commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John McNally <>
Subject [pool] swallowing InterruptedException
Date Thu, 17 Jul 2003 21:36:17 GMT
I see in classes like GenericObjectPool the following:

} catch(InterruptedException e) {
    // ignored

which will result in a thread that has been interrupted potentially
returning back to a waiting state.  I just want to be sure that this is
done for a good reason, so it would be nice to have more of a comment
than just // ignored.  Why is it appropriate in the case of an object
pool to ignore calls to Thread.interrupt(), except possibly to use it as
a wake up mechanism?

It seems possible that an application using commons-pool could have some
criteria for abandoning an attempt to get an object from the pool that
is not a simple timeout criteria.  If commons-pool did not ignore calls
to Thread.interrupt() the application would have some way to execute on
this hypothetical criteria.

What were the decisions for the present design?

john mcnally

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message