On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 14:47:09 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
>> I think the test tool should not depend on the internal implementation, so I
>> think it should be kept.
>
> Its still unnecessary, adds bulk and maintenance overhead that will go unused.
I will leave it as is for now, as it is consistent
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 20:51:48 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> Proposing a new overload method for `Process#waitFor()` which takes a
>> `Duration` for the timeout value. This will reduce the possibility for
>> making mistakes with the `TimeUnit` in the other overload method. A
>> corresponding CSR has
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 21:50:31 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> The `ProcessTools` override is a delegating override; I think it still makes
>> sense and should be kept.
>
> I think the test tool should not depend on the internal implementation, so I
> think it should be kept.
Its still unnecessary, ad
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 20:51:48 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> Proposing a new overload method for `Process#waitFor()` which takes a
>> `Duration` for the timeout value. This will reduce the possibility for
>> making mistakes with the `TimeUnit` in the other overload method. A
>> corresponding CSR has
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 20:51:48 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> Proposing a new overload method for `Process#waitFor()` which takes a
>> `Duration` for the timeout value. This will reduce the possibility for
>> making mistakes with the `TimeUnit` in the other overload method. A
>> corresponding CSR has
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 23:02:53 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Process.java line 504:
>>
>>> 502: */
>>> 503: public boolean waitFor(Duration duration) throws
>>> InterruptedException {
>>> 504: Objects.requireNonNull(duration, "duration");
>>
>>
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 20:51:48 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> Proposing a new overload method for `Process#waitFor()` which takes a
>> `Duration` for the timeout value. This will reduce the possibility for
>> making mistakes with the `TimeUnit` in the other overload method. A
>> corresponding CSR has
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 22:57:59 GMT, Pavel Rappo wrote:
>> Naoto Sato has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> removed a blank line
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Process.java line 504:
>
>> 502: */
>> 503: publi
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 21:32:31 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Process.java line 505:
>>
>>> 503: public boolean waitFor(Duration duration) throws
>>> InterruptedException {
>>> 504: Objects.requireNonNull(duration, "duration");
>>> 505: return
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 21:27:35 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
>> Naoto Sato has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> removed a blank line
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Process.java line 505:
>
>> 503: public boolean waitFo
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 20:51:48 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> Proposing a new overload method for `Process#waitFor()` which takes a
>> `Duration` for the timeout value. This will reduce the possibility for
>> making mistakes with the `TimeUnit` in the other overload method. A
>> corresponding CSR has
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 05:11:12 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Naoto Sato has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> ProcessTools overriding one-arg waitFor()
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Process.java line 501:
>
>> 499:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 21:42:15 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> This method needs to be overridden in
>> `test/lib/jdk/test/lib/process/ProcessTools.java` to call
>> `ProcessTools.ProcessImpl::waitForStreams`.
>
> I don't think current `ProcessTools.startProcess()` even calls `waitFor(long,
> TimeUnit)
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 20:51:48 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> Proposing a new overload method for `Process#waitFor()` which takes a
>> `Duration` for the timeout value. This will reduce the possibility for
>> making mistakes with the `TimeUnit` in the other overload method. A
>> corresponding CSR has
> Proposing a new overload method for `Process#waitFor()` which takes a
> `Duration` for the timeout value. This will reduce the possibility for making
> mistakes with the `TimeUnit` in the other overload method. A corresponding
> CSR has also been drafted.
Naoto Sato has updated the pull reque
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 19:07:18 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
>> Naoto Sato has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Addressing review comments
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Process.java line 504:
>
>> 502: return
> Proposing a new overload method for `Process#waitFor()` which takes a
> `Duration` for the timeout value. This will reduce the possibility for making
> mistakes with the `TimeUnit` in the other overload method. A corresponding
> CSR has also been drafted.
Naoto Sato has updated the pull reque
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 18:16:48 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> Proposing a new overload method for `Process#waitFor()` which takes a
>> `Duration` for the timeout value. This will reduce the possibility for
>> making mistakes with the `TimeUnit` in the other overload method. A
>> corresponding CSR has
> Proposing a new overload method for `Process#waitFor()` which takes a
> `Duration` for the timeout value. This will reduce the possibility for making
> mistakes with the `TimeUnit` in the other overload method. A corresponding
> CSR has also been drafted.
Naoto Sato has updated the pull reque
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 06:22:25 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> I am planning to add `@implSpec` with a separate issue:
>> [JDK-8336679](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8336679)
>
> Okay, just a bit strange to add waitFor(Duration) here and then follow-up
> immediately to change it to move the tex
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 21:42:17 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> It will be addressed by https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8336679
>
> I am planning to add `@implSpec` with a separate issue:
> [JDK-8336679](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8336679)
Okay, just a bit strange to add waitFor(Duration) h
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 21:41:16 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> Proposing a new overload method for `Process#waitFor()` which takes a
>> `Duration` for the timeout value. This will reduce the possibility for
>> making mistakes with the `TimeUnit` in the other overload method. A
>> corresponding CSR has
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 21:41:16 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> Proposing a new overload method for `Process#waitFor()` which takes a
>> `Duration` for the timeout value. This will reduce the possibility for
>> making mistakes with the `TimeUnit` in the other overload method. A
>> corresponding CSR has
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 21:41:16 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> Proposing a new overload method for `Process#waitFor()` which takes a
>> `Duration` for the timeout value. This will reduce the possibility for
>> making mistakes with the `TimeUnit` in the other overload method. A
>> corresponding CSR has
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 20:00:18 GMT, ExE Boss wrote:
>>> waitFor can be overridden by pre-24 subclasses to provide a better
>>> implementation while ...
>>
>> It doesn't really make sense to extend Process, except maybe for mocking or
>> other testing. Process is really for JDK implementations, i
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 21:39:39 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Process.java line 481:
>>
>>> 479: * this method returns immediately with the value {@code false}.
>>> 480: *
>>> 481: * The default implementation of this method polls the {@code
>>> exi
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 18:28:10 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Naoto Sato has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> ProcessTools overriding one-arg waitFor()
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Process.java line 481:
>
>> 479:
> Proposing a new overload method for `Process#waitFor()` which takes a
> `Duration` for the timeout value. This will reduce the possibility for making
> mistakes with the `TimeUnit` in the other overload method. A corresponding
> CSR has also been drafted.
Naoto Sato has updated the pull reque
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 18:31:32 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Process.java line 504:
>>
>>> 502: return false;
>>> 503:
>>> 504: return waitForNanos(TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS.convert(duration));
>>
>> `waitFor` can be overridden by pre-24 subclas
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 17:51:52 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
> waitFor can be overridden by pre-24 subclasses to provide a better
> implementation while ...
It doesn't really make sense to extend Process, except maybe for mocking or
other testing. Process is really for JDK implementations, it's just hi
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 17:36:29 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
> Proposing a new overload method for `Process#waitFor()` which takes a
> `Duration` for the timeout value. This will reduce the possibility for making
> mistakes with the `TimeUnit` in the other overload method. A corresponding
> CSR has als
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 17:36:29 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
> Proposing a new overload method for `Process#waitFor()` which takes a
> `Duration` for the timeout value. This will reduce the possibility for making
> mistakes with the `TimeUnit` in the other overload method. A corresponding
> CSR has als
Proposing a new overload method for `Process#waitFor()` which takes a
`Duration` for the timeout value. This will reduce the possibility for making
mistakes with the `TimeUnit` in the other overload method. A corresponding CSR
has also been drafted.
-
Commit messages:
- initial co
33 matches
Mail list logo
