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.

但是，这只是“体面的”，而不是绝对的，因为代码可以捕获ThreadDeath错误(或您显式抛出的任何异常)，而不是像一个绅士线程应该做的那样重新抛出它。所以，AFAIA的底线是没有绝对的故障保险。

在用Java开发了15年之后，有一件事我想对世界说。

弃用Thread.stop()和所有反对其使用的神圣之战只是另一个坏习惯或设计缺陷不幸成为现实…(如。想谈谈Serializable接口吗?)

争论的焦点在于，杀死线程会使对象处于不一致的状态。所以呢?欢迎来到多线程编程。你是一个程序员，你需要知道你在做什么，是的。杀死线程会使对象处于不一致状态。如果你担心它使用一个标志，让线程优雅地退出;但有很多时候，我们没有理由担心。

但没有. .如果你输入thread.stop()，你很可能会被所有查看/注释/使用你代码的人杀死。所以你必须使用一个标志，调用interrupt()，在你的代码周围放置if(!标志)，因为你根本没有循环，最后祈祷你用来进行外部调用的第三方库是正确编写的，并且没有不正确地处理InterruptException。

我没有得到中断工作在Android，所以我用这个方法，工作完美:

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;
 }

没有办法优雅地终止线程。

您可以尝试中断线程，一个常用的策略是使用毒丸来通知线程停止自己

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/

请参阅Sun的这篇文章，了解他们为什么弃用thread .stop()。它将详细说明为什么这是一个糟糕的方法，以及应该做些什么来安全地停止线程。

他们推荐的方法是使用一个共享变量作为标志，要求后台线程停止。这个变量可以由请求线程终止的另一个对象设置。

我想根据所积累的意见补充几点看法。

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)