|
Re: JCiP Memoizer: msg#00032java.jsr.166-concurrency
On 10/18/06, Joe Bowbeer <joe.bowbeer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think the existing cancellation exception handling would make more > sense if the task were submitted to an executor. Then a forced > shutdown of the executor, for example, could cause a cancellation > exception. > > Btw, when I've coded this kind of thing in the past, I've usually > finessed the problem by adding "throws Exception" to the method in > question :-) > He he... in my case I must have no throws :-). ./alex -- .w( the_mindstorm )p. > On 10/18/06, David Holmes <dcholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Alex, > > > > I have to concur with Tim. The intent was that interruption during ft.run() > > implied cancellation and so there was a need to do clean-up of the cache > > entry. But there is nothing to convert the interruption to a cancel() > > request and so all that happens in the current case is that everyone who > > calls f.get() will get ExecutionException with a cause of > > InterruptedException. > > > > [...] > _______________________________________________ > Concurrency-interest mailing list > Concurrency-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://altair.cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest >
|
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re: JCiP Memoizer, Joe Bowbeer |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: JCiP Memoizer, Tim Peierls |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: JCiP Memoizer, Joe Bowbeer |
| Next by Thread: | Re: JCiP Memoizer, Tim Peierls |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |