On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:05 AM Alan Bateman
wrote:
> On 26/02/2022 22:14, Ethan McCue wrote:
> > I have a feeling this has been considered and I might just be
> articulating
> > the obvious - but:
> >
> > As called out in JEP 411, one of the remaining legitimate us
cess could be
relying on the behavior of implicitly killing all threads and not have
another cleanup mechanism
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022, 5:16 PM David Holmes wrote:
> On 28/02/2022 3:20 am, Ethan McCue wrote:
> > I think continuations could work for the single threaded case, depending
>
I have a feeling this has been considered and I might just be articulating
the obvious - but:
As called out in JEP 411, one of the remaining legitimate uses of the
Security Manager is to intercept calls to System.exit. This seems like a
decent use case for the Scope Local mechanism.
public
provider.
>
> regards,
> Rémi
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Ethan McCue"
> > To: "core-libs-dev"
> > Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 11:14:19 PM
> > Subject: Should System.exit be controlled by a Scope Local?
>
> >
ger.
> But, if possible, it would be better to have a solution for these
> situations.
> (`Continuation` might help us?)
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 11:07 PM Ethan McCue wrote:
>
>> That undermines my point some, but I think the overall shape of the use
>> c
K.
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022, 7:03 PM David Holmes wrote:
> On 28/02/2022 8:20 am, Ethan McCue wrote:
> > My understanding is that when you System.exit all threads associated
> > with the JVM process are killed. That's what I meant by "nuclear
> > Thread.interrupt"
