Synchronized implementation of a bank account in JavaUsing volatile instead of synchronized for a simulationSynchronized block over concurrent collectionsOOP bank databaseThread safety/Transaction enforcerImplementation of stackSimple bank accountSynchronized Queue Wrapper C++11Singleton with a volatile and synchronized instanceBasic Java bank accountSimulate BankAccount in Java

Multi tool use
Why does the degree of dissociation change when we dilute a weak acid even though the equilibrium constant K is constant?
Why is indicated airspeed rather than ground speed used during the takeoff roll?
Can other pieces capture a threatening piece and prevent a checkmate?
Is it insecure to send a password in a `curl` command?
In what cases must I use 了 and in what cases not?
Comment Box for Substitution Method of Integrals
Does multi-classing into Fighter give you heavy armor proficiency?
Changing Color of error messages
What is the significance behind "40 days" that often appears in the Bible?
A Ri-diddley-iley Riddle
How do hiring committees for research positions view getting "scooped"?
Is it correct to say "which country do you like the most?"
PTIJ What is the inyan of the Konami code in Uncle Moishy's song?
While on vacation my taxi took a longer route, possibly to scam me out of money. How can I deal with this?
Is there a term for accumulated dirt on the outside of your hands and feet?
The average age of first marriage in Russia
Variable completely messes up echoed string
Violin - Can double stops be played when the strings are not next to each other?
Help rendering a complicated sum/product formula
Tikz: place node leftmost of two nodes of different widths
Why is there so much iron?
Bash - pair each line of file
What does "Four-F." mean?
Is there a hypothetical scenario that would make Earth uninhabitable for humans, but not for (the majority of) other animals?
Synchronized implementation of a bank account in Java
Using volatile instead of synchronized for a simulationSynchronized block over concurrent collectionsOOP bank databaseThread safety/Transaction enforcerImplementation of stackSimple bank accountSynchronized Queue Wrapper C++11Singleton with a volatile and synchronized instanceBasic Java bank accountSimulate BankAccount in Java
$begingroup$
I am trying to implement a bank account with Java in a thread safe way. My code looks like:
import java.math.BigDecimal;
import java.math.RoundingMode;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReadWriteLock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock;
/**
* Class to represent an account, it also provides with methods to add and withdraw amount from the account.
*
* @author Karan Khanna
* @version 1.0
* @since 3/17/2019
*/
public class Account
private ReadWriteLock accountLock;
private BigDecimal balance;
private String accountNumber;
private String accountHolder;
public Account(String accountNumber, String accountHolder)
this.balance = new BigDecimal(0);
this.accountNumber = accountNumber;
this.accountHolder = accountHolder;
this.accountLock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock();
public double getBalance()
this.accountLock.readLock().lock();
double balance = this.balance.setScale(2, RoundingMode.HALF_DOWN).doubleValue();
this.accountLock.readLock().unlock();
return balance;
public String getAccountNumber()
return accountNumber;
public String getAccountHolder()
return accountHolder;
public ReadWriteLock getAccountLock()
return accountLock;
public void addAmount(double amount)
this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
public void withdrawAmount(double amount)
this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
this.balance.subtract(new BigDecimal(amount));
this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
I am looking for feedback for the implementation.
java multithreading thread-safety
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am trying to implement a bank account with Java in a thread safe way. My code looks like:
import java.math.BigDecimal;
import java.math.RoundingMode;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReadWriteLock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock;
/**
* Class to represent an account, it also provides with methods to add and withdraw amount from the account.
*
* @author Karan Khanna
* @version 1.0
* @since 3/17/2019
*/
public class Account
private ReadWriteLock accountLock;
private BigDecimal balance;
private String accountNumber;
private String accountHolder;
public Account(String accountNumber, String accountHolder)
this.balance = new BigDecimal(0);
this.accountNumber = accountNumber;
this.accountHolder = accountHolder;
this.accountLock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock();
public double getBalance()
this.accountLock.readLock().lock();
double balance = this.balance.setScale(2, RoundingMode.HALF_DOWN).doubleValue();
this.accountLock.readLock().unlock();
return balance;
public String getAccountNumber()
return accountNumber;
public String getAccountHolder()
return accountHolder;
public ReadWriteLock getAccountLock()
return accountLock;
public void addAmount(double amount)
this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
public void withdrawAmount(double amount)
this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
this.balance.subtract(new BigDecimal(amount));
this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
I am looking for feedback for the implementation.
java multithreading thread-safety
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am trying to implement a bank account with Java in a thread safe way. My code looks like:
import java.math.BigDecimal;
import java.math.RoundingMode;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReadWriteLock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock;
/**
* Class to represent an account, it also provides with methods to add and withdraw amount from the account.
*
* @author Karan Khanna
* @version 1.0
* @since 3/17/2019
*/
public class Account
private ReadWriteLock accountLock;
private BigDecimal balance;
private String accountNumber;
private String accountHolder;
public Account(String accountNumber, String accountHolder)
this.balance = new BigDecimal(0);
this.accountNumber = accountNumber;
this.accountHolder = accountHolder;
this.accountLock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock();
public double getBalance()
this.accountLock.readLock().lock();
double balance = this.balance.setScale(2, RoundingMode.HALF_DOWN).doubleValue();
this.accountLock.readLock().unlock();
return balance;
public String getAccountNumber()
return accountNumber;
public String getAccountHolder()
return accountHolder;
public ReadWriteLock getAccountLock()
return accountLock;
public void addAmount(double amount)
this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
public void withdrawAmount(double amount)
this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
this.balance.subtract(new BigDecimal(amount));
this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
I am looking for feedback for the implementation.
java multithreading thread-safety
$endgroup$
I am trying to implement a bank account with Java in a thread safe way. My code looks like:
import java.math.BigDecimal;
import java.math.RoundingMode;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReadWriteLock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock;
/**
* Class to represent an account, it also provides with methods to add and withdraw amount from the account.
*
* @author Karan Khanna
* @version 1.0
* @since 3/17/2019
*/
public class Account
private ReadWriteLock accountLock;
private BigDecimal balance;
private String accountNumber;
private String accountHolder;
public Account(String accountNumber, String accountHolder)
this.balance = new BigDecimal(0);
this.accountNumber = accountNumber;
this.accountHolder = accountHolder;
this.accountLock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock();
public double getBalance()
this.accountLock.readLock().lock();
double balance = this.balance.setScale(2, RoundingMode.HALF_DOWN).doubleValue();
this.accountLock.readLock().unlock();
return balance;
public String getAccountNumber()
return accountNumber;
public String getAccountHolder()
return accountHolder;
public ReadWriteLock getAccountLock()
return accountLock;
public void addAmount(double amount)
this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
public void withdrawAmount(double amount)
this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
this.balance.subtract(new BigDecimal(amount));
this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
I am looking for feedback for the implementation.
java multithreading thread-safety
java multithreading thread-safety
asked 3 hours ago


Karan KhannaKaran Khanna
1756
1756
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In terms of the basic thread locking, it looks like it is doing the right thing, but there are a number of issues in how you are calculating the account balance, and also some escaped locking as well.
Note, your post is titled "Synchronized implementation", but it is not, it is a locked implementation. Synchronization is different, and, in this case, it may be a simpler mechanism.
Locking
Even if you don't catch exceptions, you should always use the try/finally mechanism for locking. Here, for example, it's possible that the addition may throw an exception (even though you don't catch it):
public void addAmount(double amount)
this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
try
this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
finally
this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
In case you think that's extreme, well, the amount could be NaN
or infinity
, and that would throw a NumberFormatException
, etc. Even if it were impossible for the logic to throw an error, you should still use the try/finally mechanism because it makes the logic obvious.
The balance method has the most to gain:
public double getBalance()
this.accountLock.readLock().lock();
try
return this.balance.setScale(2, RoundingMode.HALF_DOWN).doubleValue();
finally
this.accountLock.readLock().unlock();
You are also leaking the lock through the public method to get it. You really should not allow other people to manipulate the lock strategy you have in your class. It is intended to be internal for a reason.
Speaking of that lock, you should also make it final...
private final ReadWriteLock accountLock;
Bugs
The most glaring issue is not with your locking, but with the balance management itself. BigDecimals are immutable. They cannot be changed. This does nothing: this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
.... that should be this.balance = this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
.
The accountNumber
and accountHolder
should be final as well.
Finally, the getBalance method will not always return a 2-decimal double value. Not all values in binary floating-point are representable in decimal.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "196"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f215616%2fsynchronized-implementation-of-a-bank-account-in-java%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In terms of the basic thread locking, it looks like it is doing the right thing, but there are a number of issues in how you are calculating the account balance, and also some escaped locking as well.
Note, your post is titled "Synchronized implementation", but it is not, it is a locked implementation. Synchronization is different, and, in this case, it may be a simpler mechanism.
Locking
Even if you don't catch exceptions, you should always use the try/finally mechanism for locking. Here, for example, it's possible that the addition may throw an exception (even though you don't catch it):
public void addAmount(double amount)
this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
try
this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
finally
this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
In case you think that's extreme, well, the amount could be NaN
or infinity
, and that would throw a NumberFormatException
, etc. Even if it were impossible for the logic to throw an error, you should still use the try/finally mechanism because it makes the logic obvious.
The balance method has the most to gain:
public double getBalance()
this.accountLock.readLock().lock();
try
return this.balance.setScale(2, RoundingMode.HALF_DOWN).doubleValue();
finally
this.accountLock.readLock().unlock();
You are also leaking the lock through the public method to get it. You really should not allow other people to manipulate the lock strategy you have in your class. It is intended to be internal for a reason.
Speaking of that lock, you should also make it final...
private final ReadWriteLock accountLock;
Bugs
The most glaring issue is not with your locking, but with the balance management itself. BigDecimals are immutable. They cannot be changed. This does nothing: this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
.... that should be this.balance = this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
.
The accountNumber
and accountHolder
should be final as well.
Finally, the getBalance method will not always return a 2-decimal double value. Not all values in binary floating-point are representable in decimal.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In terms of the basic thread locking, it looks like it is doing the right thing, but there are a number of issues in how you are calculating the account balance, and also some escaped locking as well.
Note, your post is titled "Synchronized implementation", but it is not, it is a locked implementation. Synchronization is different, and, in this case, it may be a simpler mechanism.
Locking
Even if you don't catch exceptions, you should always use the try/finally mechanism for locking. Here, for example, it's possible that the addition may throw an exception (even though you don't catch it):
public void addAmount(double amount)
this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
try
this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
finally
this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
In case you think that's extreme, well, the amount could be NaN
or infinity
, and that would throw a NumberFormatException
, etc. Even if it were impossible for the logic to throw an error, you should still use the try/finally mechanism because it makes the logic obvious.
The balance method has the most to gain:
public double getBalance()
this.accountLock.readLock().lock();
try
return this.balance.setScale(2, RoundingMode.HALF_DOWN).doubleValue();
finally
this.accountLock.readLock().unlock();
You are also leaking the lock through the public method to get it. You really should not allow other people to manipulate the lock strategy you have in your class. It is intended to be internal for a reason.
Speaking of that lock, you should also make it final...
private final ReadWriteLock accountLock;
Bugs
The most glaring issue is not with your locking, but with the balance management itself. BigDecimals are immutable. They cannot be changed. This does nothing: this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
.... that should be this.balance = this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
.
The accountNumber
and accountHolder
should be final as well.
Finally, the getBalance method will not always return a 2-decimal double value. Not all values in binary floating-point are representable in decimal.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In terms of the basic thread locking, it looks like it is doing the right thing, but there are a number of issues in how you are calculating the account balance, and also some escaped locking as well.
Note, your post is titled "Synchronized implementation", but it is not, it is a locked implementation. Synchronization is different, and, in this case, it may be a simpler mechanism.
Locking
Even if you don't catch exceptions, you should always use the try/finally mechanism for locking. Here, for example, it's possible that the addition may throw an exception (even though you don't catch it):
public void addAmount(double amount)
this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
try
this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
finally
this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
In case you think that's extreme, well, the amount could be NaN
or infinity
, and that would throw a NumberFormatException
, etc. Even if it were impossible for the logic to throw an error, you should still use the try/finally mechanism because it makes the logic obvious.
The balance method has the most to gain:
public double getBalance()
this.accountLock.readLock().lock();
try
return this.balance.setScale(2, RoundingMode.HALF_DOWN).doubleValue();
finally
this.accountLock.readLock().unlock();
You are also leaking the lock through the public method to get it. You really should not allow other people to manipulate the lock strategy you have in your class. It is intended to be internal for a reason.
Speaking of that lock, you should also make it final...
private final ReadWriteLock accountLock;
Bugs
The most glaring issue is not with your locking, but with the balance management itself. BigDecimals are immutable. They cannot be changed. This does nothing: this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
.... that should be this.balance = this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
.
The accountNumber
and accountHolder
should be final as well.
Finally, the getBalance method will not always return a 2-decimal double value. Not all values in binary floating-point are representable in decimal.
$endgroup$
In terms of the basic thread locking, it looks like it is doing the right thing, but there are a number of issues in how you are calculating the account balance, and also some escaped locking as well.
Note, your post is titled "Synchronized implementation", but it is not, it is a locked implementation. Synchronization is different, and, in this case, it may be a simpler mechanism.
Locking
Even if you don't catch exceptions, you should always use the try/finally mechanism for locking. Here, for example, it's possible that the addition may throw an exception (even though you don't catch it):
public void addAmount(double amount)
this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
try
this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
finally
this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
In case you think that's extreme, well, the amount could be NaN
or infinity
, and that would throw a NumberFormatException
, etc. Even if it were impossible for the logic to throw an error, you should still use the try/finally mechanism because it makes the logic obvious.
The balance method has the most to gain:
public double getBalance()
this.accountLock.readLock().lock();
try
return this.balance.setScale(2, RoundingMode.HALF_DOWN).doubleValue();
finally
this.accountLock.readLock().unlock();
You are also leaking the lock through the public method to get it. You really should not allow other people to manipulate the lock strategy you have in your class. It is intended to be internal for a reason.
Speaking of that lock, you should also make it final...
private final ReadWriteLock accountLock;
Bugs
The most glaring issue is not with your locking, but with the balance management itself. BigDecimals are immutable. They cannot be changed. This does nothing: this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
.... that should be this.balance = this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
.
The accountNumber
and accountHolder
should be final as well.
Finally, the getBalance method will not always return a 2-decimal double value. Not all values in binary floating-point are representable in decimal.
edited 3 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
rolfl♦rolfl
91.1k13192395
91.1k13192395
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f215616%2fsynchronized-implementation-of-a-bank-account-in-java%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
d0QWYb5V