On throwing InterruptedException

[Pavel Rappo]

For absolute clarity, I think Alan is talking about these:

    } catch (InterruptedException e) {
        Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
        throw e;
    }

    } catch (InterruptedException e) {
        Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
        throw new InterruptedException();
    }

In each of these, a single interruption is signalled twice. I think it
should be avoided as confusing. But like Alan said, in effect it's no
different from concurrent interrupts.

FWIW, I think robust code should be idempotent in respect to
interruption. It's not a three-strike system or some such. A single
interrupt should (eventually) have the same effect as any number of
them.

On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 9:34 AM Alan Bateman <alan.bateman at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 05/11/2025 23:10, Pavel Rappo wrote:
>
> And also this, which is a bit contrived but valid nonetheless:
>
>     } catch (InterruptedException e) { // good
>         throw new InterruptedException();
>
>     }
>
> The good/bad table is fun. For completeness you can also add the case where someone restores the interrupt status and rethrows the InterruptedException (or throws a new InterruptedException). It would be strange to do this but no different to a double whammy where two parts of the system are requesting you to cancel/finish-up around the same time.
>
> -Alan