Why twice condition check?

[megabull]

In the example below, why has synchronized been checked twice? I'm talking about lines 7 and 9 .

public class Singleton {
        private static volatile Singleton instance = null;
 
        private Singleton() {   }
 
        public static Singleton getInstance() {
                if (instance == null) {
                        synchronized (Singleton.class){
                                if (instance == null) {
                                        instance = new Singleton();
                                }
                      }
                }
                return instance;
        }
}

[DarrylBurke]

Because code executing on another Thread may have been creating the instance while this Thread was waiting for the lock in order to enter the synchronized block.

That said, your code looks rather old. In early Java versions, this kind of coding was considered optimal because a null check was more than an order of magnitude faster than obtaining a lock. With improvements in both computers and the JVM, the whole method would probably be synchronized. If at all anyone is still using the Singleton (anti-) pattern.

db

[Tolls]

And syncrhonising is pointless for a singleton anyway:

public class MySingleton {
    private static final MySingleton instance;
    private MySingleton() {
    }
    public static MySingleton getInstance() {
        return instance;
    }
}

Also I wouldn't consider a singleton to be an anti-pattern at all.
Abused, yes, but not an anti-pattern.

Edit:

public class MySingleton {
    private static final MySingleton instance = new MySingleton();
    private MySingleton() {
    }
    public static MySingleton getInstance() {
        return instance;
    }
}

[JosAH]

public class MySingleton {
    private static final MySingleton instance;
    private MySingleton() {
    }
    public static MySingleton getInstance() {
        return instance;
    }
}

Better call that class MyNullyton ;-)

kind regard,

Jos

[Tolls]

Oops.
:)

I have a feeling I did the same thing on another thread earlier today.