Jörn Huxhorn wrote:
Yes, definitely @ synchronized(statusList). I just think that public synchronized List<Status> getCopyOfStatusList() should be public List<Status> getCopyOfStatusList() so there is no risk of deadlock.
Oh yes, I was just not seeing the "synchronized" keyword on the method signature. It should not be there.
I haven't checked if there *is* a risk of deadlock but there *could* be under certain circumstances, i.e. if there would be another place that synchronizes on statusList first and on Object later. I don't think there is such a piece of code but it's generally a good idea to not synchronize/holding two locks if not absolutely necessary. It's also a bit faster.
Thank you for taking the time to go over this so cool-headedly. I really appreciate it.
Joern.
-- Ceki Gülcü