RFR: 8315097: Rename createJavaProcessBuilder [v3]

[Stefan Karlsson]

On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 18:05:34 GMT, Roger Riggs <rriggs at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> I have created an alternative that uses enums to force the user to make a decision: https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/compare/master...lkorinth:jdk:+process_tools . Another alternative is to do the same but instead using an enum (I think it is not as good). A third alternative is to use the current pull request with a better name.
>> 
>> 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 cases.
>
>> 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.

@RogerRiggs You seem to know what you want w.r.t. the extra java doc comments. Could you help write those? Could we also do that as a separate RFE? I think that would make it easier to get this PR and the javadoc update through the door.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15452#issuecomment-1778669353