3

I was writing my own implementation of BlockingQueue for practice. I am trying to avoid using the synchronized keyword for the methods. I would instead like to use ReentrantLock.

What is the best way to write this implementation? I am not a Java ninja and would greatly appreciate if someone could pinpoint the errors in my code here and suggest better ways of implementing it.

public class MyBlockingQueue<T> {

private Queue<T> queue;
private AtomicInteger limit = new AtomicInteger(10);
private Lock put_lock = new ReentrantLock();
private Lock take_lock = new ReentrantLock();
private Condition put_condition = put_lock.newCondition();
private Condition take_condition = take_lock.newCondition();

public MyBlockingQueue(AtomicInteger limit){
    queue = new LinkedList<T>();
    this.limit = limit;
}

public boolean put(T item) throws InterruptedException{
    put_lock.lockInterruptibly();
    try {
        while(queue.size() == limit.get()) {
            put_condition.await();
        }
        put_condition.signal();
        queue.add(item);
    } finally{
        put_lock.unlock();
    }

    return true;
}

public T take() throws InterruptedException{
    take_lock.lockInterruptibly();
    try {
        while (queue.size() == 0) {
            take_condition.await();
        }
        take_condition.signal();
        return queue.poll();
    } finally {
        take_lock.unlock();
    }
}

Thanks for your time!

4

1 に答える 1

1

You can compare your logic with open jdk implementation of Blocking queue.

ArrayBlockingQueue

Btw..ArrayBlockingQueue also uses ReentrantLock

于 2013-01-19T09:37:20.180 に答える