On Mar 13, 2014, at 4:21 AM, Paul Sandoz <paul.san...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 2014, at 10:23 PM, John Rose <john.r.r...@oracle.com> wrote: >> P.S. FTR, I wish we could also remove the per-object monitor from its >> privileged position, so not all objects are burdened by it, and other forms >> of lock can be switched into the existing notation on a type-by-type basis. >> This is obviously a long, long term wish. A starting point is a notion of >> "this object has no monitor". > > Like an instance of a value type? Yes, and also a *boxed* instance of value type, yes. Like String or Integer, if I had my wish (incompatible change only for unreasonable code). Like the unenforced "value-based classes" of JDK 8, notably Optional. And frozen objects (JEP 169). http://download.java.net/jdk8/docs/api/java/lang/doc-files/ValueBased.html http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/169 — John > Paul. > >> Probably the keyword cannot be repurposed but would eventually be >> deprecated. And the Moon will reach Roche limit. >> >> – John >> >>> On Mar 12, 2014, at 2:12 PM, John Rose <john.r.r...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> >>> I think that we've covered all the angles, and that we can remove it. >>> >>> – John >>> >>>> On Mar 12, 2014, at 1:44 PM, Paul Sandoz <paul.san...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Currently i cannot find any external uses of it. >
