是否有意义赶上ThreadAbortException和执行不采取行动？ [英] Does it make sense to catch ThreadAbortException and perform no action?

问题描述

catch (ThreadAbortException)
{ }
catch (Exception ex)
{
    TraceManager.TraceException(ex,
                                (int)ErrorCode.GENERIC_EXCEPTION,
                                ex.StackTrace + "\n" + ex.Message + "\n" + VendorUrl);
}

是否有意义，甚至有

does it make sense to even have the

catch (ThreadAbortException)
{ }

或将导致该 ThreadAbortException 被吞噬，并永远失去了？

or will that cause the ThreadAbortException to be swallowed and lost forever?

推荐答案

<一个href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.threadabortexception.aspx"><$c$c>ThreadAbortException不能陷入完全;它会自动在抓块结束（见链接的MSDN文档页）的除非的<一个重新抛出href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.thread.resetabort.aspx"><$c$c>Thread.ResetAbort被称为第一。

ThreadAbortException cannot be caught "completely"; it will automatically be rethrown at the end of the catch block (see the linked MSDN docs page) unless Thread.ResetAbort is called first.

因此​​，唯一明智的抓块将是：

So, the only sensible catch block would be:

catch (ThreadAbortException)
{
    // possibly do something here
    Thread.ResetAbort();
}

但是，这有一个很恶臭味。有可能是没有理由这样做，所以你可能要重新考虑你的方法。

But this has a really evil smell. There's probably no reason to do it, so you may want to rethink your approach.

更新： 有许多问题上，这样处理 Thread.Abort的：

Update: There are many questions on SO that deal with Thread.Abort:

这其中有相同的答案，因为我在这里给出。 这其中具有扩展了永远不要叫一个答案 Thread.Abort的除非邪神上升（这是我淡化相当一个邪恶的气味）。

This one has the same answer as I have given here. This one has an answer that expands on "don't ever call Thread.Abort unless Cthulhu is rising" (which I toned down considerably to an "evil smell").

也有许多其他问题。

这篇关于是否有意义赶上ThreadAbortException和执行不采取行动？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！