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

[Chris Hegarty]

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
>>> 
>