Time to put a stop to Thread.stop?
Alan.Bateman at oracle.com
Wed Oct 9 11:00:59 UTC 2013
On 09/10/2013 08:47, Dr Heinz M. Kabutz wrote:
> I noticed the other day when using Java 8 that Thread.stop(Throwable)
> was throwing an UOE. Unfortunately I missed the discussion in May
> amongst the thousands of other important JDK emails. Thus I presume
> that nothing I might have to say on the matter would change what is
> currently in the OpenJDK ;-) But I'd like to state it "for the
> record" anyway.
> Throwing checked exceptions in an unchecked context is, IMHO,
> something one should almost never do, except maybe in test cases. Up
> to now, I've known of quite a few ways to do this though:
> 1. Thread.stop(Throwable) with some mangling - see ThrowerConcurrent
> in http://www.javaspecialists.eu/archive/Issue144.html
> 2. Abusing generics
> 3. Class.newInstance(), described in Java Puzzlers
> 4. Unsafe.throwException() similar to ThrowerConcurrent in #1.
> Since this is something that we should not do anyway, it is no harm to
> remove one of the ways, this being Thread.stop(Throwable).
As I'm sure you can appreciate, it consumes a lot of oxygen to remove
something and I'm hoping we don't have to spend any more time on this
one. One comment on your list is that #1 differs in that it can cause
other threads to misbehave and this is one of the main motives for
finally pulling the plug on this method. For a sneakyThrow on the
current thread then there are other options (as your puzzlers
demonstrate) but hopefully there aren't too many cases where non-test
code needs to do this.
More information about the core-libs-dev