\[~ann.campbell.2]: Could you rephrase it according to the following?
\[~dinesh.bolkensteyn] made the following remark on this rule in GitHub: "...IMO ideally we'll want to show an instance of a real issue.
my understanding of the current description is that, as soon as another thread will also lock "this" or the same type, then you will have a deadlock"
The problem he raises is that we shouldn't lock on ``++this++`` or an instance of ``++Type++`` because it *increases* the chance of running into a synchronization issue.
I don't thing that we should add a code sample which has a deadlock as the example would be too complex and long.
\[~ann.campbell.2] I have doubt about how this one actually maps to the findbugs rule mentionned. AFAIU this one is about synchronizing on ``++this++`` whereas the FB rule is about synchronizing on ``++this.getClass()++`` that should be avoided so I think this mapping is not correct.
\[~ann.campbell.2] Not really, as the fix for the findbugs rule suggest to use the static ``++.class++`` accessor instead of ``++this.getClass()++`` which is synchronized on a type, hence the spirit of the rule is not the same and then mapping is not suitable.
