If I were to have an immutable property of a class, usually it would be set in the constructor(s) and a getter method written which wouldn't have to be synchronized. There'd be no setter.

In hibernate, since setters and getters have to be provided for every persistent property, even if they can be private, does this mean that they have to be synchronized to be thread-safe? I don't know how Hibernate's going to use them.

Regards,

Oliver

Wrong, access="field".

OK, but I understand that property access is preferred over field access for good practice and have used this.

Given that, do the getters and setters have to be synchronized? There's no performance problem currently, but I may as well remove synchronization if it's not necessary.

If necessary, I'll just leave it there rather than change to field access.

mmm, well hibernate session is not thread safe and each managed object must attach just to one hibernate session at a time!
http://www.hibernate.org/hib_docs/v3/reference/en/html/transactions.html#transactions-basics

so if your setters are private, there is no need for synchronization.
-------------------
don't forget to credit!

Sounds reasonable,

Thanks