RFR 9: 8132883 : The spec of allChildren/children of j.l.Process/ProcessHandle need to be relaxed

[Roger Riggs]

Hi Chris,

Corrected,  'the' reads better than 'this' and avoids potential confusion.

Thanks, Roger


On 9/10/2015 10:34 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> These spec clarifications look ok to me.
>
> Being pedantic, should the ProcessHandle changes say 'the process’, rather than 'this process’?
>
> -Chris.
>
> On 10 Sep 2015, at 15:17, Roger Riggs <Roger.Riggs at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> Please review a couple of clarifications to the Process/ProcessHandle.allChildren methods.
>>
>> 8132883: Should not specify that non-alive processes have zero children.
>>        That is OS specific and cannot/should not be guaranteed by the spec
>> 8131763:
>>   1. Requests a definition of 'direct' and 'indirect' children - direct children have the process as the parent
>>   2. Requests that the streams be specified as either sequential or parallel - the streams are sequential
>>
>> Webrev:
>>    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-allchildren-8132883/
>>
>> Issues:
>>    https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8132883
>>    https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8131763
>>
>> Thanks, Roger