Java threads: Which of the following will directly cause a thread to cease executing (stop running) at that moment?

Introduction / Context:
Java threads change state based on specific primitives. Knowing which calls block the current thread is critical for correct synchronization.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The thread owns a monitor when calling wait().
• We are comparing the immediate effect on the calling thread's execution.

Concept / Approach:
wait() immediately causes the current thread to release the monitor and enter the WAITING (or TIMED_WAITING with timeout) state. In effect, it stops the current thread from executing until notified/timeout.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
By contrast, notify() and notifyAll() affect other waiting threads, not the calling thread.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• notify(), notifyAll() → do not block the caller; they wake others.
• Exiting synchronized code → simply releases the lock and continues running; it does not block or stop the thread.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing wait() (blocking caller) with sleep() (also blocks caller but without monitor semantics) and with notify()/notifyAll() (do not block caller).

Final Answer:
wait()