RFR [8039152] Need a way to suppress message when picking up JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS

[Daniel D. Daugherty]

On 4/3/14 9:30 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
> Thanks Staffan for your opinion!
>
> On 03.04.2014 18:40, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>> On 3 apr 2014, at 16:28, Ivan Gerasimov <ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Staffan!
>>>
>>>>> We've got a customer who is annoyed by this message.
>>>>> They use the env variable to pass additional options to the jvm.
>>>>> Currently they have to add some additional processing of the 
>>>>> output to scrape the stderr and get rid of this message.
>>>> It sounds like they have a good solution in place and no change is 
>>>> required on our part.
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, we have way too many options already and we cannot 
>>>> please everyone by adding options for every single use case.
>>> The solution they use now isn't good, that's why they complained.
>>>
>>> The proposed option might be useful by its own, in the case anyone 
>>> else will be annoyed by the message about picking up the env 
>>> variable content.
>>> Please also note, that it's not meant to be a command line option.
>>> It will only be used as a part of the env variable content.
>>>
>>> Your point that there are already plenty of other options is true, 
>>> but doesn't really suggests anything for this particular situation.
>> I suggest not solving this situation. As I said: "we cannot please 
>> everyone by adding options for every single use case.”
>>
>
> Let's see if we can find an alternative approach to not solving it :)
>
> There are two env variables which can be used to pass the options: 
> standard JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS and non-standard _JAVA_OPTIONS.
> What if we introduce another variable, say _QUIET_JAVA_OPTIONS, which 
> will act in the same way, but with no additional noise?
> This would be even easier to implement and use.
>
> What would you say about another env var instead of another option?

Ivan,

The VM squawks about JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS and _JAVA_OPTIONS being used
because they are dangerous. Adding an option that would allow the
same mechanism to be used without warning would be... well...
even more dangerous.

Please read the note that I added to your bug.

Dan


>
> Sincerely yours,
> Ivan