bearophile napisał: > This page: > http://www.jroller.com/scolebourne/entry/the_next_big_jvm_language1 > > A quotation: > > >3) Everything is a monitor. In Java and the JVM, every object is a monitor, > >meaning that you can synchronize on any > >object. This is incredibly wasteful at the JVM level. Senior JVM guys have > >indicated large percentage improvements > >in JVM space and performance if we removed the requirement that every object > >can be synchronized on. (Instead, you > >would have specific classes like Java 5 Lock)< > > I have read similar comments in various other places. > > What about creating a @nomonitor annotation, for D2 classes to not create a > monitor for specific classes annotated > with it? This may reduce some class overhead.
Better just remove it, it's not used often. Besides, there are different locks, one size doesn't fit all. -- Tomek
