Synchronized classes have no public members

[Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 07:02:54 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2015-10-16 08:49, Dicebot wrote:
>
>> As far as I understand topic is about deprecating direct field 
>> access of
>> synchronized classes, method calls in synhronized classes and
>> `synchronized () {}` blocks will remain untouched.
>
> Is it even possible to do synchronized classes in Java? That 
> is, but synchronized on the class declaration as in D.

I don't think so. synchronized is definitely for functions in 
Java and C# (and at the moment, D). synchronized classes like 
TDPL describes don't necessarily conflict with that, but they do 
force all of the functions in a class to be synchronized, whereas 
in Java or C#, only a portion of the class may care about or need 
synchronization. synchronized classes are certainly safer though, 
since they make it so that you can't get around the mutex without 
casting.

- Jonathan M Davis