RFR : JDK-8044122 MBean access to the PID

[Ujwal Vangapally]

Thanks for the review and suggestions Mandy, Roger.

kindly see my comments inline.


On 10/10/2017 11:25 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
> Hi Ujwal,
>
> In the implementation RuntimeMXBean.java: 72:  Include a message 
> "getProcessId" in the throw new Unsupported...
> In the text and @return change "PID" to "process ID" as Alan suggested.
> 66: the @implSpec should be on its own line so the text starts on a 
> new line to make the source more readable.
>
> Adding a test for getProcessId() should fit into one of the existing 
> tests that spawns and then checks
> the attributes of a vm.  Perhaps MXBeanInteropTest1.java
I will make changes as suggested.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
> On 10/10/2017 1:20 PM, mandy chung wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/10/17 4:47 AM, Ujwal Vangapally wrote:
>>> Kindly review the changes made.
>>>
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8044122
>>>
>>> webrev : 
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~uvangapally/webrev/2017/8044122/webrev.00/
>>>
>>
>> RuntimeMXBean.java
>>    @since is missing
>>
I will add it.
>>    Process::pid is long rather than int. The javadoc for this method 
>> should be consistent with Process::pid, as Alan points out.
will do it.
>>
>> VMManagementImpl.java
>>     I think getProcessId should probably be replaced to implement 
>> with ProcessHandle.current().pid();
>>
you mean it would be better to use ProcessHandle.current().pid(); in 
RuntimeImpl.java instead of jvm.getVmPid();

kindly clarify.
>> Please include an unit test for it.
>>
will it be sufficient to add it to existing test MXBeanInteropTest1.java

              System.out.println("getName\t\t"
                      + runtime.getName());
+            System.out.println("getPid\t\t"
+                    + runtime.getPid());
              System.out.println("getSpecName\t\t"
                      + runtime.getSpecName());

>> Mandy
>

Ujwal