[concurrency-interest] Termination of daemon threads

Peter Kovacs peter.kovacs.1.0rc at gmail.com
Tue Apr 1 10:56:51 EDT 2008


I see. If the data that is left in a corrupt state is critical, then
this is something critical. That is plausible.

What I am still not sure about is that you can categorically make the
statement: one shouldn't do critical things in a daemon thread just
because it will "vanish" at some point in time. Again: the entire
process will end at some point in time. That is no reason for avoiding
doing critical things in a Java program in general.

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Dhanji R. Prasanna <dhanji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Peter Kovacs <peter.kovacs.1.0rc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > David,
> >
> > I wonder what "critical" may mean here. The process is going to be
> > terminated: resources are freed, memory recovered, locks released...
> > Nature is at work here making room for a new life... What is critical
> > for me (e.g. a big salary raise, dating with the handsome assistant
> > from the 99th floor) will not be critical after my death. In other
> > words: what can be critical as I am just dying.
> >
> > OK, I try to put my egotism aside: may "critical" mean "something"
> > which other processes rely on?
>
> How about closing a file stream? Which would result in corrupt data if the
> daemon thread dies?
>
> Dhanji.


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list