[concurrency-interest] Does "Thread.stop" do what is says it does?
dholmes at dltech.com.au
Thu Aug 4 21:39:09 EDT 2005
> Replying to myself: the observed behavior seems to be that stop followed
> by start does not cause immediate thread termination, so I guess I
> report it here as a bug. (I guess it should be "if (this.getState() ==
> TERMINATED) return;" or something equivalent).
There is a lot of history here and numerous bugs concerning the incorrect
behaviour of "still born" threads - ones which have been stopped before they
started. Back in 1.1 it worked as advertised, but there was a different bug
whereby once stop() had been called then isAlive() returned false even
though the thread was not terminated. In 1.2 if I recall correctly they
fixed the isAlive problem, broke the still-born behaviour and deprecated the
stop method. So thereafter any bug reports concerning this were flagged as
"will not fix as it concerns a deprecated method". Not sure what bugs are
still present in the bug parade.
In short you cannot rely on Thread.stop doing anything per its documentation
More information about the Concurrency-interest