On Fri, 31 Oct 2025 14:32:24 GMT, Roger Riggs <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The teardown of a Process launched by `ProcessBuilder` includes the closing
>> of streams and ensuring the termination of the process is the responsibility
>> of the caller. The `Process.close()` method provides a clear and obvious way
>> to ensure all the streams are closed and the process terminated.
>>
>> The try-with-resources statement is frequently used to open streams and
>> ensure they are closed on exiting the block. By implementing
>> `AutoClosable.close()` the completeness of closing the streams and process
>> termination can be done by try-with-resources.
>>
>> The actions of the `close()` method are to close each stream and destroy the
>> process if it has not terminated.
>
> Roger Riggs has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional
> commits since the last revision:
>
> - Correct reference to ProcessExamples.java to use the `file` tag.
> - Miscellaneous javadoc improvements suggested by reviewers.
> Updated the example program to be a standalone program as might be run
> as a compact source file main program.
I think you've got this feature in a good place. It is definitely one of the
difficult APIs to retrofit.
src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Process.java line 121:
> 119: * or readers, or they have been closed. The Process {@linkplain
> Process#close close} method closes
> 120: * all the streams and terminates the process to release the resources.
> Using try-with-resources to
> 121: * {@linkplain ProcessBuilder#start() start} the process can ensure the
> process
I think it would be simpler if you drop the ProcessBuilder.start from this
sentence, it need only say that using the try-with-resources statement will
ensure the process is terminated.
src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Process.java line 199:
> 197: * <p>
> 198: * After the streams are closed this method {@linkplain #waitFor()
> waits for} the
> 199: * process to terminate. If interrupted while {@linkplain #waitFor()
> waiting}
You can link "interrupted" to Thread.interrupt, no need for the second linking
to waitFor as the first sentence establishes that the method waits and links to
waitFor.
src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Process.java line 205:
> 203: * any {@code IOExceptions} are thrown.
> 204: * <p>
> 205: * Try-with-resources example to write text to a process, read back
> the
`@apiNote` ?
src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Process.java line 216:
> 214: * The {@code outputWriter} and {@code outputStream} to the process
> are closed.
> 215: * The {@code inputReader} and {@code inputStream} from the process
> are closed.
> 216: * The {@code errorReader} and {@code errorStream} from the process
> are closed.
I mentioned this previously but you can collapse these 3 sentences into one. If
you want to specify the ordering (I don't it needs to) then it can say this, no
ordering is implied now.
-------------
PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26649#pullrequestreview-3406947587
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26649#discussion_r2483192427
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26649#discussion_r2483190247
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26649#discussion_r2483190680
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26649#discussion_r2483191329
