Thread-safe multiton pattern

Question 1

It is absolutely not thread-safe. Here is a simple example of the many, many things that could go wrong.

Thread A is trying to put at key id1. Thread B is resizing the buckets table due to a put at id2. Because these have different synchronization monitors, they're off to the races in parallel.

Thread A                      Thread B
--------                      --------
b = key.hash % map.buckets.size   

                             copy map.buckets reference to local var
                             set map.buckets = new Bucket[newSize]
                             insert keys from old buckets into new buckets

insert into map.buckets[b]

In this example, let's say Thread A saw the map.buckets = new Bucket[newSize] modification. It's not guaranteed to (since there's no happens-before edge), but it may. In that case, it'll be inserting the (key, value) pair into the wrong bucket. Nobody will ever find it.

As a slight variant, if Thread A copied the map.buckets reference to a local var and did all its work on that, then it'd be inserting into the right bucket, but the wrong buckets table; it wouldn't be inserting into the new one that Thread B is about to install as the table for everyone to see. If the next operation on key 1 happens to see the new table (again, not guaranteed to but it may), then it won't see Thread A's actions because they were done on a long-forgotten buckets array.

Question 2

I'd say not viable.

Synchronizing on the id parameter is fraught with dangers - what if they use this enum for another synchronization mechanism? And of course HashMap is not concurrent as the comments have pointed out.

To demonstrate - try this:

Runnable r = new Runnable() {
  @Override
  public void run() { 
    // Added to demonstrate the problem.
    synchronized(Keys.KEY_1) {
      getInstance(Keys.KEY_1);
    } 
  }
};

Here's an implementation that uses atomics instead of synchronization and therefore should be more efficient. It is much more complicated than yours but handling all of the edge cases in a Miltiton IS complicated.

public class Multiton {
  // The static instances.
  private static final AtomicReferenceArray<Multiton> instances = new AtomicReferenceArray<>(1000);

  // Ready for use - set to false while initialising.
  private final AtomicBoolean ready = new AtomicBoolean();
  // Everyone who is waiting for me to initialise.
  private final Queue<Thread> waiters = new ConcurrentLinkedQueue<>();
  // For logging (and a bit of linguistic fun).
  private final int forInstance;

  // We need a simple constructor.
  private Multiton(int forInstance) {
    this.forInstance = forInstance;
    log(forInstance, "New");
  }

  // The expensive initialiser.
  public void init() throws InterruptedException {
    log(forInstance, "Init");
    // ... presumably heavy stuff.
    Thread.sleep(1000);

    // We are now ready.
    ready();
  }

  private void ready() {
    log(forInstance, "Ready");
    // I am now ready.
    ready.getAndSet(true);
    // Unpark everyone waiting for me.
    for (Thread t : waiters) {
      LockSupport.unpark(t);
    }
  }

  // Get the instance for that one.
  public static Multiton getInstance(int which) throws InterruptedException {
    // One there already?
    Multiton it = instances.get(which);
    if (it == null) {
      // Lazy make.
      Multiton newIt = new Multiton(which);
      // Successful put?
      if (instances.compareAndSet(which, null, newIt)) {
        // Yes!
        it = newIt;
        // Initialise it.
        it.init();
      } else {
        // One appeared as if by magic (another thread got there first).
        it = instances.get(which);
        // Wait for it to finish initialisation.
        // Put me in its queue of waiters.
        it.waiters.add(Thread.currentThread());
        log(which, "Parking");
        while (!it.ready.get()) {
          // Park me.
          LockSupport.park();
        }
        // I'm not waiting any more.
        it.waiters.remove(Thread.currentThread());
        log(which, "Unparked");
      }
    }

    return it;
  }

  // Some simple logging.
  static void log(int which, String s) {
    log(new Date(), "Thread " + Thread.currentThread().getId() + " for Multiton " + which + " " + s);
  }
  static final DateFormat dateFormat = new SimpleDateFormat("yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss.SSS");
  // synchronized so I don't need to make the DateFormat ThreadLocal.

  static synchronized void log(Date d, String s) {
    System.out.println(dateFormat.format(d) + " " + s);
  }

  // The tester class.
  static class MultitonTester implements Runnable {
    int which;

    private MultitonTester(int which) {
      this.which = which;
    }

    @Override
    public void run() {
      try {
        Multiton.log(which, "Waiting");
        Multiton m = Multiton.getInstance(which);
        Multiton.log(which, "Got");
      } catch (InterruptedException ex) {
        Multiton.log(which, "Interrupted");
      }
    }
  }

  public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
    int testers = 50;
    int multitons = 50;
    // Do a number of them. Makes n testers for each Multiton.
    for (int i = 1; i < testers * multitons; i++) {
      // Which one to create.
      int which = i / testers;
      //System.out.println("Requesting Multiton " + i);
      new Thread(new MultitonTester(which+1)).start();
    }

  }
}

Question 3

I'm not a Java programmer, but: HashMap is not safe for concurrent access. Might I recommend ConcurrentHashMap.

  private static final ConcurrentHashMap<Object, Multiton> instances = new ConcurrentHashMap<Object, Multiton>();

  public static <TYPE extends Object, KEY extends Enum<Keys> & MultitionKey<TYPE>> Multiton getInstance(KEY id)
  {
    Multiton result;
    synchronized (id)
    {
      result = instances.get(id);
      if(result == null)
      {
        result = new Multiton();
        instances.put(id, result);
      }
    }
    System.out.println("Retrieved instance.");
    return result;
  }