On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Benjamin Reed <br...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> InterruptedException is rather tricky because the semantics of > Thread.isInterrupted() is rather vague. specifically, it is unclear why > someone would interrupt a thread. usually Thread.interrupt() is used to shut > things down which requires special handing. thus we propagate it. for > example, i'm not clear how you shutdown your poll() method. an easy way to > do it would be to use Thread.interrupt(). > so if you just don't have it throw InterruptedException then thread.interrupt can't be used. It's an API decision really... if you don't want people to interrupt then we don't have to throw InterruptedException. I don't know many applications that use this in practice... does anyone on this list? I always felt interrupt() was vestigial... notify/wait are somewhat in the same category IMO but at least they are useful. In my poll method I don't shutdown.... the goal was to have the developer do everything in an event API and code that way. Doing things in both sync and async operations is confusing. Kevin -- Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com Location: San Francisco, CA AIM/YIM: sfburtonator Skype: burtonator Work: http://spinn3r.com
