RFR(S):8252629:jmap histo should accept "parallel" option without any specified value(Internet mail)

[serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com]

Hi Lin,

Thank you for double-checking it.

Thanks,
Serguei


On 9/1/20 20:26, linzang(臧琳) wrote:
> Hi Serguei,
>      Thanks for your reminder!
>      Yes, just checked we have discussed that before. I will close the bug.
>
> BRs,
> Lin
>
>> On Sep 2, 2020, at 11:22 AM, "serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com" <serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Lin,
>>
>> I agree with David.
>> If I remember correctly, we already discussed this in the CSR for parallel flag and decided it should not be accepted without a value.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Serguei
>>
>>
>>> On 9/1/20 16:51, David Holmes wrote:
>>> Hi Lin,
>>>
>>>> On 1/09/2020 7:06 pm, linzang(臧琳) wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>>        Please help review this small change about jmap -histo:parallel
>>>>
>>>>        Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8252629
>>>>
>>>>        webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lzang/8252629/webrev.00/
>>>>
>>>>        The problem is that "jmap -histo:parallel" command prompt error message "Fail: invalid option: 'parallel'.". Because "parallel=<N>" option is supported by specification, and "parallel=0" is defined as the default behavior. it is better to make "jmap -histo:parallel" behave same as the "jmap -histo:parallel=0". Please see description in the bug for more details.
>>> I don't agree that this is desirable. Is there any precedent for accepting a flag this way and have it mean "use the default"? To me this is a user error indicating that they don't understand what the parallel flag means.
>>>
>>> David
>>> -----
>>>
>>>>        Moreover, does a CSR required for this issue? IMHO, it may not be necessary as specification already mention "parallel=0" is the default behavior. But it doesn't describe the exact behavior of "parallel without any specified value", may I ask your opinion about the CSR?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BRs,
>>>>
>>>> Lin
>>>>
>>>>
>>