On 04/03/2014, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 3/03/2014 10:56 PM, David M. Lloyd wrote: >> Yes, that would necessarily be the contract of a Monitors class, just as >> it is part of the contract of Lock today. If your argument is that it >> shouldn't be allowed because it might be used wrong, we might as well >> just delete most of the JDK, ReentrantLock included, since it suffers >> from the exact same potential problem. The difference is that monitors >> have a simple API in the form of synchronized that people were in the >> past and would continue to be free (and recommended) to use. > > We should not introduce anything that allows something that was > guaranteed to be safe by the language, to become unsafe. So I can > support a call for tryMonitorEnter, but not for explicit enter/exit > actions.
We'd need the explicit exit of course if we have the tryMonitorEnter.
