[concurrency-interest] Thread interruption protocol: InterruptedException is a "checked" exception, correct?
peter.kovacs.1.0rc at gmail.com
Wed May 20 10:04:02 EDT 2009
I see: there are ways to break the contract. If Class.forName(String)
does this, is it a bug in the JVM?
2009/5/20 Jim Andreou <jim.andreou at gmail.com>:
> There are quite a few ways someone could throw a checked exception
> without declaring it at compile time, actually.
> Thread.stop(Throwable), Class.newInstance(), and there must be another
> one too.
> 2009/5/20 Péter Kovács <peter.kovacs.1.0rc at gmail.com>:
>> Is it possible to get java.lang.InterruptedException, even if none of
>> the method along the call stack declares this exception?
>> We are experiencing such a case. Class.forName(String) appears to
>> throw the exception.
>> Is it not a breach of one of the fundamental contracts of the Java
>> language: "checked" exception are not allowed to be thrown in a method
>> without this method being declared to (potentially) throw it? (We
>> catch this exception as a Throwable in a catch(Throwable) clause.)
>> Concurrency-interest mailing list
>> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
More information about the Concurrency-interest