RFR 9: 8132883 : The spec of allChildren/children of j.l.Process/ProcessHandle need to be relaxed
Chris Hegarty
chris.hegarty at oracle.com
Thu Sep 10 14:47:45 UTC 2015
On 10 Sep 2015, at 15:43, Roger Riggs <Roger.Riggs at Oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Corrected, 'the' reads better than 'this' and avoids potential confusion.
Looks good.
-Chris.
> 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
>>>
>
More information about the core-libs-dev
mailing list