The question is rather easy, in a way. Suppose I have this class:
static class Singleton {
}
And I want to provide a singleton factory for it. I can do the (probably) obvious. I am not going to mention the enum possibility or any other, as they are of no interest to me.
static final class SingletonFactory {
private static volatile Singleton singleton;
public static Singleton getSingleton() {
if (singleton == null) { // volatile read
synchronized (SingletonFactory.class) {
if (singleton == null) { // volatile read
singleton = new Singleton(); // volatile write
}
}
}
return singleton; // volatile read
}
}
I can get away from one volatile read with the price of higher code complexity:
public static Singleton improvedGetSingleton() {
Singleton local = singleton; // volatile read
if (local == null) {
synchronized (SingletonFactory.class) {
local = singleton; // volatile read
if (local == null) {
local = new Singleton();
singleton = local; // volatile write
}
}
}
return local; // NON volatile read
}
This is pretty much what our code has been using for close to a decade now.
The question is can I make this even faster with release/acquire semantics added in java-9 via VarHandle:
static final class SingletonFactory {
private static final SingletonFactory FACTORY = new SingletonFactory();
private Singleton singleton;
private static final VarHandle VAR_HANDLE;
static {
try {
VAR_HANDLE = MethodHandles.lookup().findVarHandle(SingletonFactory.class, "singleton", Singleton.class);
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
private static Singleton getInnerSingleton() {
Singleton localSingleton = (Singleton) VAR_HANDLE.getAcquire(FACTORY); // acquire
if (localSingleton == null) {
synchronized (SingletonFactory.class) {
localSingleton = (Singleton) VAR_HANDLE.getAcquire(FACTORY); // acquire
if (localSingleton == null) {
localSingleton = new Singleton();
VAR_HANDLE.setRelease(FACTORY, localSingleton); // release
}
}
}
return localSingleton;
}
}
Would this be a valid and correct implementation?