Sunil Nair - Please stop hijacking threads

@Sunil
You have posted the same message on 10 different MSS/ESS related threads with NO relevance to the original poster's question. That's bad manners in the good ol' web forums world. =) It also makes it tough for folks doing searches for particular topics within the threads.
CSolomon

It is always best to offer individual personal assistance with each OP's concerns. A large percentage of the time, the people that hijack or re-open old threads are just plain lazy to open their own, and often don't even have the same mainboard or exact same hardware. Two identical boards and hardware configurations can run and perform different due to variances in the actual components. To make matters worse, some give absolutely no system component information on which to base a suggestion or recommendation on anyway.
Quote
I just wanted to say that I get pretty annoyed when a Moderator is extremely rigid in their interpretation of forum rules.
Rules are rules! What's the point of having them if not enforced? There is a distinct difference between 'rule' and 'guideline'.
Typical example of a hijacker! Doesn't even list the CPU they have! If it was up to me, I would make signatures mandatory at the time of registration! Too much time back and forth is wasted asking for it. Then, a common response is that they don't think it's relevant! Say what? It wouldn't be asked for if it wasn't 'relevant' to provide a better troubleshooting strategy.
https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=166922.msg1223972#msg1223972

Similar Messages

How to stop a thread in java 1.5 on windows

Hi All,
I am using Java 1.5 on windows plateform. I want to stop all the threads which belongs to a particular process when the timeout occurs. In java 1.5 stop() method is depricated and interrupt method just sets the flag and does not stop the thread actually.
Is there any way to destroy the thread permenently. I am using TheadPool Executor class.
Regards
Rinku Garg

Hi,
I am having a timer task which is scheduled to run after some fixed time interval when the process started.
Now this timer task when started, should destroy the active threads of the request. When the request is timed out then the thread is action should termininate.
In my case run method of particular thread had already made a call to Database through DAO when the time out occurs. So how can I set up a loop in run method which I found on google.
thread.stop() is deprecated.
thread.destroy() is deprecated.
I used thread.interrupt() but it does not stops the thread.
Please help me in this scenario.
Regards
Rinku Garg

Stopping a thread from running

Hai
     I am new to java. It would be helpful for me if someone helps me out in doing this.
     Actually in my program ,I should
i. Find out whether a particular file exists in the given directory or not.
ii. If the file doesn't exist, my program should wait for certain timeframe and check for the same file again.
iii. If the program cannot find the required file within the timeout specified, my application should exit.
     I have done (i) and (ii) using threads. But in the case of (iii), I came to know that stop() method is depricated.
     I am providing my code for a better understanding. Could you please let me know, what would be the best way to stop the thread from running after the timeout is reached in my program?
Thanx in advance
import java.io.File;
public class Fileexists implements Runnable
static Thread t;
public static void main(String[] args)
     System.out.println("creation of object");
     FileExists test = new FileExists();
     t = new Thread(test);
     t.start();
// run method
public void run()
     File f = new File("searchfile.txt");
     boolean b = f.exists();
System.out.println();
if(b == false)
System.out.println("Required file doesnot exists");
try
     t.sleep(20000);
catch (InterruptedException e)
     // TODO Auto-generated catch block
     e.printStackTrace();
          t.run();
else
System.out.println("Required file found");
} // end of run()
} // end of FileExists class

Actually your use of threads is a difference which makes no difference. The JVM starts an initial thread and runs your main(), at the end of which you start a thread and return. So you've just replaced one thread with another. There's no parallel processing.
The t.run() at the end of your run() method won't work. A particular Thread object can only run once. It will give you an IllegalStateException.
I can't see how multi-threading will help you with this task at all, all you need is a simple loop with a Thread.sleep in it.
If you really want to use a separate thread or Timer to implement a timeout (as an exercise) then use Thread.interrupt() to wind up a thread. The looping thread should test with Thread.interrupted() in it's loop condition, if it's in sleep() when interrupted an InterruptedException will be thrown which you should catch and allow to break the loop and let the thread terminate.
So your loop structure looks like:
try {
while(!Thread.interrupted()) {
    ... do your test
    Thread.sleep(.....);
System.out.println("Thread terminated by detecting interrupted");
} catch(InterruptedException ex) {
     System.out.println("Thread interrupted from sleep");
You can get the Thread for the main thread simply by storing Thread.currentThread() in a Thread reference.
I'd suggest using a java.util.Timer to launch your time-out and leave the loop on the main thread started by the JVM.

Stopping a Thread.... again

Hi all,
a couple of months ago I've posted a similar topic, on how to stop a thread without using the deprecated stop() method. Still, no result. I have a great deal of calculations that should be done in a separate thread. Due to the fact that the calculations might take up to 10 secons (or more), I would like to give the ability to the user to stop the process of calculations.
public class Calculations(){
    //Field Declaration
      Thread t;
    public void doTheJob(){
        if(t != null)
             t = null;
        t = new Thread( new Runnable(){ public void run(){
            <PERFORM THE CALCULATIONS>
        t.start();
    public void stopTheJob(){
             <HOW????, t.stop() works "fine">
}The stop() method of class Thread will do perfectly and stop the procedure. However is deprecated. I've checked the alternative of stop using while( t!= null) loops, but there is no loop in the procedure!! There is just a bunch of operations that should be done in a separate thread. It is logical that something as the following won't do if the procedure has already started.
    public void stopTheJob(){
             if( t != null)
                  t = null; //No point if the procedure has already started
    }Please correct me if I'm wrong, but help me understand how...
I am not a programmer and not that smart but I still want to solve this issue.
I would gladly provide more information if necessary.
Thnx in advance,
F.

There are fundamental problems with monitors (i.e. synchronized bits). You can be sure they've given a lot of thought to cleaning up and decided there's no safe way to do it.
stop still works and there are very rare situations in which I'd use it. In particular if the thread were running someone else's not fully trusted code and a framework decided an infinite loop was happening. Depracation is a warning, not an error.
However it's generally no problem at all to have a thread watch for being interrupted and stop itself.
Generally the interrupt call is the best mechanism since it kicks the thread out of wait or sleep, or sets a flag which you can test (or which will cause an exception next time you wait or sleep.

Verizon PLEASE stop pushing bloatware on us!

Verizon did it again. Today they pushed an update to Bionic. However, along with it came more bloatware. Now it is welded to my phone and I can uninstall it without rooting. I guess we will all just have to root to clean this off our phones. It is getting ridiculous. The new apps they installed:
SlingBox: $9.99/month video service
Mog: Another $9.99/mo music service.
This in addition to all the other bloatware already there:
CityID, Backup assistant (the worst of all), Vcast stuff, video surf, NFL mobile, etc...
If I wanted these I would have downloaded them. Forcing them on me makes me irate! I will NEVER use these EVER now. I will never do business with the companies that make these bloatware apps. Are you getting the message Verizon? Please stop the bloatware. If you want to preinstall apps, fine. Just don't lock them so we cant uninstall. That is all I ask. You don't have to put them in the system/app directory and lock them down. Just leave them in the regular app directory where we can uninstall them if we choose. Forcing them on us drives serous customer dissatisfaction and is entirely ineffective. Those who want to uninstall them will never use them anyway. Now they are hogging resources and space for no reason. Every time I open my apps I have to sort through all this junk. Just look at the rating of apps you forced as bloatware.

I don't see why apps that are not uninstallable would be worth any more to the service provider. There is no valid case for this. Do they really think that we will just cave and start using it just because we can't uninstall? Seriously? I don't think so. Those that will use them will use them regardless if they can be uninstalled or not. Those that won't use them won't ever use them. Again, I have no problem with preinstalled apps as long as I can uninstall them if I don't plan to use them. The approach you took for the bloatware only hides them of course. They still launch background tasks, chew up resources, and receive broadcast intents to perform actions. For instance, if you want to find an address on the map it will try to launch VZnavigator. You have to set all your app preferences to instead go to Google.
As for rooting, there are several one click roots available for most devices. As you point out, it is far from risk free. Honestly I would prefer not rooting but I feel forced into it because of the issues on this thread. One of the big downsides is the fact warranty is void. Support now comes from forums (which is generally better anyway). If you have a problem, you are on your own (with the help of tons of forums).
As for your regular backup, Google provides this already for free. Just sign in to your Google account and use their backup services. Its all there, all free, and actually works very well. Then you can edit them on your Google website too. It has far more flexibility that backup assistant.
It is true that this happens to be one of my many pet peeves. It does annoy others to the extent it does me but likely not the majority. For most users they just ignore it and instead complain about poor battery life, laggy apps, and other issues and they have with no idea that this bloatware helps to cause these issues. They leave unhappy but never realize that bloatware is part of the cause. I can't blame all of this on bloatware of course. It is one of many contributors though and there is no excuse for it. I would argue that Verizon could increase customer satisfaction by allowing us to uninstall the bloatware. This would result in less returned devices which would save them far more than forcing the bloatware ever gained them (since I would argue this is $0). They could still preinstall whatever they want. I am fine with that as long as I can uninstall what I don't want. That should not impact any kickbacks they get from the bloatware since it has no impact on the number of people who use it. It would impact the apps ratings on Android Market though. Just take a look at some of the ratings on these bloatware apps. Tons of 1 star ratings with all kinds of comments about bloatware. If we could just uninstall those ratings would not be there and the developers would likely get more users, not less.

Stopping native-threads

hi all,
how can i stop native (hanging) threads?
i see that many people have this question but i can't find any real solution.
all the time sun said we should us cancel-flags in a loop in the thread. but how to do this when the threads was written from other with native code (the most original io-classes from sun , eg. java.net.UrlConnection)?!
look at the following code example:
in linux and mac os-x the timeout for dns-lookups needs between 40 and 60 seconds. but what if you don't like to wait so long?! if you like to test many 1000 urls (internal and external urls mixed)
latest with jdk 1.4 you will get almost internel-jvm-error ending in a java-crash if you test in a loop much urls.
but please! if somebody has a thread-save-soluton please post it!
thx
oliver scorp
code-example:
ublic final class Test1 {
private boolean urlErr = false;
private String urlErrMsg = null;
private int urlTimeout = 5;
public final class TestUrlConnection extends Thread{
private String myUrl = null;
public TestUrlConnection(String parMyUrl) {
super();
myUrl = parMyUrl;
public void run(){
try{
if (myUrl == null)
return;
java.net.URL u = new java.net.URL(myUrl);
java.net.URLConnection uc = u.openConnection();
uc.connect(); // 40 sec timout in linux when url not can be connected !!!
// 60 sec timeout in MAC OS-X !!!
// 1 sec timeout in Windows !!! (so, this example maybe doesn't work there!)
}catch(Exception e){
urlErr = true;
urlErrMsg = e.toString();
public Test1() {
super();
public static void main (String args[]) {
Test1 myProg = new Test1();
myProg.myTest1();
public void myTest1() {
try{
String s = "http://www.apache.org";
TestUrlConnection tuc = new TestUrlConnection(s);
tuc.start();
tuc.join(urlTimeout * 1000);
if (tuc.isAlive()){
tuc.stop(); //searching for an alterNATIVE
//is extrem instable in jdk 1.4!
//(get almost internal errors in jvm if you have many 100 test-threads)
//tuc.interrupt(); //doesn't work by native (hanging) threads
//tuc = null; //doesn't stop the thread
urlErr = true;
urlErrMsg = "Connection timeout!";
if (urlErr)
System.out.println(urlErrMsg);
else
System.out.println("Connection ok");
}catch(Exception e){
System.out.println(e.toString());

the question was: how to end native threads - threadsave (without using the 'deprecated' stop-methode)?!So you have a C method (not Java) in which you created a thread that runs C code (not Java) and it is indeed running, not blocked, and you wish to end it?
Seems like a bad design and bad idea to me, because it is very likely that it will cause memory leaks, and since it it hard to cause it to stop at arbritrary points in its execution it will also be hard to use an automated tool to track down those leaks.
But if you have already dealt with all of those issues then you could stop it. The answer to how is specific to the thread library that you are using. So at the very least you would have to specify that. And since this particular topic has nothing to do with java you might find an answer on another list/forum/group faster.
Despite all of the above, if the thread touches java in any way then I would say that trying to stop it arbritrarily is going to be a really bad idea. Java isn't set up for that. And at the very least you will end up with memory leaks (with no way to get rid of them, since they are likely to be internal to the JVM.) And that would be the best outcome. It is also possible that it would make the JVM unstable and I can't imagine any application where that is going to be a good thing.

Stop a thread which held by Remote call

I have start a thread for Remote Call using RMI. I want to stop it when the Remote call doesn't response (timeout function). I have implemented the following
class Test
String str;
Thread thread1;
public void method(){
thread1 = new Thread(){
public void run(){
while(true){//Simulate the call doesn't response
thread1.start();
Thread thread2 = new Thread(){
public void run(){
try{
sleep(2000);
}catch(InterruptedException e){
System.out.println(e);
System.out.println("Interrupt");
thread1.interrupt();
thread2.start();
try{
thread2.join();
if(thread1.isAlive()){
System.out.println("Alive");
//Stop thread1
}catch(InterruptedException e){
System.out.println(e);
System.out.println("End");
     public static void main(String[] args){
          Test t = new Test();
t.method();
Would any one please tell me how to stop the thread1?
Thank you.

There is a deprecated method for stopping a thread, called, unsurprisingly, Thread.stop(). It's deprecated for good reason.
I suspect your program would have worked if a real remote method call had been involved. The interrupt() method could perhaps have been better named. It doesn't cause a interrupt in the classical sense. For the most part, it just sets a flag that can be tested using the Thread.interrupted() method. However, certain blocking operations do get terminated prematurely and in that case an interrupt is thrown. See for example InputStream.read() which can throw IOException, or which InterruptedIOException is a subclass. I rather think that interrupting an RMI call would result in a RemoteException being thrown.
Sylvia.

Steve/S.D.A please stop posting in ways that break other forums.

hey steve, please stop posting what ever way you do that causes the repeating post bug in other forums. if adobe is working on it and you want to continue to post via that method in THIS forum to help them out, so be it, but you're ruining long lived threads in other forums (the lounge for starters), and it's quite annoying.
by all means, if you want to participate in the goofiness of the lounge, i for one encourage you to continue to post there using the web interface until this topic destroying bug is sorted out.
thanks man, i appreciate it, dave

Claudio González wrote:
PjonesCET wrote:
He can get pleasure out of I brought Adobe to its knees.
Steve is doing nothing to bring Adobe to its knees. He is doing a lot to bring us fellow users to our knees. Closed threads do not affect Adobe; they affect us.
Brainwave! Tubelight! Eureka!
Maybe, we should ask Steve to post in every thread in every forum?! Hopefully, that'll bring the Jive ACE forums to their knees and then they may just go away?
PS: judging by a thread, Steve doesn't even have to enter content. Blank mails to the thread work as effectively. Can you just imagine the scene! All the moderators running around frantically, closing threads as fast they open?! Adobe will go into a spin...

How do I stop these horrible screensavers that I receive every view seconds from you on my desktop! Please stop them!!

== Issue
==
I have another kind of problem with Firefox
== Description
==
Please stop this horrible screen savers that I receive from firefox every fiew seconds. How do we stop them?
<blockquote>removed your email address from the topic heading, we don't provide support via email - moderator -eh</blockquote>
== when I subscribed and how do I unsubscribe it?
==
== Troubleshooting information
==
Please stop this horrible screen savers that I receive from firefox every fiew seconds. How do we stop them?
== Firefox version
==
3.6.6
== Operating system
==
Windows XP
== User Agent
==
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.6) Gecko/20100625 Firefox/3.6.6 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
== Plugins installed
==
*-Adobe PDF Plug-In For Firefox and Netscape
*Default Plug-in
*The QuickTime Plugin allows you to view a wide variety of multimedia content in Web pages. For more information, visit the QuickTime Web site.
*Shockwave Flash 10.0 r45
*Picasa plugin
*4.0.50524.0
*Office Live Update v1.4
*Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) plug-in for Mozilla browsers
*Google Update
*Npdsplay dll
*DRM Store Netscape Plugin
*DRM Netscape Network Object

Hello Anelda.
It's possible that you are having a problem with some Firefox add-on that is hindering your Firefox's normal behavior. Have you tried disabling all add-ons (just to check), to see if Firefox goes back to normal?
Whenever you have a problem with Firefox, whatever it is, you should make sure it's not caused by one (or more than one) of your installed add-ons, be it an extension, a theme or a plugin. To do that easily and cleanly, run Firefox in [http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Safe+Mode safe mode] (don't forget to select ''Disable all add-ons'' when you start safe mode). If the problem disappears, you know it's from an add-on. Disable them all in normal mode, and enable them one at a time until you find the source of the problem. See [http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Troubleshooting+extensions+and+themes this article] for information about troubleshooting extensions and theme and [https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Troubleshooting+plugins this one] for plugins.
If you need support for one of your add-ons, you'll have to contact its author.

How to stop the thread?

Hi,
How to stop the thread in java. This is my program.
import java.net.InetAddress;
public class ThreadPing extends Thread {
     ThreadPing(String pingIP)
          super(pingIP);
          start();
     public void run()
          try
          String pingIP = Thread.currentThread().getName();
          InetAddress inet = InetAddress.getByName(pingIP);
          Boolean get=inet.isReachable(1500);
          if(get==true)
               System.out.println(inet.getHostName());
          }catch(Exception e)
     public static void main(String args[])
          for(int i=1;i<=100;i++)
               String pingIP = "192.168.1."+i;
               ThreadPing tp = new ThreadPing(pingIP);
Thanks in advance.

The simplest way to stop all the thread is to make all thread daemons and exit the program when you want them to stop.

How to stop main thread ?

Hi,
Inside my java class, after I launch a GUI, I want to stop this main thread. After user make some choice and close GUI window, then, I want to go back to main thread. I use wait() method inside my class to stop main thread , but it does not work and it give me "IllegalMonitorStateException" error. I met same thing, when user close the GUI window and call method notifyAll(). How to stop main thread for a while and how to go back?? Thanks
Gary

Hi,
you can create a boolean, and create a while loop, with a Thread.sleep(time); when you want to continue, you just have to change the state of your boolean. So you don't hava to exit the main. And you can't restart a run() in a thread. You can run it only once, so try to keep in your run() with an appropriate loop.
Hope it helps.
S�bastien

Stopping a Thread in Infinite Loop

I've read several articles on how to stop Threads, and all of them point to using Thread.interrupt(). The problem right now is what happens when the thread is in an infinite loop. For example:
class A implements Runnable
    public void run()
        while(!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted())
              while(true);
//in other class's main method:
Thread a = new Thread(new A());
a.start();
a.interrupt();The a.interrupt() call only sets the isInterrupted flag in Thread, but it does not terminate the thread as a.stop() would. However, stop() throws a ThreadDeath exception that I would not want to have to deal with. Is there any way to stop this infinite loop thread safely?
Thanks in advance!

No need to get snitty. You certainly did not make clear that you are not a newbie at programming. Plenty of newbies who barely have a grasp of the language fundamentals post thread questions here. I thought I did address the question at hand. It seems I misunderstood what you were asking.
The only way to safely stop that inner loop is like so: while (...) {
   while (!done) {
}where done is volatile, or all access to it is sychronized on the same lock (meaning you'd sync the !done check above as well).
If you can't do that, and it's stuck at while (true) and you can't modify the body of the inner loop to check done, then you're SOL.
(I suppose it's conceivable that 1.6 or 6.0 or whatever it's called will introduce some new safe way to stop that thread, but I haven't heard anything about it.)

Could you please stop this abo?

Could you please stop this abonnement? my email is: [email protected] and I´m from germany. So if you read this, please stop this abo! thank you very much.

We can't do this via the forum. You need to contact Customer Support.
https://www.acrobat.com/misc/en/contact-support.html

Stopping a Thread Correctly

Instead of using myThread.stop()
I should do somthing like this ... correct?
//In my Thread Dispatcher Class
private boolean shouldStop = false;
private Thread myThread;
public static void setStopThread(boolean b){
shouldStop = b;
public boolean stopThread(){
return shouldStop;
public void nullifyThread(){
myThread = null;
//In my Thread Class
public void run(){
while(!myThreadDispatcherInstance.stopThread()){
//do some Thread Work
}//end while
}//end run method
myThreadDispatcherInstance.nullifyThread();Will the above code handle everything (aside for the setup and initialization part) to override the depreciation of the Thread.stop() method? Or am I missing somthing?
oh yea also anywhere I'd need to stop the thread i'd put
ThreadDispatcherClass.setStopThread(true);

Looks about right, except that you need to declare setStopThead and stopThread synchronized, in order to force writing to and reading from main memory.
NullifyThread is almost certainly pointless and unneeded.
stopThread is a rather poor name. It sounds like it's taking an action, rather than returning a value. shouldStop() or idDone() or something would be better.
Finally regarding "In my Thread class": Rather than extending Thread, you should implement Runnable. You're not really specializing a Thread's behavior, you're just implementing a unit of work for a thread to run.

Stopping a Thread (where I don't have control of run)

Is there any way to stop a thread whose run method simply calls a method of another class?
For example:
public class myThread extends Thread
private String className = ...;
public void run()
// get className's "main" method and run it

Actually...Smarsh is right. This is the correct way
to stop a thead....stop() is deprecated because it can
cause a deadlock condition. So, in run(), if you
defined a boolean like "bStopThread" run would look
like this:
public void run() {
if(bStopThread)
return;
// if we drop here...this is the rest of our run
un code
Yeah, I get that's how you should stop a thread...
Let me rephrase the question a little. Say the thread's run method looks similar to this:
public void run()
if (stopped)
return;
someOtherClass.aMethod();
}Once it's in aMethod, I have to let it run until it's done, right? There's no other way to stop a thread other than checking a stop condition?

Sunil Nair - Please stop hijacking threads

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for