We Keep Coding

HealthChecker for Java Process

I want to create a health checker, which will check the health of a java process. My process does a lot of things and is multi threaded. Various exceptions could be thrown, like Service / SQL / IO, etc. My plan is to call the HealthChecker to check for the process, from the catch block, in the individual threads. This will check for all the different healths, and in the case where there is any issue it will pause the threads, and log appropriately. There will be other processes which will read the logs by the process, and alert support to take appropriate actions.
Below is the general structure of the java process.
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
public class Schedular {
private static int numOfTasks = 10 ;
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(5);
while(true){
for(int i=0;i<numOfTasks;i++){
service.execute(new Workers());
}
}
}
}
class Workers implements Runnable{
#Override
public void run() {
/*
* This can throw different exceptions , eg:
*/
try{
}catch(Exception e){
e.printStackTrace();
HealthChecker.checkHealth();
}
}
}
class HealthChecker{
public static void checkHealth() {
//Check health and then , log and pause all the threads
}
}
I am not able to figure out a way to pause all the threads. If there is a db exception I want all the threads to pause. I am requesting some suggestions.

You need a way to block the threads until some event occurs that allows the threads to continue. I see some major issues with the code:
1) The while(true) in your main thread might lead to a StackOverflowError. With each iteration of the while loop, you will add 10 more threads to the executor, and this will just continue unbounded.
2) There is no loop in your run() so that even if an exception is caught and we wait for the HealthCheck, the run() method would still exit. While a loop is not needed in your run() if you can constantly execute new Threads from your main thread to take the place of the terminated one, but that logic is not presently there in the main loop.
But setting those concerns aside here is one way to block worker threads until some event (presumably a HealthCheck all clear) occurs.
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
public class Schedular {
private static int numOfTasks = 10 ;
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(5);
HealtchChecker hChecker = new HealthChecker();
for(int i=0;i<numOfTasks;i++){
service.execute(new Workers(hChecker));
}
}
}
class Workers implements Runnable{
private HealtchChecker hChecker;
public Workers(HealtchChecker hChecker){
this.hChecker = hChecker;
}
#Override
public void run() {
/*
* This can throw different exceptions , eg:
*/
while(true) {
try{
}catch (InterruptedException ie) {
throw ie;
}catch(Exception e){
e.printStackTrace();
HealthChecker.checkHealth();
}
}
}
}
class HealthChecker implements Runnable {
private final Semaphore semaphore = new Semaphore(1, true);
public void checkHealth() {
try {
semaphore.acquire();
} finally {
semaphore.release();
}
}
#Override
public void run(){
//code to check for errors that cause threads to pause.
if (inErrorState) {
semaphore.acquire();
} else {
semaphore.release();
}
}
}
A few things worth mentioning.
1) The main thread only creates 10 threads, versus an unbounded amount. You can adjust this as needed.
2) The Worker thread is long lived, meaning it will continue running even if it encounters Exceptions, except for an InterruptException.
3) HealthCheck is no longer a static object. it is instead a shared object.
4) HealthCheck is a runnable that can be executed in its own thread for monitoring for errors. I did not add the code to execute this thread.
5) HealCheck uses a Semaphore to cause the threads to block until the error state is cleared. I looked for other objects that can do this, like CountDownLatch or CyclicBarrier or Phaser, but this one came closest to giving us what we need to block all the threads from one point (the run() method).
Its not perfect but I think it gets you a little bit closer to what you want.

You're venturing pretty far afield from best practices, but you didn't ask about best practices for monitoring the health of threads - so I won't answer that question. Instead, I'll just answer the question you asked: how can I pause a set of threads managed by an ExecutorService?
Assuming that your Workers.run() will eventually end without intervention (in other words, it's not in an infinite loop - intentional or otherwise), the right thing to do is to call service.shutdown() (where service is your instance of ExecutorService). To do this, you can pass service in to HealthCheck.healthCheck() as a new parameter. Calling shutdown() will allow the currently-running threads to complete, then stop the executor.
If Workers.run() will not naturally complete, best practice says that you need to change your code such that it will. There is a Thread.stop() method you can call to halt the thread and a Thread.suspend() method you can call to suspend the thread. Both of these are double-bad ideas for you to use for two reasons:
They are Deprecated and will leave the Threads in a super-unhealthy state. You will have very difficult problems in the future if you use them.
You are using ExecutorService. That means you are delegating thread management to that class. If you go messing with the state of the Threads underneath ExecutorService, it can't manage the thread pool for you and, again, you will have very difficult problems in the future.

Safely pausing and resuming a thread

I want to create a thread to make some HTTP requests every few seconds and is easy to pause and resume at a moments notice.
Is the way below preferred, safe and efficient?
public class Facebook extends Thread {
public boolean running = false;
public void startThread() {
running = true;
}
public void stopThread() {
running = false;
}
public void run() {
while(true) {
while(running) {
//HTTP Calls
Facebook.sleep(2000);
}
}
}
}

Your Code:
In your example, the boolean should be volatile boolean to operate properly. The other issue is if running == false your thread just burns CPU in a tight loop, and you probably would want to use object monitors or a Condition to actually wait idly for the flag to become true again.
Timer Option:
I would suggest simply creating a Timer for this. Each Timer implicitly gets its own thread, which is what you are trying to accomplish.
Then create a TimerTask (FacebookTask below is this) that performs your task and from your main control class, no explicit threads necessary, something like:
Timer t;
void resumeRequests () {
if (t == null) { // otherwise its already running
t = new Timer();
t.scheduleAtFixedRate(new FacebookTask(), 0, 2000);
}
}
void pauseRequests () {
if (t != null) { // otherwise its not running
t.cancel();
t = null;
}
}
Note that above, resumeRequests() will cause a request to happen immediately upon resume (as specified by the 0 delay parameter); you could theoretically increase the request rate if you paused and resumed repeatedly in less than 2000ms. This doesn't seem like it will be an issue to you; but an alternative implementation is to keep the timer running constantly, and have a volatile bool flag in the FacebookTask that you can set to enable/disable it (so if it's e.g. false it doesn't make the request, but continues checking every 2000ms). Pick whichever makes the most sense for you.
Other Options:
You could also use a scheduled executor service as fge mentions in comments. It has more features than a timer and is equally easy to use; they'll also scale well if you need to add more tasks in the future.
In any case there's no real reason to bother with Threads directly here; there are plenty of great tools in the JDK for this job.

The suggestion to using a Timer would work better. If you want to do the threading manually, though, then something more like this would be safer and better:
class Facebook implements Runnable {
private final Object monitor = new Object();
public boolean running = false;
public void startThread() {
synchronized (monitor) {
running = true;
monitor.notifyAll();
}
}
public void stopThread() {
synchronized (monitor) {
running = false;
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(true) {
try {
synchronized (monitor) {
// Wait until somebody calls startThread()
while (!running) {
monitor.wait();
}
}
//HTTP Calls
Thread.sleep(2000);
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
break;
}
}
}
}
Note in particular:
You should generally implement Runnable instead of subclassing Thread, then use that Runnable to specify the work for a generic Thread. The work a thread performs is not the same thing as the thread itself, so this yields a better model. It's also more flexible if you want to be able to perform the same work by other means (e.g. a Timer).
You need to use some form of synchronization whenever you want two threads to exchange data (such as the state of the running instance variable). There are classes, AtomicBoolean for example, that have such synchronization built in, but sometimes there are advantages to synchronizing manually.
In the particular case that you want one thread to stop work until another thread instructs it to continue, you generally want to use Object.wait() and a corresponding Object.notify() or Object.notifyAll(), as demonstrated above. The waiting thread consumes zero CPU until it is signaled. Since you need to use manual synchronization with wait/notify anyway, there would be no additional advantage to be gained by using an AtomicBoolean.
Edited to add:
Since apparently there is some confusion about how to use this (or the original version, I guess), here's an example:
class MyClass {
static void main(String[] args) {
FaceBook fb = new FaceBook();
Thread fbThread = new Thread(fb);
fbThread.start();
/* ... do stuff ... */
// Pause the FaceBook thread:
fb.stopThread();
/* ... do more stuff ... */
// Resume the FaceBook thread:
fb.startThread();
// etc.
// When done:
fbThread.interrupt(); // else the program never exits
}
}

I Would recommend you to use a guarded blocks and attach the thread to a timer

Java: Calling method from threads one after another

I have class Server and subclass ClientThread. ClientThread has methods receive() and broadcast(String[] msg) used to receive and send messages from/to clients connected to server.
Scheme:
public class Server extends Thread {
private ArrayList<ClientThread> clientThreads;
class ClientThread extends Thread {
public void broadcast(String[] msg) {...}
public void receive() {
...
if (msg.equals("CHANGED")) {
resumeOthers();
}
public void suspendOthers() {
for (ClientThread c: clientThreads)
if (c!=this)
try {
c.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
public void resumeOthers() {
for (ClientThread c: clientThreads)
if (c!=this)
c.notify();
}
}
public void run() {
...
cmd = new String[1];
cmd[0] = "PROMPTCHANGE";
for (ClientThread currPlayer: clientThreads) {
currPlayer.broadcast(cmd);
currPlayer.suspendOthers();
}
}
}
Now, I would like to make this ClientThreads work one after another, like this:
1. ClientThread number 1 is calling method broadcast.
Now any other ClientThread existing is freezed
(they are stored in ArrayList on Server)
2. Client (another class) replies with a message that is being caught by receive()
Now this thread is freezed, and the next one starts running
Unfortunately, my approach doesn't work.
Could somebody explain me in details how to achieve that?

by calling Object.wait(), you are are suspending the CALLING thread, not the thread that this object happens to be.
so in effect, you are doing a loop that blocks the calling thread N times, definitely not what you intended.
in order to pause a thread, you need to have IT wait on an objet, or have it block entering a synchronized block (or use Thread.sleep(), but usually its not a good solution).
in other words, the client threads need to call wait, not the calling thread.
One addition:
it seems you are new to Java threading and synchronization, I strongly suggest that you read about it before attempting this.
Google around for some docs on the subject.
here is something to get you started:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/guardmeth.html

It's not clear how the sequence of execution works.
Anyway, as already said by previous answers, calling x.wait() on a Object makes the current thread block on object x. Moreover, in order to call wait() and notify(), you first have to synchronize on that object, AND, when you call wait(), you should do it in a loop, checking for an external condition, because spurious wakeups can happen.
So, the correct pattern should be something like:
void waitForCondition() {
synchronized (lockObject) {
while (!condition) {
lockObject.wait();
}
}
}
void setCondition() {
synchronized (lockObject) {
condition = true;
lockObject.notify(); //or .notifyAll()
}
}
If you want to make the threads run one after another, try http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Exchanger.html

Threads; Creating a separate thread to periodically do something

As an addition to my current application, I need to create a separate thread which will periodically do some processing
I've create a new class to do all this, and this class will be loaded on startup of my application.
This is what I have so far :
public class PeriodicChecker extends Thread
{
static
{
Thread t = new Thread(new PeriodicChecker());
while(true)
{
t.run();
try
{
Thread.sleep(5000l);
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
/**
* Private constructor to prevent instantiation
*/
private PeriodicChecker()
{
}
#Override
public void run()
{
System.out.println("Thread is doing something");
// Actual business logic here, that is repeated
}
}
I want to make constructor private to prevent other people from attempting to instantiate this class accidentally. How can I achieve this?
Also, is there anything bad about my implementation of such requirements? I'm only creating one thread which will run then sleep, have I missed anything obvious? I haven't worked with threads before

Java offers ScheduledExecutorService to schedule and run periodic tasks or tasks with delay. It should provide all the features you need. Timer is another class that offers similar functionalities, but I would recommend the ScheduledExecutorService over Timer for its flexibility of configuration and better error management.

You have some conceptual erros in your code... for example:
You should call start() and not run(), because you are running the method sequentially and not simultaneously.
You can call start() only once, not once in each loop iteration. After that, the thread is in state TERMINATED, you should create a new thread to run it again
You should not create the thread in the static block, it is a bad practice, and maybe the Thread is running before you want it to run.
You should read some examples about thread, it is a little difficult to unserstand at the beginning, and you can have undesired effects very easily.
Here is a little example, that may do something similar to that you want:
public class PeriodicChecker extends Thread
{
#Override
public void run()
{
while(true) {
System.out.println("Thread is doing something");
Thread.sleep(5000);
}
}
}
public OtherClass {
public static void main(String args[]) {
Thread t = new PeriodicChecker();
t.start();
}
}
If you want that none can create a new Thread, you could create a singleton, so you will be sure that none is creating more threads.

I'd recommend you to consider Timer class - it provides functionality for periodic tasks execution.
Also you may take a look at "Timer & TimerTask versus Thread + sleep in Java" question discussion - there you can find some arguments and examples.

First of all to answer your specific question, you have already achieved your objective. You have declared your constructor to be private meaning no external class can call it like new PeriodicChecker().
Looking at your code however, there are a number of other problems:
Firstly, you are creating an instance of your class within its own static constructor. The purpose of a static constructor is to initialise any static state that your class may have, which instances of your class may then depend on. By creating an instance of the class within the static constructor, all of these guarantees go out the window.
Secondly, I don't think your thread is going to behave in the way you expect it to behave, primarily because you don't actually start another thread :). If you intend to start a new thread, you need to call the start() method on that thread object. Calling run() as you do does not actually create a new thread, but simply runs the run() method in the current thread.
Nowadays when you want to create a new thread to do something, the reccomended way of achieving this is to not extend Thread, but instead implement the Runnable interface. This allows you to decouple the mechanism of the thread, from the behaviour you intend to run.
Based on your requirements, I would suggest doing away with a top-level class like this, and instead create either a private inner class within your application start-up code, or even go for an anonymous inner class:
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while(true) {
System.out.println("Thread is doing something");
Thread.sleep(5000);
}
}
}).start();
}
}

It is almost never right to extend Thread. If you ever find yourself doing this, step back, take a look and ask yourself if you really need to change the way the Thread class works.
Almost all occurances where I see extends Thread the job would be better done implementing the Runnable interface or using some form of Timer.

How do you kill a Thread in Java?

How do you kill a java.lang.Thread in Java?

See this thread by Sun on why they deprecated Thread.stop(). It goes into detail about why this was a bad method and what should be done to safely stop threads in general.
The way they recommend is to use a shared variable as a flag which asks the background thread to stop. This variable can then be set by a different object requesting the thread terminate.

Generally you don't..
You ask it to interrupt whatever it is doing using Thread.interrupt() (javadoc link)
A good explanation of why is in the javadoc here (java technote link)

In Java threads are not killed, but the stopping of a thread is done in a cooperative way. The thread is asked to terminate and the thread can then shutdown gracefully.
Often a volatile boolean field is used which the thread periodically checks and terminates when it is set to the corresponding value.
I would not use a boolean to check whether the thread should terminate. If you use volatile as a field modifier, this will work reliable, but if your code becomes more complex, for instead uses other blocking methods inside the while loop, it might happen, that your code will not terminate at all or at least takes longer as you might want.
Certain blocking library methods support interruption.
Every thread has already a boolean flag interrupted status and you should make use of it. It can be implemented like this:
public void run() {
try {
while (!interrupted()) {
// ...
}
} catch (InterruptedException consumed)
/* Allow thread to exit */
}
}
public void cancel() { interrupt(); }
Source code adapted from Java Concurrency in Practice. Since the cancel() method is public you can let another thread invoke this method as you wanted.

One way is by setting a class variable and using it as a sentinel.
Class Outer {
public static volatile flag = true;
Outer() {
new Test().start();
}
class Test extends Thread {
public void run() {
while (Outer.flag) {
//do stuff here
}
}
}
}
Set an external class variable, i.e. flag = true in the above example. Set it to false to 'kill' the thread.

I want to add several observations, based on the comments that have accumulated.
Thread.stop() will stop a thread if the security manager allows it.
Thread.stop() is dangerous. Having said that, if you are working in a JEE environment and you have no control over the code being called, it may be necessary; see Why is Thread.stop deprecated?
You should never stop stop a container worker thread. If you want to run code that tends to hang, (carefully) start a new daemon thread and monitor it, killing if necessary.
stop() creates a new ThreadDeathError error on the calling thread and then throws that error on the target thread. Therefore, the stack trace is generally worthless.
In JRE 6, stop() checks with the security manager and then calls stop1() that calls stop0(). stop0() is native code.
As of Java 13 Thread.stop() has not been removed (yet), but Thread.stop(Throwable) was removed in Java 11. (mailing list, JDK-8204243)

There is a way how you can do it. But if you had to use it, either you are a bad programmer or you are using a code written by bad programmers. So, you should think about stopping being a bad programmer or stopping using this bad code.
This solution is only for situations when THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.
Thread f = <A thread to be stopped>
Method m = Thread.class.getDeclaredMethod( "stop0" , new Class[]{Object.class} );
m.setAccessible( true );
m.invoke( f , new ThreadDeath() );

I'd vote for Thread.stop().
As for instance you have a long lasting operation (like a network request).
Supposedly you are waiting for a response, but it can take time and the user navigated to other UI.
This waiting thread is now a) useless b) potential problem because when he will get result, it's completely useless and he will trigger callbacks that can lead to number of errors.
All of that and he can do response processing that could be CPU intense. And you, as a developer, cannot even stop it, because you can't throw if (Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) lines in all code.
So the inability to forcefully stop a thread it weird.

The question is rather vague. If you meant “how do I write a program so that a thread stops running when I want it to”, then various other responses should be helpful. But if you meant “I have an emergency with a server I cannot restart right now and I just need a particular thread to die, come what may”, then you need an intervention tool to match monitoring tools like jstack.
For this purpose I created jkillthread. See its instructions for usage.

There is of course the case where you are running some kind of not-completely-trusted code. (I personally have this by allowing uploaded scripts to execute in my Java environment. Yes, there are security alarm bell ringing everywhere, but it's part of the application.) In this unfortunate instance you first of all are merely being hopeful by asking script writers to respect some kind of boolean run/don't-run signal. Your only decent fail safe is to call the stop method on the thread if, say, it runs longer than some timeout.
But, this is just "decent", and not absolute, because the code could catch the ThreadDeath error (or whatever exception you explicitly throw), and not rethrow it like a gentlemanly thread is supposed to do. So, the bottom line is AFAIA there is no absolute fail safe.

'Killing a thread' is not the right phrase to use. Here is one way we can implement graceful completion/exit of the thread on will:
Runnable which I used:
class TaskThread implements Runnable {
boolean shouldStop;
public TaskThread(boolean shouldStop) {
this.shouldStop = shouldStop;
}
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("Thread has started");
while (!shouldStop) {
// do something
}
System.out.println("Thread has ended");
}
public void stop() {
shouldStop = true;
}
}
The triggering class:
public class ThreadStop {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Start");
// Start the thread
TaskThread task = new TaskThread(false);
Thread t = new Thread(task);
t.start();
// Stop the thread
task.stop();
System.out.println("End");
}
}

There is no way to gracefully kill a thread.
You can try to interrupt the thread, one commons strategy is to use a poison pill to message the thread to stop itself
public class CancelSupport {
public static class CommandExecutor implements Runnable {
private BlockingQueue<String> queue;
public static final String POISON_PILL = “stopnow”;
public CommandExecutor(BlockingQueue<String> queue) {
this.queue=queue;
}
#Override
public void run() {
boolean stop=false;
while(!stop) {
try {
String command=queue.take();
if(POISON_PILL.equals(command)) {
stop=true;
} else {
// do command
System.out.println(command);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
stop=true;
}
}
System.out.println(“Stopping execution”);
}
}
}
BlockingQueue<String> queue=new LinkedBlockingQueue<String>();
Thread t=new Thread(new CommandExecutor(queue));
queue.put(“hello”);
queue.put(“world”);
t.start();
Thread.sleep(1000);
queue.put(“stopnow”);
http://anandsekar.github.io/cancel-support-for-threads/

Generally you don't kill, stop, or interrupt a thread (or check wheter it is interrupted()), but let it terminate naturally.
It is simple. You can use any loop together with (volatile) boolean variable inside run() method to control thread's activity. You can also return from active thread to the main thread to stop it.
This way you gracefully kill a thread :) .

Attempts of abrupt thread termination are well-known bad programming practice and evidence of poor application design. All threads in the multithreaded application explicitly and implicitly share the same process state and forced to cooperate with each other to keep it consistent, otherwise your application will be prone to the bugs which will be really hard to diagnose. So, it is a responsibility of developer to provide an assurance of such consistency via careful and clear application design.
There are two main right solutions for the controlled threads terminations:
Use of the shared volatile flag
Use of the pair of Thread.interrupt() and Thread.interrupted() methods.
Good and detailed explanation of the issues related to the abrupt threads termination as well as examples of wrong and right solutions for the controlled threads termination can be found here:
https://www.securecoding.cert.org/confluence/display/java/THI05-J.+Do+not+use+Thread.stop%28%29+to+terminate+threads

Here are a couple of good reads on the subject:
What Do You Do With InterruptedException?
Shutting down threads cleanly

I didn't get the interrupt to work in Android, so I used this method, works perfectly:
boolean shouldCheckUpdates = true;
private void startupCheckForUpdatesEveryFewSeconds() {
Thread t = new Thread(new CheckUpdates());
t.start();
}
private class CheckUpdates implements Runnable{
public void run() {
while (shouldCheckUpdates){
//Thread sleep 3 seconds
System.out.println("Do your thing here");
}
}
}
public void stop(){
shouldCheckUpdates = false;
}

Thread.stop is deprecated so how do we stop a thread in java ?
Always use interrupt method and future to request cancellation
When the task responds to interrupt signal, for example, blocking queue take method.
Callable < String > callable = new Callable < String > () {
#Override
public String call() throws Exception {
String result = "";
try {
//assume below take method is blocked as no work is produced.
result = queue.take();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
return result;
}
};
Future future = executor.submit(callable);
try {
String result = future.get(5, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
} catch (TimeoutException e) {
logger.error("Thread timedout!");
return "";
} finally {
//this will call interrupt on queue which will abort the operation.
//if it completes before time out, it has no side effects
future.cancel(true);
}
When the task does not respond to interrupt signal.Suppose the task performs socket I/O which does not respond to interrupt signal and thus using above approach will not abort the task, future would time out but the cancel in finally block will have no effect, thread will keep on listening to socket. We can close the socket or call close method on connection if implemented by pool.
public interface CustomCallable < T > extends Callable < T > {
void cancel();
RunnableFuture < T > newTask();
}
public class CustomExecutorPool extends ThreadPoolExecutor {
protected < T > RunnableFuture < T > newTaskFor(Callable < T > callable) {
if (callable instanceof CancellableTask)
return ((CancellableTask < T > ) callable).newTask();
else
return super.newTaskFor(callable);
}
}
public abstract class UnblockingIOTask < T > implements CustomCallable < T > {
public synchronized void cancel() {
try {
obj.close();
} catch (IOException e) {
logger.error("io exception", e);
}
}
public RunnableFuture < T > newTask() {
return new FutureTask < T > (this) {
public boolean cancel(boolean mayInterruptIfRunning) {
try {
this.cancel();
} finally {
return super.cancel(mayInterruptIfRunning);
}
}
};
}
}

After 15+ years of developing in Java there is one thing I want to say to the world.
Deprecating Thread.stop() and all the holy battle against its use is just another bad habit or design flaw unfortunately became a reality... (eg. want to talk about the Serializable interface?)
The battle is focusing on the fact that killing a thread can leave an object into an inconsistent state. And so? Welcome to multithread programming. You are a programmer, and you need to know what you are doing, and yes.. killing a thread can leave an object in inconsistent state. If you are worried about it use a flag and let the thread quit gracefully; but there are TONS of times where there is no reason to be worried.
But no.. if you type thread.stop() you're likely to be killed by all the people who looks/comments/uses your code. So you have to use a flag, call interrupt(), place if(!flag) all around your code because you're not looping at all, and finally pray that the 3rd-party library you're using to do your external call is written correctly and doesn't handle the InterruptException improperly.