Timeline for Java - If I return in a catch block, will the finally block be executed?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 31, 2013 at 21:49 | comment | added | Dhrubajyoti Gogoi | Just to add, if the main thread exits, finally block of daemon threads are also not executed. | |
| Jul 31, 2013 at 20:48 | comment | added | Saj | @Thecoolguyacrossthestreet You got it! | |
| Jul 31, 2013 at 20:47 | comment | added | Comic Sans MS Lover | @SajalDutta I see... thanks. In this case I'll the first example. I'll be sure to remember not to return anything at the finally block. | |
| Jul 31, 2013 at 20:46 | vote | accept | Comic Sans MS Lover | ||
| Jul 31, 2013 at 20:43 | comment | added | Saj | @Thecoolguyacrossthestreet It would be a bad practice, if you had a return statement also in finally block because your catch block's return statement would be useless in that case. | |
| Jul 31, 2013 at 20:34 | comment | added | Peter Lawrey | @Thecoolguyacrossthestreet I would say the first is the simplest and what I would do. | |
| Jul 31, 2013 at 20:25 | comment | added | JB Nizet | @Thecoolguyacrossthestreet: No, it's not. It's completely fine. | |
| Jul 31, 2013 at 20:24 | comment | added | Marko Topolnik |
The interesting bit, overlooked by many, is that Thread#stop will not prevent the finally from executing.
|
|
| Jul 31, 2013 at 20:24 | comment | added | Comic Sans MS Lover | But is my first example a bad practice? | |
| Jul 31, 2013 at 20:23 | comment | added | ppeterka | ... and a power outage :) (blast, you ruined it with adding the JVM crash) | |
| Jul 31, 2013 at 20:22 | history | answered | JB Nizet | CC BY-SA 3.0 |