[concurrency-interest] @Contended (JEP-142)

Aleksey Shipilev aleksey.shipilev at oracle.com
Fri Nov 30 08:22:14 EST 2012


Point taken. I think it should be CLASS then.

-Aleksey.

On 11/30/2012 05:18 PM, oleksandr otenko wrote:
> I think the layout monitoring tools will be none the wiser even if they
> know which fields were annotated. After all, it is only a hint, and not
> a directive on how exactly to lay out the fields.
> 
> In other words, I see no reason to expose this annotation to runtime
> tools. If JVM wants to expose something useful about the actual object
> layout, it probably won't be annotations.
> 
> Alex
> 
> On 30/11/2012 10:07, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> On 11/30/2012 03:42 AM, oleksandr otenko wrote:
>>> Does it need to have Retention policy = RUNTIME?
>> That's an interesting point, and that is probably solves the compability
>> problems, as Remi said, because you will not be able to kick off
>> NoSuchClassException while traversing annotations.
>>
>> The downside is that (layout) monitoring tools might want to detect the
>> annotation at runtime, if that is not a concern, I'm OK with making it
>> CLASS.
>>
>> -Aleksey.
>>



More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list