RFD: Replace class java.lang.Shutdown.Lock with Object?

[Eirik Bjørsnøs]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 6:38 AM David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>
wrote:


> No I suppose not. Though I'm not sure trimming the class will make any
> observable/practical difference in the normal case.
>

Thanks! I agree trimming these two classes (of ~428 loaded at startup)
alone has limited value. But there are other berries to pick and
the cumulative impact may have an observable effect on startup. Two berries
feed no one, with a handful we can make a delicious jam :)

So effectively this is like declaring a single global class that all
> "new Object()'s" would be instances of.
>
> So using new Object() will not be a problem.
>

Thanks for the Valhalla reference, interesting to see how "new Object()"
can be redefined like this.

Eirik.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/core-libs-dev/attachments/20260121/b2ad6468/attachment-0001.htm>