RFR 8039080: "jinfo server_id at host" fails with "Invalid process identifier"
Jaroslav Bachorik
jaroslav.bachorik at oracle.com
Tue Apr 15 10:57:40 UTC 2014
Hi,
On 8.4.2014 13:31, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
> On 7.4.2014 14:25, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>> On 7.4.2014 14:23, shanliang wrote:
>>> shanliang wrote:
>>>> Jaroslav,
>>>>
>>>> Is it necessary to add "ValidationException"?
>
> Replaced the custom ValidationException with IllegalArgumentException()
> to remove an unnecessary inner class.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8039080/webrev.02
Could I get the latest changes reviewed, please?
Thanks,
-JB-
>
> -JB-
>
>>>>
>>>> Could we change the constructor JInfo to:
>>>> private static boolean validateArgs(String[] args);
>>>> the method returns false if the args are illegal, or throw an
>>>> IllegalArgumentException
>>>>
>>>> and declare the variables "args" and "useSA" as static too,
>>> Static variables may have problem if called with multi-thread, but we
>>> still could do:
>>>
>>> private static Map<String[], boolean> validate(String[] args) throws
>>> IllegalArgumentException;
>>>
>>> the return map contains args(String[]) and useSA(boolean).
>>
>> ... or just keep them as instance variables.
>>
>> -JB-
>>
>>>
>>> Or put "USE_SA" as a new arg into the args list, then the method
>>> becomes:
>>> private static String[] validate(String[] args) throws
>>> IllegalArgumentException;
>>>
>>> Shanliang
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Shanliang
>>>>
>>>> Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for the noise but I need to get the fix re-reviewed.
>>>>> Due to the way jtreg cooperates with TestNG when runnning in agentvm
>>>>> I can not use package private methods or constructor or fields.
>>>>>
>>>>> The updated patch -
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8039080/webrev.01 - makes the
>>>>> JInfo constructor a private one and removes the package private
>>>>> getters. The test is using reflection to create new instances of
>>>>> JInfo and to assert its state.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> -JB-
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
More information about the serviceability-dev
mailing list