"david.lloyd(a)jboss.com" wrote : The reason for this is that the proper behavior for an thread that catches InterruptedException is to either handle the interruption (if you are the owner of the thread), or propagate it. And I wouldn't want to falsely propagate thread interruption if I'm not in control of the thread's interruption policy. Does that make sense? Let me clarify further - it can never be proper behavior to interrupt a thread based on the interruption of a remote thread. A thread should only be interrupted if the interrupting method is in control of that thread's interruption policy. The interrupter of the remote thread is very unlikely to have control over the local thread's interruption policy. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4085589#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...