On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:17 PM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com>wrote:
> On 15/05/2013 2:57 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote: > >> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Jeroen Frijters <jer...@sumatra.nl> >> wrote: >> >> IMO Thread.currentThread().stop(**new Throwable()) should continue to >>> work. >>> It is not unsafe and it is probably used in a lot of code to workaround >>> the >>> madness that is checked exceptions. >>> >> > That is truly awful! Why wouldn't people just wrap in a runtime exception > ???? Truly, truly awful. :( > > General purpose library code sometimes would like to rethrow an exception that was previously caught. How should it do that? I don't think there's a generally accepted solution, although there's more than one (sneaky) way to do it, and we could stop using Thread.stop for that purpose. > If we had to we could special-case for currentThread. :( > > > There are existing JDK tests that use currentThread().stop to implement >> the >> occasionally necessary sneakyThrow. >> >> I suspect there are important uses of unsafe otherThread.stop in the real >> world, where it is used as a last resort to shut down an "application" >> running within a java vm, and works reasonably well in practice. >> > > I would dispute that it can work "reasonably well in practice" given the > near impossibility of writing async-exception-safe non-trivial Java code. > That aside, the proposal is only for the stop(throwable) form which I would > not expect to be used for the termination case. I agree it's unsafe. But you have the same problem to a lesser extent with kill -9, which is also an indispensable part of every engineer's toolbox, and works well enough in practice.
