> Moving the entire loop into the synchronized block would make the statement marked XXX above, i.e. "for (...)" execute inside the synchronized block, which has the potential to change the semantics (for example, the statement may include an rpc, and we don't want to make that rpc under the lock).
That's not change in semantics. The JVM doesn't provide any guarantees about parallelism or scheduling semantics in the first place so how can you possibly argue about the semantics of holding a lock too long?
And it's unsafe? For what definition of safety?
But in practice - yes you obviously wouldn't do this if the code in the loop control code had any side effects.
That's not change in semantics. The JVM doesn't provide any guarantees about parallelism or scheduling semantics in the first place so how can you possibly argue about the semantics of holding a lock too long?
And it's unsafe? For what definition of safety?
But in practice - yes you obviously wouldn't do this if the code in the loop control code had any side effects.