code review for 7067811: Update demo/sample code to state it should not be used for production

[Steve Poole]

On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 09:21 +0200, Nils Loodin wrote:
> Ah, you're right, i forgot the samples directory. And as for the text 
> being in each source file, that's how I undestood the requirement from 
> Aurelio after some email conversation.  Looping him in and he might shed 
> some light on it.

I'm sorry to moan about this - but please post the details behind the
requirement.  Unilateral and undocumented changes are not useful to
people outside Oracle.   

Discussions should happen on the mailing list not off it. 

> 
> As I understood
> 
> On 08/11/2011 05:58 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> > Nils Loodin wrote:
> >> Added a comment in each demo source file stating that the code below 
> >> is unfit for production.
> >> Made a separate comment blog from the copyright one to make it stand 
> >> out more and be more warning-like :)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> /Nisse
> >>
> > Nils - is it just demo code or do you plan to do this to sample code 
> > too (sample code is in src/share/sample/**)? One thing that isn't 
> > clear to me is why this needs to be added to every file. Seems like a 
> > warning in each demo's README should be sufficient.
> >
> > One specific file in the webrev that might need special treatment is 
> > hprof_b_spec.h. That header file is essentially the "spec" to the 
> > HPROF binary format (sad I know). It just seems a bit strange to add a 
> > comment saying that it "has been deliberately simplified" to this file 
> > specifically.
> >
> > -Alan.
>