"Vivek" <Vivek@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FE7A49D5-6513-4974-AB88-840AE97E6BDD@microsoft.com...
> Thanks for your views.
> Now that i think more about it I wonder if it has anything to do with
> giving
> functions upper in the call stack a chance to free unmanaged resourecs on
> their call stack if any!
> Example
> foo1 is a method that the thread is executing (basically foo1 is the
> ThreadStart parameter)
> foo1 calls foo2 . foo2 opens some files (unmanaged calls) and then calls
> foo3
> Assume we call the Abort method while foo3 is executing
> If execution concluded in the ThreadAbortException of foo3 the files would
> still be open!
>
> Maybe that's the reason by ThreadAbortException is always rethrown unless
> ResetAbort is explicitly called?
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> "Alvin Bruney [MVP - ASP.NET]" wrote:
>
>> Not sure but I believe it has to do with caller notification. If the
>> thread
>> aborted, the caller couldn't possibly know what killed the thread. An
>> automatic rethrow allows the caller to know, since the caller isn't
>> necessarily the one inducing the thread abort.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Alvin Bruney - ASP.NET MVP
>>
>> [Shameless Author Plug]
>> The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
>> Now available @ www.lulu.com/owc, Amazon.com etc
>> "Vivek" <Vivek@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:2BF3FCFD-B55C-48C2-BF0F-F1AA5531B410@microsoft.com...
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I have a question regarding ThreadAbortException. Why is the thread
>> > abort
>> > exception rethrown at the end of a catch clause?
>> > Why is ThreadAbortException's behavior designed to be this way?
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance
>> > -Vivek
>>
>>
>>