Hi Roger,
On 04/14/2015 11:33 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the review.
On 4/14/2015 11:47 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
On 04/09/2015 10:00 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Please review the API and implementation of the Process API Updates
described inJEP 102
<https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8046092>. Please review
and comment by April 23rd.
The recommendation to make ProcessHandle an interface is included
allowing the new functions to be extended by Process subclasses.
The implementation covers all functions on Unix, Windows, Solaris,
and Mac OS X.
The API doc: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/ph-apidraft/
The webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-ph
Issue: JDK-8077350
<https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8077350> Process API
Updates Implementation
The code is in the jdk9 sandbox on branch JDK-8046092-branch.
Please review and comment, Roger
Hi Roger,
I have a few comments...
ProcessHandle JNI interface is same for all platforms and it is
reused in UNIX ProcessImpl for destroying and waiting. Is there some
particular reason why it is not reused in Windows ProcessImpl too?
The Windows impl still uses it's own native methods for destroying
and waiting, but they take "process handles" instead of PIDs. Are
handles less susceptible to recycling?
I am confused by the method name "supportsDestroyForcibly" too. The
following would be more intuitive in my opinion:
- destroyIsForcible()
- isDestroyForcible()
We're tried several variations including the word 'destroy' and it
still seems confusing.
I suggested the supportsNormalTermination name in another thread.
Or:
- supportsGracefulTermination
- supportsGracefulDestroy
- supportsDestroyGracefully
Regards, Peter
