On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 23:58, Chad Stansbury wrote: > I'd recommend a short-term solution using both - first try to join() with a > timeout so that if it's not simply sleeping, it'll give the thread a chance > to complete whatever it's doing, and finally, after the timeout, issuing > the interrupt() since you can more safely assume that the thread is in a > sleep state...
+1 And if you want to go for bonus marks make the behaviour configurable ;) -- Cheers, Peter Donald ------------------------------------------------------------ militant agnostic: i don't know, and you don't know either. ------------------------------------------------------------ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
