Which of the following statements is true?

There are two ways of creating a thread; extend (sub-class) the Thread class and implement the Runnable interface. For both of these ways you must implement (override and not overload) the public void run() method.

(1) is correct - Extending the Thread class and overriding its run method is a valid procedure.

(4) is correct - You must implement interfaces, and runnable is an interface and you must also include the run method.

(2) is wrong - Runnable is an interface which implements not Extends. Gives the error: (No interface expected here)

(3) is wrong - You cannot implement java.lang.Thread (This is a Class). (Implements Thread, gives the error: Interface expected). Implements expects an interface.

(5) is wrong - You cannot implement java.lang.Thread (This is a class). You Extend classes, and Implement interfaces. (Implements Thread, gives the error: Interface expected)

B is correct because multiple threads are allowed to enter nonsynchronized code, even within a class that has some synchronized methods.

A is incorrect because static methods can be synchronized; they synchronize on the lock on the instance of class java.lang.Class that represents the class type.

C is incorrect because only methods?not variables?can be marked synchronized.

D is incorrect because a sleeping thread still maintains its locks.

Option A is correct because the notifyAll() method (along with wait() and notify()) must always be called from within a synchronized context.

Option B is incorrect because to call wait(), the thread must own the lock on the object that wait() is being invoked on, not the other way around.

Option C is wrong because notify() is defined in java.lang.Object.

Option D is wrong because notify() will not cause a thread to release its locks. The thread can only release its locks by exiting the synchronized code.

Option B is correct - The notify method only wakes the thread. It does not guarantee that the thread will run.

Option A is incorrect - just because another thread activates the modify method in A this does not mean that the thread will automatically resume execution

Option C is incorrect - This is incorrect because as said in Answer B notify only wakes the thread but further to this once it is awake it goes back into the stack and awaits execution therefore it is not a "direct and sole consequence of the notify call"

Option D is incorrect - The notify method wakes one waiting thread up. If there are more than one sleeping threads then the choice as to which thread to wake is made by the machine rather than you therefore you cannot guarantee that the notify'ed thread will be the first waiting thread.

The class correctly implements the Runnable interface with a legal public void run() method.

Option A is incorrect because interfaces are not extended; they are implemented.

Option B is incorrect because even though the class would compile and it has a valid public void run() method, it does not implement the Runnable interface, so the compiler would complain when creating a Thread with an instance of it.

Option D is incorrect because the run() method must be public.

Option C is true because multiple VM flags can be used on a single invocation of a Java program.

Option A is incorrect because at runtime assertions are ignored by default.

Option B is incorrect because as of Java 1.4 you must add the argument -source 1.4 to the command line if you want the compiler to compile assertion statements.

Option D is incorrect because the VM evaluates all assertion flags left to right.

(1) is wrong. It's just not true.

(2) is correct. You're never supposed to handle an assertion failure.

(3) is correct. Assertions let you test your assumptions during development, but the assertion code?in effect?evaporates when the program is deployed, leaving behind no overhead or debugging code to track down and remove.

(4) is wrong. See the explanation for (5) below.

(5) is correct. Assertion checking can be selectively enabled or disabled on a per-package basis. Note that the package default assertion status determines the assertion status for classes initialized in the future that belong to the named package or any of its "subpackages".

The assertion status can be set for a named top-level class and any nested classes contained therein. This setting takes precedence over the class loader's default assertion status, and over any applicable per-package default. If the named class is not a top-level class, the change of status will have no effect on the actual assertion status of any class.

Option A is correct. The assertion status can be set for a named top-level class and any nested classes contained therein. This setting takes precedence over the class loader's default assertion status, and over any applicable per-package default. If the named class is not a top-level class, the change of status will have no effect on the actual assertion status of any class.

Option B is wrong. Is there such a thing as conditional compilation in Java?

Option C is wrong. For private methods - yes. But do not use assertions to check the parameters of a public method. An assert is inappropriate in public methods because the method guarantees that it will always enforce the argument checks. A public method must check its arguments whether or not assertions are enabled. Further, the assert construct does not throw an exception of the specified type. It can throw only an AssertionError.

Option D is wrong. Because you're never supposed to handle an assertion failure. That means don't catch it with a catch clause and attempt to recover.

Option A is correct because it is sometimes advisable to thrown an assertion error even if assertions have been disabled.

Option B is incorrect because it is considered appropriate to check argument values in private methods using assertions.

Option C is incorrect; finally is never bypassed.

Option D is incorrect because AssertionErrors should never be handled.

Option A is correct. Because assertions may be disabled, programs must not assume that the boolean expressions contained in assertions will be evaluated. Thus these expressions should be free of side effects. That is, evaluating such an expression should not affect any state that is visible after the evaluation is complete. Although it is not illegal for a boolean expression contained in an assertion to have a side effect, it is generally inappropriate, as it could cause program behaviour to vary depending on whether assertions are enabled or disabled.

Assertion checking may be disabled for increased performance. Typically, assertion checking is enabled during program development and testing and disabled for deployment.

Option B is wrong. Because you assert that something is "true". True is Boolean. So, an expression must evaluate to Boolean, not int or byte or anything else. Use the same rules for an assertion expression that you would use for a while condition.

Option C is wrong. Usually, enforcing a precondition on a public method is done by condition-checking code that you write yourself, to give you specific exceptions.

Option D is wrong. "You're never supposed to handle an assertion failure"

Not all legal uses of assertions are considered appropriate. As with so much of Java, you can abuse the intended use for assertions, despite the best efforts of Sun's Java engineers to discourage you. For example, you're never supposed to handle an assertion failure. That means don't catch it with a catch clause and attempt to recover. Legally, however, AssertionError is a subclass of Throwable, so it can be caught. But just don't do it! If you're going to try to recover from something, it should be an exception. To discourage you from trying to substitute an assertion for an exception, the AssertionError doesn't provide access to the object that generated it. All you get is the String message.