Double checked locking 101 I've found a peace of code I've wrote not long ago. It is used to fetch some dictinary from DB table only once and then return it to requestors. Seems like I tryed to implement double-checked locking here. Is it correct? If not, what are the mistakes?

package a.b.c.service.orders;

import java.util.List;
import java.util.Map;

import org.springframework.beans.factory.annotation.Autowired;
import org.springframework.stereotype.Component;
import org.springframework.transaction.annotation.Transactional;

import a.b.c.dao.OrderStatusesDao;
import a.b.c.model.OrderStatuses;

@Component
public class OrderStatusesService {
  @Autowired
  private OrderStatusesDao orderStatusesDao;

  private volatile Map&lt;String, String&gt; cached;

  @Transactional(rollbackFor = Exception.class, readOnly = true)
  public Map&lt;String, String&gt; getAllOrderStatuses() {
    if (null == cached) {
      synchronized (OrderStatusesService) {
        if (null == cached) {
          final List&lt;OrderStatuses&gt; orderStatuses = orderStatusesDao.getAll();

          cached = new HashMap&lt;String, String&gt;();
          for (OrderStatuses orderStatus : orderStatuses) {
            cached.put(orderStatus.getCode(), orderStatus.getName());
          }
        }
      }
    }

    return cached;
  }
}
There are a few reasons why double-checked locking does not always work in Java. There are a number of blogs with more detail, but I quite like this one and this one.

Now, your code contains a volatile declaration for cached which, in certain conditions can mitigate the problem, but it is not a complete solution. You can still have cases where the cached variable is set in one thread, but another thread reads it before it is completely initialized. Since the values in the cached are not volatile, you will have problems still. Also, they depend on orderStatusesDao which is not volatile either...

With Java5's changes to the memory model, you can probably use a 'helper' variable to initialize the data... something like:

      Map&lt;String,String&gt; helper = new HashMap&lt;String, String&gt;();
      for (OrderStatuses orderStatus : orderStatuses) {
        helper.put(orderStatus.getCode(), orderStatus.getName());
      }
      cached = helper;


Using the helper ensures that the cached instance is fully assigned before it gets set.

This all seems very complicated.... and all to save a micro-synchronization.

With the advent of Java6 and enums, there are a few really good ways to create thread-safe lazy-initialized values, but your case is somewhat more complicated by the orderStatusesDao.getAll(); required for initialization.

As an 'aside' comment, I am concerned by this line:

synchronized (OrderStatusesService) { ...


The line suggests you have a variable called OrderStatusesService which is the exact same name as the class OrderStatusesService.... or is the synchronization supposed to be on OrderStatusesService.class?

In your case above, I would probably be satisfied with a simple/standard synchronization block and no volatile declaration. The lock-wait time will be very minimal.

Alternatively, I would consider an optimistic system using AtomicReferences, for example:

Map&lt;String, String&gt; cached = atomicref.get();
if (cached != null) {
    return cached;
}
cached = new HashMap....;
// populate cached.....
if (atomicref.compareAndSet(null, cached)) {
    // we were the first thread to populate, great:
    return cached;
}
// return the value that the winning thread created.
return atomicref.get();


in the above system, the first thread to 'set' the cached value will have it's instance used by every other thread. It is possible that multiple threads may be initializing their values at the same time, but they will all defer back to the winning-thread instance if they don't win. Once the instance is set, all threads will use that instance and there will be only fast atomic locking.