Re: Patch: java.io.PrintStream - PR/13176

[Bryce McKinlay <bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz>]

On Dec 7, 2003, at 9:08 AM, Michael Koch wrote:

> > OK. I understand that. I just don't understand why the catching of
> > InterruptedIOException and the calling Thread.interrupt() is needed in
> > the above methods, but not in the method were you say you removed it
> > again. It looks like for example print() can be interrupted, a
> > InterruptedIOException is thrown from natFileDescriptor who notices
> > that, but we catch it in print() and just return with as only 
> > indication
> > that something strange happened the fact that Thread.interrupted() 
> > will
> > return true. Is that on purpose?
>
> I dont really know. Perhaps we should ask Bryce. He removed the other
> ones. I cc'ed him now.

PrintStream methods must catch InterruptedIOException because its a 
checked exception. On the other hand, the docs for checkError state 
that "The internal error state is set to true when the underlying 
output stream throws an IOException other than InterruptedIOException 
...". So yes, I think something like the following is right:

--- PrintStream.java    10 Aug 2003 02:53:17 -0000      1.23
+++ PrintStream.java    7 Dec 2003 00:25:35 -0000
@@ -437,7 +437,8 @@
       }
     catch (IOException e)
       {
-        setError ();
+        if (! (e instanceof InterruptedIOException))
+          setError ();
       }
   }

@@ -464,7 +465,8 @@
       }
     catch (IOException e)
       {
-        setError ();
+        if (! (e instanceof InterruptedIOException))
+          setError ();
       }
   }
 } // class PrintStream

I don't think we want to call Thread.interrupt() again, though.

Regards

Bryce.