I'd like to cache some heavy resources locally. The goal of this implementation is to have be able to load resources for an unknown amount of time and then keep them in memory and finally evict them upon needs. So there is no "time-based" evictions needed: only "memory-based" ones.

As written in comment, I'm writing this code in the scope of a small library using only Guava as dependency, and currently, Guava doesn't support the single-element cache.

I've developped the following code:


import com.google.common.io.ByteSource;
import java.io.UncheckedIOException;
import java.lang.ref.SoftReference;
import java.util.function.Supplier;

public class Resource<T> implements Supplier<T>, AutoCloseable {

  private final ByteSource source;
  private final ResourceLoader<T> loader;
  private SoftReference<T> reference;

  Resource(ByteSource source, ResourceLoader<T> loader) {
    this.source = source;
    this.loader = loader;
    reference = new SoftReference<>(null);

  public T get() throws UncheckedIOException {
    // Double-checked locking
    T object = reference.get();
    if (object == null) {
      synchronized(this) {
        object = reference.get();
        if (object == null) {
          object = this.loader.uncheckedLoad(this.source);
          this.reference = new SoftReference(object);
    return object;

  public void close() {
    synchronized(this) {
      this.reference = new SoftReference<>(null);


import com.google.common.io.ByteSource;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.io.UncheckedIOException;

public interface ResourceLoader<T> {

  public default <T> T uncheckedLoad(ByteSource source) throws UncheckedIOException {
    try {
      return this.load(source);
    } catch (IOException ex) {
      throw new UncheckedIOException(ex);

  public <T> T load(ByteSource source) throws IOException;

I've also written the test:

import static org.hamcrest.Matchers.is;
import static org.hamcrest.Matchers.sameInstance;
import static org.junit.Assert.assertThat;
import static org.mockito.Matchers.any;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.mock;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.times;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.verify;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.when;

public class ResourceTest {

  public void shouldCacheInstanceAndReturnIt() throws java.io.IOException {
    ResourceLoader<String> loader = mock(ResourceLoader.class);
    String abc = new String("abc"); // Force a specific address to avoid javac optimization

    Resource<String> resource = new Resource(null, loader);

    assertThat(resource.get(), is(sameInstance(abc)));
    assertThat(resource.get(), is(sameInstance(abc)));

    verify(loader, times(1)).uncheckedLoad(any());

My various questions regarding this code are the following:

  • Is this implementation appropriate for a cache?
  • Is the double-checked locking the right way to use this? A priori, various calls to Resource::get should return identical object (not especially in regard to Object::equals or ==, but mostly in regards to what the final user sees).
  • How can I properly test this implementation? I see it's working: my test passes, but how can I simulate a soft reference eviction? Can I simply call my close() method?
  • \$\begingroup\$ Is there a compelling reason not to use one of the existing cache implementations out there? \$\endgroup\$ – Eric Stein May 19 '15 at 13:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ @EricStein Last I checked, Guava's optimized cache for singleton was still not implemented. Also, using a complete Guava cache for each ResourceLoader is overkill and becomes unmanageable in my code and this stays closer to the actual Resource. Finally, the reasons why I won't consider other cache implementations is that this is already in the scope of a small library extending the missing functionalities of Guava. I won't add heavy blocks as extra dependencies. \$\endgroup\$ – Olivier Grégoire May 19 '15 at 13:41
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Fair enough. Not worth an answer, but you shouldn't use synchronized(this). Put in a private Object lock = new Object(); and synchronize on that instead.Otherwise a client could synchronized(resourceInstance) and ruin your day. Well, their own day, really, but still. \$\endgroup\$ – Eric Stein May 19 '15 at 14:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ Generally, an unchecked exception should not be in a method's throws clause. \$\endgroup\$ – VGR May 22 '15 at 15:45

Something between a comment on rolfl's review and an own CR.


DCL is broken, but can be easily helped using volatile. Without it, it may happen that an object gets loaded, but other threads see its non-initialized state, which is too bad.

This wouldn't happen for objects with final variables fully initialized in the constructor, but imposing such a constraint on the user is cruel and the punishment in form of inexplicable random bugs even more so.


I'd prefer Closeable to AutoCloseable as it guarantees idempotency and that's how it behaves. But I agree that leaving it out is better.

Caching / ReferenceQueue

I guess that the part concerning caching is fine. A ReferenceQueue would load things which may not be needed anymore, that's more a threaded memory hog than a cache. I actually agree with the design in this respect.

No, I don't need a soft reference.

You most probably do, unless it's OK to lose entries on each GC, and then you could use a WeakReference. But the standard for caching is SoftReference.

Note that there were bugs when the JVM threw OOM before cleaning all soft reference. That's why they got rather unpopular and some whatever-stupid-criterion eviction is often preferred.


Your single element cache could be implemented via a normal (Guava) cache.

class ResourceKey<T> {
    public T get() {
        return CACHE.getUnchecked(this);

    private final ByteSource source;
    private final ResourceLoader<T> loader;

private static final LoadingCache<ResourceKey, T> CACHE =
        new LoadingCache<ResourceKey, T>() {
            public T load(ResourceKey key) {...}
| improve this answer | |
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks. You've convinced me to use a LoadingCache (not CacheLoader ;) ) also, thanks for confirming that I need SoftReference. I'm using Java 8, so I believe that the bugs you mention are past in my case. \$\endgroup\$ – Olivier Grégoire May 20 '15 at 8:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ @OlivierGrégoire I haven't been trying to convince you. Actually, you solution has an advantage or two: 1. If you lose the last reference to your Resource, then it gets collected together with its content. This can be achieved by using weakKeys(). 2. It probably needs less memory per entry. 3. It's probably a bit faster as there's no hash map lookup. \$\endgroup\$ – maaartinus May 20 '15 at 9:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes, but my solution has so many issues in regards to synchronization with that DCL since I can't really use volatile... \$\endgroup\$ – Olivier Grégoire May 20 '15 at 9:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ @OlivierGrégoire What's wrong with volatile (AFAICT all what's missing are nine chars). +++ If anything, then use AtomicReference or "normal" synchronization. With a lock per element instead of lock per segment, you get quite some concurrency (assuming not all threads concentrate on a single instance). \$\endgroup\$ – maaartinus May 20 '15 at 10:16
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @OlivierGrégoire Exactly. Neither the JVM (>=1.5) nor the hardware can re-order writes preceding a volatile write after it and reads following a volatile read before it, so you won't ever see an non-initialized object. And sure, you can't make a local variable volatile. \$\endgroup\$ – maaartinus May 20 '15 at 10:48


Double-checked locking does not work. There are some complicated reasons for this, but, it's enough to say that the Java specification allows the Java runtime to legitimately reorder some of the checking code in a way that makes the sync lock out-of-alignment with the checks you think you are checking. (See: Double checked locking pattern: Broken or not? )


Now, about the AutoClosable.


What does that get for you? You forcefully "forget" a reference that was allowed to be garbage collected anyway. Additionally, it does not close the instance at all, it just makes it refresh later. The AutoClose is a shim, that's not a very useful one at that.


Here's a paradox with caching. What are you caching here? The instance of the resource that you read from the ResourceLoader, or the Resource class itself? It would be preferable to cache the Resource instance itself, but you cache the underlying data. Additionally, you re-load it if the cache is cleared by the GC.

My problem is that anything that has a strong reference to the Resource instance probably wants to find the content again at some point.... otherwise it would not need to hold the reference. Thus, if you have memory problems, it is possibly just better to reload the resource each time, than to possibly hang on to it.

Are you sure that you want a SoftReference?

If yes, why don't you have a ReferenceQueue? A reference queue allows you to back-reference a SoftReference to the Resource that owns it. It works as follows:

  1. create a sub-class of SoftReference (not a wrapper, but an actual "extends" instance).
  2. put a strong-reference back to the Resource that the SoftReference comes from
  3. register the SoftReference on a queue

Then, in a separate thread, pull GC'd items off the queue, and process them. This allows you to get an ahead-of-time peek at data that has been de-cached.

It also allows you to have a colleciton of Resources that are held in, for example, a Map, and you can clear the Resources out of the map as they are cleared out by the GC.

| improve this answer | |
  • \$\begingroup\$ Double-checked: what are the alternatives? Using volatile? How in this scope? -- AutoCloseable: fair point. It'll get sacked. -- SoftReference: No, I don't need a soft reference. I read a bit on the references and I understood it was the best for this use case. Any other suggestion? Regarding the resources, they're "getted" a lot in a small amount of time then not in a large one. I want to make sure that the user doesn't reload every time because then he'll do caching probably worse than expected. Resource isn't a type of resource, it's really the accessor to the resource itself. \$\endgroup\$ – Olivier Grégoire May 19 '15 at 16:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.