I think the question is pretty self-explanatory. Do these two keywords have exactly the same effect, or is there something I should be aware of?
+3
A:
A quick google gave me this hit:
Which seems to answer your question, but since it's that easy to find, I'm guessing you're wondering if there's more to it?
Keeg
2008-10-20 07:25:05
Nope, "semantically identical" is what I needed to hear... and whether there were any "gotchas", but that page seems to be pretty clear. Thanks. Stackoverflow is my new Google. ;)
Epaga
2008-10-20 07:32:19
+2
A:
One interesting difference not covered in the link posted by Keeg: as far as I'm aware, there's no equivalent method calls in Java for .NET's Monitor.Enter and Monitor.Exit, which the C# lock statement boils down to. That means you can't do the equivalent of Monitor.TryEnter either - although of course the java.util.concurrent.locks namespace (as of 1.5) has a variety of locks which have more features available.
Jon Skeet
2008-10-20 07:32:24
A:
I java you don't have to worry about locking public types that you own.
In .NET, you have to
Updated: this is for types that you own. Locking on public types that you don't own is bad in any language :)
bh213
2008-10-20 08:08:57
No, it's still a bad idea to lock on public references in Java too. What makes you think it's okay in Java?
Jon Skeet
2008-10-20 08:29:27
While an interesting link, it absoltely (and statedly) does not discuss the issue of locking public types. Which do I agree you shouldn't do... it is a shame that is how [MethodImpl] does it...
Marc Gravell
2008-10-20 08:31:11
lock on something public and wait for an idiot to put a deadlocking lock on it too.
Andrei Rinea
2009-03-05 23:21:45