Thanks for your hint David. That's the only reason I could imagine too.
Can somebody tell something about the cost for recursive lock acquisition in comparison to the whole
call, couldn't it be eliminated by Hotspot?
As I recently fell into the trap of forgetting the synchronized block around a single notifyAll(), I
believe, the current situation is just errorprone.
Any comments about the Javadoc issue?
-Ulf
Am 28.05.2015 um 18:27 schrieb David M. Lloyd:
Since most of the time you have to hold the lock anyway for other reasons, I think this would
generally be an unwelcome change since I expect the cost of recursive lock acquisition is nonzero.
On 05/28/2015 11:08 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
Hi all,
in the Javadoc of notify(), notifyAll() and wait(...) I read, that this
methods should only be used with synchronisation on it's instance.
So I'm wondering, why they don't have the synchronized modifier out of
the box in Object class.
Also I think, the following note should be moved from wait(long,int) to
wait(long):
/The current thread must own this object's monitor. The thread releases
ownership of this monitor and waits until either of the following two
conditions has occurred://
/
* /Another thread notifies threads waiting on this object's monitor to
wake up either through a
call to the notify method or the notifyAll method./
* /The timeout period, specified by timeout milliseconds plus nanos
nanoseconds arguments, has
elapsed. /
Cheers,
Ulf
