ArrayList in my question (as it has an older cousin).

Anyway, not super familiar with concurrency issues, I looked up a bit of info, and wondered what to choose between the old (and probably obsolete) Vector (which has synchronized operations by design), ArrayList with a synchronized (myList) { } around critical sections (add/remove/walk operations) or using a list returned by Collections.synchronizedList (not even sure how to use the latter).

I finally chose the second option, because another design mistake was to expose the object (getViewList() method...) instead of providing mechanisms to use it.

But what are the pros and cons of the other approaches?

---

[EDIT] Lot of good advices here, hard to select one. I will choose the more detailed and providing links/food for thoughts... :-) I like Darron's one too.

To summarize:

• As I suspected, Vector (and its evil twin, Hashtable as well, probably) is largely obsolete, I have seen people telling its old design isn't as good as newer collections', beyond the slowness of synchronization forced even in single thread environment. If we keep it around, it is mostly because older libraries (and parts of Java API) still use it.
• Unlike what I thought, Collections.synchronizedXxxx aren't more modern than Vector (they appear to be contemporary to Collections, ie. Java 1.2!) and not better, actually. Good to know. In short, I should avoid them as well.
• Manual synchronization seems to be a good solution after all. There might be performance issues, but in my case it isn't critical: operations done on user actions, small collection, no frequent use.
• java.util.concurrent package is worth keeping in mind, particularly the CopyOnWrite methods.

I hope I got it right... :-)

Solution 1

Vector and the List returned by Collections.synchronizedList() are morally the same thing. I would consider Vector to be effectively (but not actually) deprecated and always prefer a synchronized List instead. The one exception would be old APIs (particularly ones in the JDK) that require a Vector.

Using a naked ArrayList and synchronizing independently gives you the opportunity to more precisely tune your synchronization (either by including additional actions in the mutually exclusive block or by putting together multiple calls to the List in one atomic action). The down side is that it is possible to write code that accesses the naked ArrayList outside synchronization, which is broken.

Another option you might want to consider is a CopyOnWriteArrayList, which will give you thread safety as in Vector and synchronized ArrayList but also iterators that will not throw ConcurrentModificationException as they are working off of a non-live snapshot of the data.

You might find some of these recent blogs on these topics interesting:

• Java Concurrency Bugs #3 - atomic + atomic != atomic
• Java Concurrency Bugs #4: ConcurrentModificationException
• CopyOnWriteArrayList concurrency fun

Solution 2

I strongly recommend the book "Java Concurrency in Practice".

Each of the choices has advantages/disadvantages:

1. Vector - considered "obsolete". It may get less attention and bug fixes than more mainstream collections.
2. Your own synchronization blocks - Very easy to get incorrect. Often gives poorer performance than the choices below.
3. Collections.synchronizedList() - Choice 2 done by experts. This is still not complete, because of multi-step operations that need to be atomic (get/modify/set or iteration).
4. New classes from java.util.concurrent - Often have more efficient algorithms than choice 3. Similar caveats about multi-step operations apply but tools to help you are often provided.

Solution 3

I can't think of a good reason to ever prefer Vector over ArrayList. List operations on a Vector are synchronized, meaning multiple threads can alter it safely. And like you say, ArrayList's operations can be synchronized using Collections.synchronizedList.

Remember that even when using synchronized lists, you will still encounter ConcurrentModificationExceptions if iterating over the collection while it's being modified by another thread. So it's important to coordinate that access externally (your second option).

One common technique used to avoid the iteration problem is to iterate over immutable copies of the collection. See Collections.unmodifiableList

Solution 4

i would always go to the java.util.concurrent (http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/package-summary.html) package first and see if there is any suitable collection. the java.util.concurrent.CopyOnWriteArrayList class is good if you are doing few changes to the list but more iterations.

also I don't believe Vector and Collections.synchronizedList will prevent ConcurrentModificationException.

if you don't find a suitable collection then you'd have to do your own synchronization, and if you don't want to hold a lock when iterating you may want to consider making a copy and iterating the copy.

Solution 5

I don't believe that the Iterator returned by a Vector is in any way synchronized - meaning that Vector can't guarantee (on it's own) that one thread isn't modifying the underlying collection while another thread is iterating through it.

I believe that to ensure that iterating is thread-safe, you will have to handle the synchronization on your own. Assuming that the same Vector/List/object is being shared by multiple threads (and thus leading to your issues), can't you just synchronize on that object itself?

View more solutions