On Tue, 5 Aug 2025 19:57:53 GMT, Roger Riggs <[email protected]> wrote:
> Regardless of an interrupt, the process is destroyed, so there is no use to
> propagate the interrupt.
While it's true that it doesn't matter if the purpose of the interruption was
only to interrupt the `close()` invocation, couldn't this `close()` operation
be one of several different "shutdown" actions the thread is taking, some of
which do throw `InterruptedException`, in which the purpose of the interruption
is to interrupt any or all of them? In that case, you'd want the interrupt to
"hang around" so it can happen if/when the next interruptible operation occurs.
In the example below, if the interruption just happens to occur during
`Process.close()`, you want an `InterruptedException` to be thrown by
`thing3.shutdown()` immediately (or as soon as possible):
try {
thing1.shutdown(); // throws InterruptedException
process2.close(); // does not throw InterruptedException
thing3.shutdown(); // throws InterruptedException
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// bail out now
}
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26649#discussion_r2255274208
