• John C <johnch_atms hotmail.com> Nov 01 2008
• Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> Nov 01 2008

John C <johnch_atms hotmail.com> writes:

Sean Kelly Wrote:

 John C wrote:
 Sean Kelly Wrote:
 
 Should I file a bug report?


 




 Do you mean as opposed to in its ctor?
 
 
 Sean


Not really - I mean that you should be able to set a Thread object's priority
after creation but before start() is called. Currently this doesn't work - an
exception is thrown. Perhaps store the requested priority in a field in the
class, and SetPriority with that value on the handle after _beginthreadex?

Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:

John C wrote:
 Sean Kelly Wrote:
 
 John C wrote:
 Sean Kelly Wrote:

 Should I file a bug report?








 Not really - I mean that you should be able to set a Thread object's priority
after creation but before start() is called. Currently this doesn't work - an
exception is thrown. Perhaps store the requested priority in a field in the
class, and SetPriority with that value on the handle after _beginthreadex?


Thread.start() mostly exists to ensure that classes derived from Thread 
  are properly constructed before the thread is started, so I don't 
encourage constructing threads and then letting them sit before starting 
them.  For this reason, there is basically no support built into Thread 
for this "initialized but not started" state.  There's an isRunning 
method but no state method that has an INIT state, for example.  So 
while it would be possible to store thread priority info until the 
thread is started, this would really only support an approach that I 
don't really encourage anyway.  I could probably be convinced to change 
it, but I'm not inclined to right now :)


Sean