RFR: 8315097: Rename createJavaProcessBuilder [v3]

Roger Riggs rriggs at openjdk.org
Tue Sep 5 18:08:39 UTC 2023

On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 11:01:23 GMT, Leo Korinth <lkorinth at openjdk.org> wrote:

> What do you prefer? Do you have a better alternative? Do someone still think the current code is good? I think what we have today is inferior to all these improvements, and I would like to make it harder to develop bad test ca

The current API (name) is fine and fit for purpose; it does not promise or hide extra functionality under a simple name.

There needs to be an explicit intention in the test(s) to support after the fact that arbitrary flags can be added.
@AlanBateman's proposal for naming [above](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/15452#issuecomment-1700459277) (or similar) would capture more clearly that test options are propagated to the child process.
Every test writer should be aware that additional command line options may be mixed in.

There are many cases in which the ProcessTools APIs are not used to create child processes and do not need to be used in writing tests. They provide some convenience but also add a dependency and another API layer to work through in the case of failures.

As far as I'm aware, there is no general guidance or design pattern outside of hotspot tests to propagate flags or use ProcessTools. Adding that as a requirement will need a different level of communication and change.


PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15452#issuecomment-1707072375

More information about the security-dev mailing list