RFR: JDK-8190187: Follow-up.

[Adam Farley8]

Hi David, Alan,

Lacking community support, both in terms of effort to resolve further 
issues with the fix, and also the effort required to commit the fix, 
it would be silly for me to continue to invest time into this.

I am still convinced that exit(0) is a bad idea in this scenario, but 
until a committer becomes convinced of this (to the point where it 
outweighs existing priorities), I will not be pursuing the matter 
further.

My appreciation to the people who have invested time on this, 
regardless of the end result. Since I now know much more about the 
Hostpot and launcher code, we can call this a win from a 
skills-transfer perspective. :)

On with the next bug!

Best Regards

Adam Farley 


David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote on 18/05/2018 07:27:58:

> From: David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>
> To: Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com>, Adam Farley8 
> <adam.farley at uk.ibm.com>, "hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net developers" 
> <hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Date: 18/05/2018 07:28
> Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8190187: Follow-up.
> 
> On 18/05/2018 2:27 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> > On 17/05/2018 13:57, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> >> Hi Alan,
> >>
> >> As requested.
> >>
> >> Any ideas?
> > The issue here is that the patch is just one part of changing long 
> > standing behavior. There is still work needed to flush out other 
> > interactions in the JVM TI spec, e.g. the multiple agent case and 
> > whether the Agent_OnUnLoad should be invoked for agents loaded before 
> > some other agent returns JNI_SILENT_EXIT. Also the late-binding agent 
> > case needs examination to see if wording is needed for the case that 
> > Agent_OnAttach returns this status. There is also an update needed to 
> > the JNI spec as we discussed. As per the mails on core-libs-dev, it's 
> > not clear that it's worth it. In any case, I don't know if anyone 
cycles 
> > to work with you on this. I think the help you are looking for is to 
> > ensure that all the spec issues are covered, maybe help with the tests 

> > and testing, and then the process work that is the CSR and release 
note.
> 
> +1
> 
> I'm not convinced this really needs fixing (as per previous 
> discussions). A proper fix is more involved than what has been proposed 
> and needs to be given due indepth consideration - none of which I have 
> time for. Even reviewing this would be a considerable time investment to 

> be sure that all the issues had indeed been properly examined and 
covered.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> > -Alan
> 

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU