[concurrency-interest] Thread interruption protocol: InterruptedException is a "checked" exception, correct?

Marcelo Fukushima takeshi10 at gmail.com
Thu May 21 18:08:58 EDT 2009


just to make it clear:

-Native code and generated bytecode (compiled by compilers other than
javac) can throw any checked exception without the throws clause given
that at the bytecode level, theres no such thing as checked or
unchecked exception
-Class.newInstance is a degenerated method that also breaks the
checked exception ruling.
-The InterruptedException from the OP was a result of a bug in the jvm



On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Gregg Wonderly <gregg at cytetech.com> wrote:
> David M. Lloyd wrote:
>>
>> On 05/20/2009 01:54 PM, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
>>>
>>> Any thread may be interrupted at any point in its execution path.  The
>>> fact that InterruptedException is a checked exception is the predominant
>>> issue from my perspective.  It can be thrown from code which does not
>>> declare it to be thrown as a checked exception.
>>
>> Um, no, at least no more than any other checked exception.
>
> Class.forName() is the issue in this case.  This specific instance seems to
> be caused by a JVM bug in Sun's jdk1.5.
>
> I've tried to stay away from InterruptedException and Thread.interrupt().  I
> guess I am under the incorrect assumption that a call to Thread.interrupt()
> can cause an InterruptedException to be raised in a thread executing inside
> of a method without a "throws InterruptedException" clause?
>
> Gregg Wonderly
> _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
>



-- 
[]'s
Marcelo Takeshi Fukushima



More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list