[rfc][icedtea-web] replace runtime().exec by processbuilder

[Jiri Vanek]

On 06/15/2015 06:37 PM, Andrew Azores wrote:
> On 15/06/15 12:26 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know about "keep going" and what that would actually mean in this case and what kind of
>>> behaviour would arise. "Die" sounds reasonable, though, but then we need to check if p is actually
>>> finished after we wake up and then decide to die if it isn't - so then why not instead of dying just
>>> waitFor p again?
>>
>>
>> May you provide code snippet please?
>
>              ProcessBuilder pb = new ProcessBuilder(command);
>              pb.inheritIO();
>              Process p = pb.start();
>              boolean pTerminated = false;
>              while (!pTerminated) {
>                  try {
>                      p.waitFor();
>                  } catch (InterruptedException e) {
> OutputController.getLogger().log(OutputController.Level.ERROR_ALL, e);
>                  }
>                  try {
>                      p.exitValue();
>                      pTerminated = true;
>                  } catch (IllegalThreadStateException e) {
> OutputController.getLogger().log(OutputController.Level.ERROR_ALL, e);
>                  }
>              }
>
> Hopefully the formatting survives.

Does :) Thanx!
>
>>
>> Is this kind of awaking really worthy of surviving?  I'm really inclined to just catch, log, and
>> continue ITW running...
>>
>> J.
>
> It's not that hard to correctly handle it, although the code does look pretty ugly. I think the
> better question to ask is if a spurious wakeup does occur here, will ITW continue to run properly?
> Because like I said, it's possible that the wakeup occurs and there is no exception to catch or log,
> and so you just end up with a silent failure later on.

I really don't know. I'm still a bit more inclined to my straight original version.
If you insists on this one you posted, please state it (jsut for record).

I'm probably unable to provide any more decision points:(

J.