(Pralay, you didn't actually include any of the message you were replying to. I've dug out the message I *think* you were replying to and have included it. Let me know if I got the wrong one.)
Gert Lombard wrote: > I don't know if this will work for your specific problem, but you > could try this. If all you want to do is abort the "unknown" threads, > you could isolate the instance of the third party class to run in its > own separate AppDomain, then Unload the AppDomain when > you're done using the class. This should terminate the "unknown > threads" with the Abort method. Pralay replied: > Hi Gert, > I've tried that also. But it doesn't work. > Pralay What do you mean it didn't work? You mean that you created the object in a seperate AppDomain, but when you killed the AppDomain, none of the threads it created were destroyed? Are you sure? How did you draw that conclusion, given that the AppDomain in question had been destroyed? What makes you think the threads are still alive? (At the OS level they might well be - a single OS thread can participate in many AppDomains. But from the CLR point of view, once an AppDomain goes away, everything in it has gone too.) -- Ian Griffiths DevelopMentor You can read messages from the Advanced DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from Advanced DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.
