Develop Reference

Not reevaluating expensive data in different threads

i have such a method
public Object doSomethingExpensive(String x);
now if i processed this method i can save the result in a HashMap for example, they key is the String x and the value is the result Object.
If the data is present in this map, i dont have to process it again.
But now i get two requests in, at nearly the same time.
And in this case i want to let the second request wait, till the first one is done and the second requests can also get the result of the first one after it is calculated, so i dont have to calculate it twice or parallel twice.
the point is, i can't use
public synchronized Object doSomethingExpensive(String x);
because Object is something other if String x is something other.
So i need some synchronized on that String x.
But synchronized(x) isn't possible because string literals in java....
Also if there wouldn't be a String but an Object as x, then maybe i get in the second requests a similar Object with equal content related to request 1, but they are some other objects each.
Yeah so my question is, how to solve this, how can i prevent calculating for a String x its result twice in parallel, how can i synchronize it and caching the results in a HashMap for example.

I don't know if I understand your problem, If it's to avoid repeated calculation, this great book(Java Concurrency in Practice) gives a example of a solution:
private final Map<String, Future<Object>> cache
= new ConcurrentHashMap<String, Future<Object>>();
public Object doSomethingExpensive(String x) throws InterruptedException {
while (true) {
Future<Object> future = cache.get(x);
if (future == null) {
Callable<Object> callable = new Callable<Object>() {
#Override
public Object call() throws Exception {
// doSomethingExpensive todo
return new Object();
}
};
FutureTask<Object> futureTask = new FutureTask<>(callable);
future = cache.putIfAbsent(x, futureTask);
if (future == null) {
future = futureTask;
futureTask.run();
}
}
try {
return future.get();
} catch (CancellationException e) {
cache.remove(x);
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e.getCause());
}
}
}
EDIT:
From comments, using JAVA8#ConcurrentHashMap#computeIfAbsent, really really convenient :
ConcurrentHashMap<String, Object> concurrentHashMap = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
public Object doSthEx(String key) {
return concurrentHashMap.computeIfAbsent(key, new Function<String, Object>() {
#Override
public Object apply(String s) {
// todo
return new Object();
}
});
}
Or use some library to get more comprehensive features as mentioned in comment:https://github.com/ben-manes/caffeine.

Java concurrency - How to synchronize on method parameter

I have a question related to synchronization and concurrency in Java.
So I have a method, like this:
private boolean loadData(final Integer fundId, List<Trade> trades) {
synchronized (fundId) {
// do lots of things here and finally load the trades into DB
}
}
Before I made this change, the complete method loadData was synchronized private synchronized boolean loadData. However, my requirement is such that if, lets say, fundId - 1 is processing, then I can allow concurrent processing of any other fundId other than 1.
So, the above code also won't work because the lock would be on the Integer object, hence no other fundId can be concurrently processed.
Is there a way to achieve concurrent processing based on the method parameter ?

You need to create an entry in a ConcurrentHashMap for each value of fundId in order to lock it.
static Map<Integer, Object> locks = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
private boolean loadData(final Integer fundId, List<Trade> trades){
locks.computeIfAbsent(fundId, k-> { /* your actual job */ return null; });
}
}
Hope that helps !

The function, as it is written, will synchronize on the object fundId, not on Integer. So, it will block if you call the same function from another thread with the same fundId instance. It will not, however, synchronize if you call it with other fundId instances, regardless of the value.
If you need to synchronize based on a value, you can use a shared set of integers (i.e. fundId). Synchronize on the set, and attempt to insert the integer. If it is already in there, someone else is processing that value, so you wait. If it is not there, then you insert it, unlock, process, lock again, remove the value, and signal.

You can achieve that in several ways:
If the class that contains loadData() is called FundLoader you can have a Map<Integer, FundLoader> fundLoaders and each FundLoader is responsible to load the trades for given fundId. The synchronization will be again on method level for loadData
Do a custom synhronization inside loadData
UPDATE - added fundsWaitingForLock to prevent cases when the lock is already taken from the fundLocks map
private final Map<Integer, Object> fundLocks = new HashMap<>();
private final Map<Integer, AtomicInteger> fundsWaitingForLock = new HashMap<>();
private boolean loadData(final Integer fundId, final List<String> trades) {
Object lock;
synchronized (fundLocks) {
lock = fundLocks.computeIfAbsent(fundId, id -> new Object());
fundsWaitingForLock.computeIfAbsent(fundId, id -> new AtomicInteger()).incrementAndGet();
}
synchronized(lock) {
try {
// do lots of things here and finally load the trades into DB
return true;
} finally {
synchronized (fundLocks) {
if (fundsWaitingForLock.get(fundId).decrementAndGet() == 0) {
fundLocks.remove(fundId);
fundsWaitingForLock.remove(fundId);
}
}
}
}
}
Pass a lock instead of fundId.
private boolean loadData(final Lock fundIdLock, final List<String> trades) {
fundIdLock.lock();
try {
// do lots of things here and finally load the trades into DB
} finally {
fundIdLock.unlock();
}
return true;
}

Caching values in ConcurrentHashmap to avoid database read

Is my code below correct at using a Map as a simple threadsafe cache to avoid reading from the database? I just want to know the correctness of the code below rather than suggestions to use framework X instead.
public class Foo {
private static final Map<String, String> CACHE = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
public void doWork(String key) {
String value = CACHE.get(key);
if (value == null) {
synchronized (CACHE) {
value = CACHE.get(key);
if (value == null) {
value = database.getValue();
CACHE.put(key, value);
}
}
}
// do work with value
}
}
Other Questions:
Instead of using CACHE in synchronized(), would it be better if I have a Object lock in my class and use synchronized on that instead?
Would using HashMap for CACHE instead work?

There is a fairly standard "pattern" for using ConcurrentHashMap in this way (in this case, you do not want to use a synchronized block or other locking mechanism):
String value = CACHE.get(key);
if (value == null) {
/* 3 */ String newValue = calculateValueForKey(key);
/* 4 */ value = CACHE.putIfAbsent(key, newValue);
if (value == null) {
value = newValue;
}
}
/* Work with 'value' */
This approach works well when calculateValueForKey() runs quickly and doesn't have any side effects - it could be invoked multiple times for the same key depending on timing. The downside is that if calculateValueForKey() takes a long time and is I/O bound (as it is in your case) you could have multiple threads that are all running calculateValueForKey() for the same key at the same time. If there are 3 threads executing line 3 for the same key, 2 of them will "lose" at line 4 and have their results thrown away which is not very efficient. For these situations I would recommend something along these lines which is mostly lifted from the Memoizer example in Java Concurrency in Practice (Goetz, B. (2006)) which I highly recommend:
private static final ConcurrentMap<String, Future<String>> CACHE
= new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
public void doWork(String key)
{
String value;
try {
value = calculateValueForKey(key);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// Restore interrupted status and return
Thread.currentThread.interrupt();
return;
}
// do work with value
}
private String calculateValueForKey(final String key)
throws InterruptedException
{
while (true) {
Future<String> f = CACHE.get(key);
if (f == null) {
FutureTask<String> newCalc = new FutureTask<>(new Callable<String>() {
#Override
public String call()
{
return database.getValue(key);
}
)};
f = CACHE.putIfAbsent(key, newCalc);
if (f == null) {
f = newCalc;
newCalc.run();
}
}
try {
return f.get();
} catch (CancellationException e) {
CACHE.remove(key, f);
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
Throwable cause = e.getCause();
if (cause instanceof RuntimeException) {
throw (RuntimeException) cause;
} else if (cause instanceof Error) {
throw (Error) cause;
} else {
throw new IllegalStateException("Not unchecked", cause);
}
}
}
}
Obviously this code is more complex, which is why I've extracted the meat of it into another method, but it is very powerful. Rather than putting the value into the map, you are putting a Future that represents the calculation of that value into the map. Calling get() on that future will block until the computation is complete. This means that if 3 threads were simultaneously trying to retrieve the value for a given key, only a single computation would be run while all 3 threads waiting on the same result. Subsequent requests for the same key would return immediately with the calculated result.
To answer your specific questions:
Is my code below correct at using a Map as a simple threadsafe cache to avoid reading from the database? I'm going to say no. You're use of a synchronized block here is unnecessary. Furthermore if multiple threads are simultaneously trying to access the values for different keys that are not yet in the Map, they will block each other during their respective database queries, meaning that they will run in serial rather than in parallel.
Instead of using CACHE in synchronized(), would it be better if I have a Object lock in my class and use synchronized on that instead? No. You would typically use a surrogate object for synchronization when you want to read/write multiple mutable fields and you don't want consumers of your class to be able to affect the synchronization semantics of your object "from the outside."
Would using HashMap for CACHE instead work? I guess you could? But then you would need to adjust your synchronization policies so that CACHE (or a surrogate lock object) is always synchronized when the Map is read from or written to. I'm not sure why you would want to do that given better alternatives.

CACHE.get(key) will throw a NullPointerException if the key is null. Read the manual:
Like Hashtable but unlike HashMap, this class does not allow null to be used as a key or value.
Furthermore it doesn't really make sense to synchronize over your map and try to retrieve the value again. The method should rather return that it cannot get a value for that key and that's it!
Also, no need to synchronize over a ConcurrentHashMap hence the name.
Create an additional method which retrieves the value from the database if the value is not in the map!
I strongly suggest to test your methods with unit tests!

Be careful with custom cache-es. Sometimes they only make things worse. I.e. they are a great source of reference leak, e.g. when the last reference to the object comes from the cache. WeakReference-s or PhantomReference-s can solve this problem. Check this post for further details.
Another issue is the synchronization hit that comes from the ConcurrentHashMap. Sometimes it's worth the cost, sometimes not.
You might want to limit the cache size and remove the least used references - but that will cause some overhead too.
So, you'll have to measure performance carefully.

How to wait for some period of time and after that just return default value?

I have below code which tells me whether my data is PARTIAL or FULL. It works fine most of the time.
public static String getTypeOfData {
DataType type = new SelectTypes().getType();
if (type == DataType.partial || type == DataType.temp) {
return "partial";
}
return "full";
}
But sometimes, this line DataType type = new SelectTypes().getType(); just hangs and it keeps on waiting forever. This code is not in my control as it is developed by some other teams.
What I want to do is if this line DataType type = new SelectTypes().getType(); takes more than 10 second (or any default number of second), my method should return back a default string which can be partial.
Is this possible to do by any chance? Any example will help me to understand better.
I am using Java 7.

The ExecutorService provides methods which allow you to schedule tasks and invoke them with timeout options. This should do what you are after, however, please pay attention since terminating threads could leave your application in an inconsistent state.
If possible, you should contact the owners of the API and ask for clarification or more information.
EDIT: As per your comment, would caching be a possibility? Meaning that on start up, or some other point, you application goes through the SelectTypes and gets their type and stores them. Assuming that these do not change often, you can save them/update them periodically.
EDIT 2: As per your other comment, I cannot really add much more detail. You would need to add a method call which would allow your application to set these up the moment it is launched (this will depend on what framework you are using, if any).
A possible way would be to make the class containing the getTypeOfData() method as a Singleton. You would then amend the class to pull this information as part of its creation mechanism. Lastly, you would then create a Map<String, Type> in which you would throw in all your types. You could use getClass().getName() to populate the key for your map, and what you are doing now for the value part.

If you are not well aware of executor service then the easiest way to achieve this is by using Thread wait and notify mechanism:
private final static Object lock = new Object();
private static DataType type = null;
public static String getTypeOfData {
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
fetchData();
}
}).start();
synchronized (lock) {
try {
lock.wait(10000);//ensures that thread doesn't wait for more than 10 sec
if (type == DataType.partial || type == DataType.temp) {
return "partial";
}else{
return "full";
}
} catch (InterruptedException e1) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e1.printStackTrace();
}
}
return "full";
}
private static void fetchData() {
synchronized (lock) {
type = new SelectTypes().getType();
lock.notify();
}
}
You might have to do some little changes to make it work and looks better like instead of creating new thread directly you can use a Job to do that and some other changes based on your requirement. But the main idea remains same that Thread would only wait for max 10 sec to get the response.

Synchronizing on String objects in Java

I have a webapp that I am in the middle of doing some load/performance testing on, particularily on a feature where we expect a few hundred users to be accessing the same page and hitting refresh about every 10 seconds on this page. One area of improvement that we found we could make with this function was to cache the responses from the web service for some period of time, since the data is not changing.
After implementing this basic caching, in some further testing I found out that I didn't consider how concurrent threads could access the Cache at the same time. I found that within the matter of ~100ms, about 50 threads were trying to fetch the object from the Cache, finding that it had expired, hitting the web service to fetch the data, and then putting the object back in the cache.
The original code looked something like this:
private SomeData[] getSomeDataByEmail(WebServiceInterface service, String email) {
final String key = "Data-" + email;
SomeData[] data = (SomeData[]) StaticCache.get(key);
if (data == null) {
data = service.getSomeDataForEmail(email);
StaticCache.set(key, data, CACHE_TIME);
}
else {
logger.debug("getSomeDataForEmail: using cached object");
}
return data;
}
So, to make sure that only one thread was calling the web service when the object at key expired, I thought I needed to synchronize the Cache get/set operation, and it seemed like using the cache key would be a good candidate for an object to synchronize on (this way, calls to this method for email b#b.com would not be blocked by method calls to a#a.com).
I updated the method to look like this:
private SomeData[] getSomeDataByEmail(WebServiceInterface service, String email) {
SomeData[] data = null;
final String key = "Data-" + email;
synchronized(key) {
data =(SomeData[]) StaticCache.get(key);
if (data == null) {
data = service.getSomeDataForEmail(email);
StaticCache.set(key, data, CACHE_TIME);
}
else {
logger.debug("getSomeDataForEmail: using cached object");
}
}
return data;
}
I also added logging lines for things like "before synchronization block", "inside synchronization block", "about to leave synchronization block", and "after synchronization block", so I could determine if I was effectively synchronizing the get/set operation.
However it doesn't seem like this has worked. My test logs have output like:
(log output is 'threadname' 'logger name' 'message')
http-80-Processor253 jsp.view-page - getSomeDataForEmail: about to enter synchronization block
http-80-Processor253 jsp.view-page - getSomeDataForEmail: inside synchronization block
http-80-Processor253 cache.StaticCache - get: object at key [SomeData-test#test.com] has expired
http-80-Processor253 cache.StaticCache - get: key [SomeData-test#test.com] returning value [null]
http-80-Processor263 jsp.view-page - getSomeDataForEmail: about to enter synchronization block
http-80-Processor263 jsp.view-page - getSomeDataForEmail: inside synchronization block
http-80-Processor263 cache.StaticCache - get: object at key [SomeData-test#test.com] has expired
http-80-Processor263 cache.StaticCache - get: key [SomeData-test#test.com] returning value [null]
http-80-Processor131 jsp.view-page - getSomeDataForEmail: about to enter synchronization block
http-80-Processor131 jsp.view-page - getSomeDataForEmail: inside synchronization block
http-80-Processor131 cache.StaticCache - get: object at key [SomeData-test#test.com] has expired
http-80-Processor131 cache.StaticCache - get: key [SomeData-test#test.com] returning value [null]
http-80-Processor104 jsp.view-page - getSomeDataForEmail: inside synchronization block
http-80-Processor104 cache.StaticCache - get: object at key [SomeData-test#test.com] has expired
http-80-Processor104 cache.StaticCache - get: key [SomeData-test#test.com] returning value [null]
http-80-Processor252 jsp.view-page - getSomeDataForEmail: about to enter synchronization block
http-80-Processor283 jsp.view-page - getSomeDataForEmail: about to enter synchronization block
http-80-Processor2 jsp.view-page - getSomeDataForEmail: about to enter synchronization block
http-80-Processor2 jsp.view-page - getSomeDataForEmail: inside synchronization block
I wanted to see only one thread at a time entering/exiting the synchronization block around the get/set operations.
Is there an issue in synchronizing on String objects? I thought the cache-key would be a good choice as it is unique to the operation, and even though the final String key is declared within the method, I was thinking that each thread would be getting a reference to the same object and therefore would synchronization on this single object.
What am I doing wrong here?
Update: after looking further at the logs, it seems like methods with the same synchronization logic where the key is always the same, such as
final String key = "blah";
...
synchronized(key) { ...
do not exhibit the same concurrency problem - only one thread at a time is entering the block.
Update 2: Thanks to everyone for the help! I accepted the first answer about intern()ing Strings, which solved my initial problem - where multiple threads were entering synchronized blocks where I thought they shouldn't, because the key's had the same value.
As others have pointed out, using intern() for such a purpose and synchronizing on those Strings does indeed turn out to be a bad idea - when running JMeter tests against the webapp to simulate the expected load, I saw the used heap size grow to almost 1GB in just under 20 minutes.
Currently I'm using the simple solution of just synchronizing the entire method - but I really like the code samples provided by martinprobst and MBCook, but since I have about 7 similar getData() methods in this class currently (since it needs about 7 different pieces of data from a web service), I didn't want to add almost-duplicate logic about getting and releasing locks to each method. But this is definitely very, very valuable info for future usage. I think these are ultimately the correct answers on how best to make an operation like this thread-safe, and I'd give out more votes to these answers if I could!

Without putting my brain fully into gear, from a quick scan of what you say it looks as though you need to intern() your Strings:
final String firstkey = "Data-" + email;
final String key = firstkey.intern();
Two Strings with the same value are otherwise not necessarily the same object.
Note that this may introduce a new point of contention, since deep in the VM, intern() may have to acquire a lock. I have no idea what modern VMs look like in this area, but one hopes they are fiendishly optimised.
I assume you know that StaticCache still needs to be thread-safe. But the contention there should be tiny compared with what you'd have if you were locking on the cache rather than just the key while calling getSomeDataForEmail.
Response to question update:
I think that's because a string literal always yields the same object. Dave Costa points out in a comment that it's even better than that: a literal always yields the canonical representation. So all String literals with the same value anywhere in the program would yield the same object.
Edit
Others have pointed out that synchronizing on intern strings is actually a really bad idea - partly because creating intern strings is permitted to cause them to exist in perpetuity, and partly because if more than one bit of code anywhere in your program synchronizes on intern strings, you have dependencies between those bits of code, and preventing deadlocks or other bugs may be impossible.
Strategies to avoid this by storing a lock object per key string are being developed in other answers as I type.
Here's an alternative - it still uses a singular lock, but we know we're going to need one of those for the cache anyway, and you were talking about 50 threads, not 5000, so that may not be fatal. I'm also assuming that the performance bottleneck here is slow blocking I/O in DoSlowThing() which will therefore hugely benefit from not being serialised. If that's not the bottleneck, then:
If the CPU is busy then this approach may not be sufficient and you need another approach.
If the CPU is not busy, and access to server is not a bottleneck, then this approach is overkill, and you might as well forget both this and per-key locking, put a big synchronized(StaticCache) around the whole operation, and do it the easy way.
Obviously this approach needs to be soak tested for scalability before use -- I guarantee nothing.
This code does NOT require that StaticCache is synchronized or otherwise thread-safe. That needs to be revisited if any other code (for example scheduled clean-up of old data) ever touches the cache.
IN_PROGRESS is a dummy value - not exactly clean, but the code's simple and it saves having two hashtables. It doesn't handle InterruptedException because I don't know what your app wants to do in that case. Also, if DoSlowThing() consistently fails for a given key this code as it stands is not exactly elegant, since every thread through will retry it. Since I don't know what the failure criteria are, and whether they are liable to be temporary or permanent, I don't handle this either, I just make sure threads don't block forever. In practice you may want to put a data value in the cache which indicates 'not available', perhaps with a reason, and a timeout for when to retry.
// do not attempt double-check locking here. I mean it.
synchronized(StaticObject) {
data = StaticCache.get(key);
while (data == IN_PROGRESS) {
// another thread is getting the data
StaticObject.wait();
data = StaticCache.get(key);
}
if (data == null) {
// we must get the data
StaticCache.put(key, IN_PROGRESS, TIME_MAX_VALUE);
}
}
if (data == null) {
// we must get the data
try {
data = server.DoSlowThing(key);
} finally {
synchronized(StaticObject) {
// WARNING: failure here is fatal, and must be allowed to terminate
// the app or else waiters will be left forever. Choose a suitable
// collection type in which replacing the value for a key is guaranteed.
StaticCache.put(key, data, CURRENT_TIME);
StaticObject.notifyAll();
}
}
}
Every time anything is added to the cache, all threads wake up and check the cache (no matter what key they're after), so it's possible to get better performance with less contentious algorithms. However, much of that work will take place during your copious idle CPU time blocking on I/O, so it may not be a problem.
This code could be commoned-up for use with multiple caches, if you define suitable abstractions for the cache and its associated lock, the data it returns, the IN_PROGRESS dummy, and the slow operation to perform. Rolling the whole thing into a method on the cache might not be a bad idea.

Synchronizing on an intern'd String might not be a good idea at all - by interning it, the String turns into a global object, and if you synchronize on the same interned strings in different parts of your application, you might get really weird and basically undebuggable synchronization issues such as deadlocks. It might seem unlikely, but when it happens you are really screwed. As a general rule, only ever synchronize on a local object where you're absolutely sure that no code outside of your module might lock it.
In your case, you can use a synchronized hashtable to store locking objects for your keys.
E.g.:
Object data = StaticCache.get(key, ...);
if (data == null) {
Object lock = lockTable.get(key);
if (lock == null) {
// we're the only one looking for this
lock = new Object();
synchronized(lock) {
lockTable.put(key, lock);
// get stuff
lockTable.remove(key);
}
} else {
synchronized(lock) {
// just to wait for the updater
}
data = StaticCache.get(key);
}
} else {
// use from cache
}
This code has a race condition, where two threads might put an object into the lock table after each other. This should however not be a problem, because then you only have one more thread calling the webservice and updating the cache, which shouldn't be a problem.
If you're invalidating the cache after some time, you should check whether data is null again after retrieving it from the cache, in the lock != null case.
Alternatively, and much easier, you can make the whole cache lookup method ("getSomeDataByEmail") synchronized. This will mean that all threads have to synchronize when they access the cache, which might be a performance problem. But as always, try this simple solution first and see if it's really a problem! In many cases it should not be, as you probably spend much more time processing the result than synchronizing.

Strings are not good candidates for synchronization. If you must synchronize on a String ID, it can be done by using the string to create a mutex (see "synchronizing on an ID"). Whether the cost of that algorithm is worth it depends on whether invoking your service involves any significant I/O.
Also:
I hope the StaticCache.get() and set() methods are threadsafe.
String.intern() comes at a cost (one that varies between VM implementations) and should be used with care.

Here is a safe short Java 8 solution that uses a map of dedicated lock objects for synchronization:
private static final Map<String, Object> keyLocks = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
private SomeData[] getSomeDataByEmail(WebServiceInterface service, String email) {
final String key = "Data-" + email;
synchronized (keyLocks.computeIfAbsent(key, k -> new Object())) {
SomeData[] data = StaticCache.get(key);
if (data == null) {
data = service.getSomeDataForEmail(email);
StaticCache.set(key, data);
}
}
return data;
}
It has a drawback that keys and lock objects would retain in map forever.
This can be worked around like this:
private SomeData[] getSomeDataByEmail(WebServiceInterface service, String email) {
final String key = "Data-" + email;
synchronized (keyLocks.computeIfAbsent(key, k -> new Object())) {
try {
SomeData[] data = StaticCache.get(key);
if (data == null) {
data = service.getSomeDataForEmail(email);
StaticCache.set(key, data);
}
} finally {
keyLocks.remove(key); // vulnerable to race-conditions
}
}
return data;
}
But then popular keys would be constantly reinserted in map with lock objects being reallocated.
Update: And this leaves race condition possibility when two threads would concurrently enter synchronized section for the same key but with different locks.
So it may be more safe and efficient to use expiring Guava Cache:
private static final LoadingCache<String, Object> keyLocks = CacheBuilder.newBuilder()
.expireAfterAccess(10, TimeUnit.MINUTES) // max lock time ever expected
.build(CacheLoader.from(Object::new));
private SomeData[] getSomeDataByEmail(WebServiceInterface service, String email) {
final String key = "Data-" + email;
synchronized (keyLocks.getUnchecked(key)) {
SomeData[] data = StaticCache.get(key);
if (data == null) {
data = service.getSomeDataForEmail(email);
StaticCache.set(key, data);
}
}
return data;
}
Note that it's assumed here that StaticCache is thread-safe and wouldn't suffer from concurrent reads and writes for different keys.

Others have suggested interning the strings, and that will work.
The problem is that Java has to keep interned strings around. I was told it does this even if you're not holding a reference because the value needs to be the same the next time someone uses that string. This means interning all the strings may start eating up memory, which with the load you're describing could be a big problem.
I have seen two solutions to this:
You could synchronize on another object
Instead of the email, make an object that holds the email (say the User object) that holds the value of email as a variable. If you already have another object that represents the person (say you already pulled something from the DB based on their email) you could use that. By implementing the equals method and the hashcode method you can make sure Java considers the objects the same when you do a static cache.contains() to find out if the data is already in the cache (you'll have to synchronize on the cache).
Actually, you could keep a second Map for objects to lock on. Something like this:
Map<String, Object> emailLocks = new HashMap<String, Object>();
Object lock = null;
synchronized (emailLocks) {
lock = emailLocks.get(emailAddress);
if (lock == null) {
lock = new Object();
emailLocks.put(emailAddress, lock);
}
}
synchronized (lock) {
// See if this email is in the cache
// If so, serve that
// If not, generate the data
// Since each of this person's threads synchronizes on this, they won't run
// over eachother. Since this lock is only for this person, it won't effect
// other people. The other synchronized block (on emailLocks) is small enough
// it shouldn't cause a performance problem.
}
This will prevent 15 fetches on the same email address at one. You'll need something to prevent too many entries from ending up in the emailLocks map. Using LRUMaps from Apache Commons would do it.
This will need some tweaking, but it may solve your problem.
Use a different key
If you are willing to put up with possible errors (I don't know how important this is) you could use the hashcode of the String as the key. ints don't need to be interned.
Summary
I hope this helps. Threading is fun, isn't it? You could also use the session to set a value meaning "I'm already working on finding this" and check that to see if the second (third, Nth) thread needs to attempt to create the or just wait for the result to show up in the cache. I guess I had three suggestions.

You can use the 1.5 concurrency utilities to provide a cache designed to allow multiple concurrent access, and a single point of addition (i.e. only one thread ever performing the expensive object "creation"):
private ConcurrentMap<String, Future<SomeData[]> cache;
private SomeData[] getSomeDataByEmail(final WebServiceInterface service, final String email) throws Exception {
final String key = "Data-" + email;
Callable<SomeData[]> call = new Callable<SomeData[]>() {
public SomeData[] call() {
return service.getSomeDataForEmail(email);
}
}
FutureTask<SomeData[]> ft; ;
Future<SomeData[]> f = cache.putIfAbsent(key, ft= new FutureTask<SomeData[]>(call)); //atomic
if (f == null) { //this means that the cache had no mapping for the key
f = ft;
ft.run();
}
return f.get(); //wait on the result being available if it is being calculated in another thread
}
Obviously, this doesn't handle exceptions as you'd want to, and the cache doesn't have eviction built in. Perhaps you could use it as a basis to change your StaticCache class, though.

Use a decent caching framework such as ehcache.
Implementing a good cache is not as easy as some people believe.
Regarding the comment that String.intern() is a source of memory leaks, that is actually not true.
Interned Strings are garbage collected,it just might take longer because on certain JVM'S (SUN) they are stored in Perm space which is only touched by full GC's.

Your main problem is not just that there might be multiple instances of String with the same value. The main problem is that you need to have only one monitor on which to synchronize for accessing the StaticCache object. Otherwise multiple threads might end up concurrently modifying StaticCache (albeit under different keys), which most likely doesn't support concurrent modification.

The call:
final String key = "Data-" + email;
creates a new object every time the method is called. Because that object is what you use to lock, and every call to this method creates a new object, then you are not really synchronizing access to the map based on the key.
This further explain your edit. When you have a static string, then it will work.
Using intern() solves the problem, because it returns the string from an internal pool kept by the String class, that ensures that if two strings are equal, the one in the pool will be used. See
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/lang/String.html#intern()

This question seems to me a bit too broad, and therefore it instigated equally broad set of answers. So I'll try to answer the question I have been redirected from, unfortunately that one has been closed as duplicate.
public class ValueLock<T> {
private Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();
private Map<T, Condition> conditions = new HashMap<T, Condition>();
public void lock(T t){
lock.lock();
try {
while (conditions.containsKey(t)){
conditions.get(t).awaitUninterruptibly();
}
conditions.put(t, lock.newCondition());
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
public void unlock(T t){
lock.lock();
try {
Condition condition = conditions.get(t);
if (condition == null)
throw new IllegalStateException();// possibly an attempt to release what wasn't acquired
conditions.remove(t);
condition.signalAll();
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
Upon the (outer) lock operation the (inner) lock is acquired to get an exclusive access to the map for a short time, and if the correspondent object is already in the map, the current thread will wait,
otherwise it will put new Condition to the map, release the (inner) lock and proceed,
and the (outer) lock is considered obtained.
The (outer) unlock operation, first acquiring an (inner) lock, will signal on Condition and then remove the object from the map.
The class does not use concurrent version of Map, because every access to it is guarded by single (inner) lock.
Please notice, the semantic of lock() method of this class is different that of ReentrantLock.lock(), the repeated lock() invocations without paired unlock() will hang current thread indefinitely.
An example of usage that might be applicable to the situation, the OP described
ValueLock<String> lock = new ValueLock<String>();
// ... share the lock
String email = "...";
try {
lock.lock(email);
//...
} finally {
lock.unlock(email);
}

This is rather late, but there is quite a lot of incorrect code presented here.
In this example:
private SomeData[] getSomeDataByEmail(WebServiceInterface service, String email) {
SomeData[] data = null;
final String key = "Data-" + email;
synchronized(key) {
data =(SomeData[]) StaticCache.get(key);
if (data == null) {
data = service.getSomeDataForEmail(email);
StaticCache.set(key, data, CACHE_TIME);
}
else {
logger.debug("getSomeDataForEmail: using cached object");
}
}
return data;
}
The synchronization is incorrectly scoped. For a static cache that supports a get/put API, there should be at least synchronization around the get and getIfAbsentPut type operations, for safe access to the cache. The scope of synchronization will be the cache itself.
If updates must be made to the data elements themselves, that adds an additional layer of synchronization, which should be on the individual data elements.
SynchronizedMap can be used in place of explicit synchronization, but care must still be observed. If the wrong APIs are used (get and put instead of putIfAbsent) then the operations won't have the necessary synchronization, despite the use of the synchronized map. Notice the complications introduced by the use of putIfAbsent: Either, the put value must be computed even in cases when it is not needed (because the put cannot know if the put value is needed until the cache contents are examined), or requires a careful use of delegation (say, using Future, which works, but is somewhat of a mismatch; see below), where the put value is obtained on demand if needed.
The use of Futures is possible, but seems rather awkward, and perhaps a bit of overengineering. The Future API is at it's core for asynchronous operations, in particular, for operations which may not complete immediately. Involving Future very probably adds a layer of thread creation -- extra probably unnecessary complications.
The main problem of using Future for this type of operation is that Future inherently ties in multi-threading. Use of Future when a new thread is not necessary means ignoring a lot of the machinery of Future, making it an overly heavy API for this use.

Latest update 2019,
If you are searching for new ways of implementing synchronization in JAVA, this answer is for you.
I found this amazing blog by Anatoliy Korovin this will help you understand the syncronized deeply.
How to Synchronize Blocks by the Value of the Object in Java.
This helped me hope new developers will find this useful too.

Why not just render a static html page that gets served to the user and regenerated every x minutes?

I'd also suggest getting rid of the string concatenation entirely if you don't need it.
final String key = "Data-" + email;
Is there other things/types of objects in the cache that use the email address that you need that extra "Data-" at the beginning of the key?
if not, i'd just make that
final String key = email;
and you avoid all that extra string creation too.

In case others have a similar problem, the following code works, as far as I can tell:
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentHashMap;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
import java.util.function.Supplier;
public class KeySynchronizer<T> {
private Map<T, CounterLock> locks = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
public <U> U synchronize(T key, Supplier<U> supplier) {
CounterLock lock = locks.compute(key, (k, v) ->
v == null ? new CounterLock() : v.increment());
synchronized (lock) {
try {
return supplier.get();
} finally {
if (lock.decrement() == 0) {
// Only removes if key still points to the same value,
// to avoid issue described below.
locks.remove(key, lock);
}
}
}
}
private static final class CounterLock {
private AtomicInteger remaining = new AtomicInteger(1);
private CounterLock increment() {
// Returning a new CounterLock object if remaining = 0 to ensure that
// the lock is not removed in step 5 of the following execution sequence:
// 1) Thread 1 obtains a new CounterLock object from locks.compute (after evaluating "v == null" to true)
// 2) Thread 2 evaluates "v == null" to false in locks.compute
// 3) Thread 1 calls lock.decrement() which sets remaining = 0
// 4) Thread 2 calls v.increment() in locks.compute
// 5) Thread 1 calls locks.remove(key, lock)
return remaining.getAndIncrement() == 0 ? new CounterLock() : this;
}
private int decrement() {
return remaining.decrementAndGet();
}
}
}
In the case of the OP, it would be used like this:
private KeySynchronizer<String> keySynchronizer = new KeySynchronizer<>();
private SomeData[] getSomeDataByEmail(WebServiceInterface service, String email) {
String key = "Data-" + email;
return keySynchronizer.synchronize(key, () -> {
SomeData[] existing = (SomeData[]) StaticCache.get(key);
if (existing == null) {
SomeData[] data = service.getSomeDataForEmail(email);
StaticCache.set(key, data, CACHE_TIME);
return data;
}
logger.debug("getSomeDataForEmail: using cached object");
return existing;
});
}
If nothing should be returned from the synchronized code, the synchronize method can be written like this:
public void synchronize(T key, Runnable runnable) {
CounterLock lock = locks.compute(key, (k, v) ->
v == null ? new CounterLock() : v.increment());
synchronized (lock) {
try {
runnable.run();
} finally {
if (lock.decrement() == 0) {
// Only removes if key still points to the same value,
// to avoid issue described below.
locks.remove(key, lock);
}
}
}
}

I've added a small lock class that can lock/synchronize on any key, including strings.
See implementation for Java 8, Java 6 and a small test.
Java 8:
public class DynamicKeyLock<T> implements Lock
{
private final static ConcurrentHashMap<Object, LockAndCounter> locksMap = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
private final T key;
public DynamicKeyLock(T lockKey)
{
this.key = lockKey;
}
private static class LockAndCounter
{
private final Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();
private final AtomicInteger counter = new AtomicInteger(0);
}
private LockAndCounter getLock()
{
return locksMap.compute(key, (key, lockAndCounterInner) ->
{
if (lockAndCounterInner == null) {
lockAndCounterInner = new LockAndCounter();
}
lockAndCounterInner.counter.incrementAndGet();
return lockAndCounterInner;
});
}
private void cleanupLock(LockAndCounter lockAndCounterOuter)
{
if (lockAndCounterOuter.counter.decrementAndGet() == 0)
{
locksMap.compute(key, (key, lockAndCounterInner) ->
{
if (lockAndCounterInner == null || lockAndCounterInner.counter.get() == 0) {
return null;
}
return lockAndCounterInner;
});
}
}
#Override
public void lock()
{
LockAndCounter lockAndCounter = getLock();
lockAndCounter.lock.lock();
}
#Override
public void unlock()
{
LockAndCounter lockAndCounter = locksMap.get(key);
lockAndCounter.lock.unlock();
cleanupLock(lockAndCounter);
}
#Override
public void lockInterruptibly() throws InterruptedException
{
LockAndCounter lockAndCounter = getLock();
try
{
lockAndCounter.lock.lockInterruptibly();
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
cleanupLock(lockAndCounter);
throw e;
}
}
#Override
public boolean tryLock()
{
LockAndCounter lockAndCounter = getLock();
boolean acquired = lockAndCounter.lock.tryLock();
if (!acquired)
{
cleanupLock(lockAndCounter);
}
return acquired;
}
#Override
public boolean tryLock(long time, TimeUnit unit) throws InterruptedException
{
LockAndCounter lockAndCounter = getLock();
boolean acquired;
try
{
acquired = lockAndCounter.lock.tryLock(time, unit);
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
cleanupLock(lockAndCounter);
throw e;
}
if (!acquired)
{
cleanupLock(lockAndCounter);
}
return acquired;
}
#Override
public Condition newCondition()
{
LockAndCounter lockAndCounter = locksMap.get(key);
return lockAndCounter.lock.newCondition();
}
}
Java 6:
public class DynamicKeyLock implements Lock
{
private final static ConcurrentHashMap locksMap = new ConcurrentHashMap();
private final T key;
public DynamicKeyLock(T lockKey) {
this.key = lockKey;
}
private static class LockAndCounter {
private final Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();
private final AtomicInteger counter = new AtomicInteger(0);
}
private LockAndCounter getLock()
{
while (true) // Try to init lock
{
LockAndCounter lockAndCounter = locksMap.get(key);
if (lockAndCounter == null)
{
LockAndCounter newLock = new LockAndCounter();
lockAndCounter = locksMap.putIfAbsent(key, newLock);
if (lockAndCounter == null)
{
lockAndCounter = newLock;
}
}
lockAndCounter.counter.incrementAndGet();
synchronized (lockAndCounter)
{
LockAndCounter lastLockAndCounter = locksMap.get(key);
if (lockAndCounter == lastLockAndCounter)
{
return lockAndCounter;
}
// else some other thread beat us to it, thus try again.
}
}
}
private void cleanupLock(LockAndCounter lockAndCounter)
{
if (lockAndCounter.counter.decrementAndGet() == 0)
{
synchronized (lockAndCounter)
{
if (lockAndCounter.counter.get() == 0)
{
locksMap.remove(key);
}
}
}
}
#Override
public void lock()
{
LockAndCounter lockAndCounter = getLock();
lockAndCounter.lock.lock();
}
#Override
public void unlock()
{
LockAndCounter lockAndCounter = locksMap.get(key);
lockAndCounter.lock.unlock();
cleanupLock(lockAndCounter);
}
#Override
public void lockInterruptibly() throws InterruptedException
{
LockAndCounter lockAndCounter = getLock();
try
{
lockAndCounter.lock.lockInterruptibly();
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
cleanupLock(lockAndCounter);
throw e;
}
}
#Override
public boolean tryLock()
{
LockAndCounter lockAndCounter = getLock();
boolean acquired = lockAndCounter.lock.tryLock();
if (!acquired)
{
cleanupLock(lockAndCounter);
}
return acquired;
}
#Override
public boolean tryLock(long time, TimeUnit unit) throws InterruptedException
{
LockAndCounter lockAndCounter = getLock();
boolean acquired;
try
{
acquired = lockAndCounter.lock.tryLock(time, unit);
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
cleanupLock(lockAndCounter);
throw e;
}
if (!acquired)
{
cleanupLock(lockAndCounter);
}
return acquired;
}
#Override
public Condition newCondition()
{
LockAndCounter lockAndCounter = locksMap.get(key);
return lockAndCounter.lock.newCondition();
}
}
Test:
public class DynamicKeyLockTest
{
#Test
public void testDifferentKeysDontLock() throws InterruptedException
{
DynamicKeyLock<Object> lock = new DynamicKeyLock<>(new Object());
lock.lock();
AtomicBoolean anotherThreadWasExecuted = new AtomicBoolean(false);
try
{
new Thread(() ->
{
DynamicKeyLock<Object> anotherLock = new DynamicKeyLock<>(new Object());
anotherLock.lock();
try
{
anotherThreadWasExecuted.set(true);
}
finally
{
anotherLock.unlock();
}
}).start();
Thread.sleep(100);
}
finally
{
Assert.assertTrue(anotherThreadWasExecuted.get());
lock.unlock();
}
}
#Test
public void testSameKeysLock() throws InterruptedException
{
Object key = new Object();
DynamicKeyLock<Object> lock = new DynamicKeyLock<>(key);
lock.lock();
AtomicBoolean anotherThreadWasExecuted = new AtomicBoolean(false);
try
{
new Thread(() ->
{
DynamicKeyLock<Object> anotherLock = new DynamicKeyLock<>(key);
anotherLock.lock();
try
{
anotherThreadWasExecuted.set(true);
}
finally
{
anotherLock.unlock();
}
}).start();
Thread.sleep(100);
}
finally
{
Assert.assertFalse(anotherThreadWasExecuted.get());
lock.unlock();
}
}
}

In your case you could use something like this (this doesn't leak any memory):
private Synchronizer<String> synchronizer = new Synchronizer();
private SomeData[] getSomeDataByEmail(WebServiceInterface service, String email) {
String key = "Data-" + email;
return synchronizer.synchronizeOn(key, () -> {
SomeData[] data = (SomeData[]) StaticCache.get(key);
if (data == null) {
data = service.getSomeDataForEmail(email);
StaticCache.set(key, data, CACHE_TIME);
} else {
logger.debug("getSomeDataForEmail: using cached object");
}
return data;
});
}
to use it you just add a dependency:
compile 'com.github.matejtymes:javafixes:1.3.0'

You should be very careful using short lived objects with synchronization. Every Java object has an attached monitor and by default this monitor is deflated; however if 2 threads contend on acquiring the monitor, the monitor gets inflated. If the object would be long lived, this isn't a problem. However if the object is short lived, then cleaning up this inflated monitor can be a serious hit on GC times (so higher latencies and reduced throughput). And it can even be tricky to spot on the GC times since it isn't always listed.
If you do want to synchronize, you could use a java.util.concurrent.Lock. Or make use of a manually crafted striped lock and use the hash of the string as an index on that striped lock. This striped lock you keep around so you don't get the GC problems.
So something like this:
static final Object[] locks = newLockArray();
Object lock = locks[hashToIndex(key.hashcode(),locks.length];
synchronized(lock){
....
}
int hashToIndex(int hash, int length) {
if (hash == Integer.MIN_VALUE return 0;
return abs(hash) % length;
}

other way synchronizing on string object :
String cacheKey = ...;
Object obj = cache.get(cacheKey)
if(obj==null){
synchronized (Integer.valueOf(Math.abs(cacheKey.hashCode()) % 127)){
obj = cache.get(cacheKey)
if(obj==null){
//some cal obtain obj value,and put into cache
}
}
}

You can safely use String.intern for synchronize if you can reasonably guarantee that the string value is unique across your system. UUIDS are a good way to approach this. You can associate a UUID with your actual string key, either via a cache, a map, or maybe even store the uuid as a field on your entity object.
#Service
public class MySyncService{
public Map<String, String> lockMap=new HashMap<String, String>();
public void syncMethod(String email) {
String lock = lockMap.get(email);
if(lock==null) {
lock = UUID.randomUUID().toString();
lockMap.put(email, lock);
}
synchronized(lock.intern()) {
//do your sync code here
}
}