Why isn't Object.notify() a synchronized method? (original) (raw)

David M. Lloyd david.lloyd at redhat.com
Thu May 28 16:27:54 UTC 2015

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 >

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list