Home  Synchronization and concurrency  wait/notify  final  volatile  synchronized keyword  Java threading  Deadlock (and avoiding it)  Java 5: ConcurrentHashMap  Atomic variables  Explicit locks  Queues  Semaphores  CountDownLatch  CyclicBarrier
See also:
 Java thread programming
 Producer/consumer pattern

How to use wait() and notify()

We've mentioned that the Java wait/notify mechanism is essentially a way to communicate between threads. In a nutshell, the idea is as follows:

  • one or more threads sits waiting for a signal;
  • another thread comes along and notifies the waiting threads (i.e. "wakes it/them up" with the signal).

When to use wait/notify?

The wait-notify pattern is used in a broad set of cases where one thread needs to tell other threads that some event has occurred. It is commonly used to implement a thread pool or producer-consumer scenario, where a particular thread or threads need to "pick up jobs" created by other threads (in this case, the "event" that has occurred is that a job has arrived for one of the threads to pick up).

Note that wait/notify is a relatively "low level" mechanism. As of Java 5, there are other classes providing more intuitive mechanisms. For example, the BlockingQueue classes provide a more convenient means of implementing job queues.

For more details, see the separate page on when to use wait/notify.

Example: implementing a thread pool

Let's look at a common example of when we'd want to do this. Imagine that we want to implement a connection pool: a list of Connection objects (encapsulating a connection to a database) of which we want to create a fixed number and share amongst various threads. As mentioned above, in Java 5 onwards, this wouldn't commonly be implemented by the application programmer using the wait/notify mechanism, since better-performing and higher level classes are available. But pre-Java 5, it was a common use for wait/notify.

The thread pooling problem is that we want to implement a call that does the following:

  • allows any thread take a connection from the pool, if one is available;
  • else wait for one to become available.

Similarly, we want a call that allows the thread to return its connection to the pool and:

  • when a connection is returned to the pool, we want to 'hand' that connection to any waiting thread.

First, we create a ConnectionPool class and assume that it has a List of Connection objects. For the sake of argument, we'll just assume that all available connections are created when the ConnectionPool is constructed. (In reality, we'd probably want to create them on the fly, up to some maximum number.) We'll omit the part of createConnections method that actually creates the connections: the only interesting feature for our purposes is that we create a fixed number of connections and add them to an unsynchronized list: for reasons we'll see in a minute, we'll always synchronize explicitly on the list when accessing it.

public class ConnectionPool {
  private List<Connection> connections = createConnections();

  private List<Connection> createConnections() {
    List<Connection> conns = new ArrayList<Connection>(5);
    for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
      ... add a Connection to conns
    return conns;

Now we implement our getConnection() method. If no connection is currently available (i.e. connections is empty), then we need to wait until one becomes available. Then we return the first available connection.

public Connection getConnection() throws InterruptedException {
  synchronized (connections) {
    while (connections.isEmpty()) {
    return connections.remove(0);

Note first of all that we synchronize on the connection list. We then check if the list is empty. If, and while, it is, we "wait" on the list. In order to wait on an object, we must be synchronized on that object. But our thread will automatically release the lock temporarily while waiting. Calling wait() means that our thread will be suspended until it is "notified". Our thread will be "notified", and thus woken up, when another thread calls notify() on the object that we're waiting on (in this case, the connection list). When our thread wakes up, it automatically regains the lock. We can now check again that the list is not empty, and if it isn't, safely take out the first connection. This checking and removing will be atomic because we have the lock on the list. (If you're unsure what this means, see the section on the synchronized keyword in Java.)

Now, let's look at the other side of things: the method that a thread calls to return a connection to the pool:

public void returnConnection(Connection conn) {
  synchronized (connections) {

Again with a synchronized lock on the list, we add the given connection to the list. Then, while still synchronized on it, we call notify() on the connection. Calling notify() means: "if there is at least one thread waiting on this object, please wake up one of those threads". In cases such as this, waking up a single random thread is the functionality we want: we've only added one connection to the list, so there's no point waking up more than one waiting thread. Note that we have no control over which waiting thread is woken up. In particular, we can't say "wake up the one that's been waiting longest". (Nor will most JVMs or OSs use such a policy: ensuring this kind of "fairness" turns out to decrease throughput considerably.)

Note that although notify() wakes up one of the waiting threads, the first thing that that thread needs to do is re-acquire the lock that our thread is currently holding. So after calling notify(), we should exit the synchronized block as quickly as possible. If we do something like this:

public void returnConnection(Connection conn) {
  synchronized (connections) {
    // bad: woken thread can't start until we
    // come out of synchronized block!

then the woken thread won't be able to proceed until our call to updateStatistics() returns.

A couple of small points about this wait-notify pattern are worth clarifying:

  • The waiting thread can be interrupted (either for some spurious OS/hardware reason or, more likely, because interrupt() is called on the thread from within Java). Thus, wait() can throw InterruptedException. Unless you're in code that's dealing with the "outer logic" of a thread's function, the most appropriate thing is usually just to throw the exception up.
  • When a thread is 'awoken' from wait(), it can't tell why it's being woken. In particular, it isn't necessarily because it has been notified! (The OS could just spuriously wake it up for some reason.) So we have to check the size of the list again before pulling out a connection.
  • It's crucial that we don't wait if the list isn't empty. If we did, we would essentially sit waiting for a notify that wasn't about to come. (This is actually quite a common programming error in this type of code, because when you're writing it, your mind is saying "I need to wait until there's something in the list".)


The above example shows the basics of wait/notify. Some more advanced topics include:

Article written by Neil Coffey (@BitterCoffey).


 LetterMeister (word puzzle game for iPhone)
 Currency Quoter (currency converter/predictor)
 French Vocab Games for iPhone/iPad
 Vocabularium: create Spanish vocab podcasts

Java programming articles and tutorials on this site are written by Neil Coffey (@BitterCoffey). Suggestions are always welcome if you wish to suggest topics for Java tutorials or programming articles, or if you simply have a programming question that you would like to see answered on this site. Most topics will be considered. But in particular, the site aims to provide tutorials and information on topics that aren't well covered elsewhere, or on Java performance information that is poorly described or understood. Suggestions may be made via the Javamex blog (see the site's front page for details).
Copyright © Neil Coffey 2014. All rights reserved.