I've just done some bug cleanup here. I've altered the synopsis of
4244896 to:
Provide Process.waitFor(timeout), Process.destroyForcibly() and
Process.isAlive()
and I've created:
8003488: (process) Provide Process.getPid()
8003490: (process) Provide System.getPid()
For some reason Process bugs/feature requests always appear to come in
pairs. I've closed a few other bugs as dups of these issues. (half may
be fixed by one issue, the other half may apply to the new bugs) In
general we should keep these requests as granular as possible to avoid
the current situation.
-Rob
On 15/11/12 14:51, Jim Gish wrote:
I got a start on this back in September (
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jgish/pidstuff/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejgish/pidstuff/>), but as Alan
indicated, it's not as easy as all this. I haven't gotten back to it,
but it is on our radar.
Thanks,
Jim
On 11/15/2012 07:26 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
I was half-planning on implementing getPid back in 2008 but ran out
of time.
My intent was to have the pid simply be a String, even though on common
platforms an int would suffice, leaving enough room for unusual
implementations to get what they want.
Essentially, return in String form what humans would use to identify
processes on the machine, which might be e.g. "NODENAME:NNN" on a
cluster.
Martin
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Alan Bateman
<alan.bate...@oracle.com>wrote:
On 15/11/2012 01:11, Rob McKenna wrote:
Hi Thomas,
Don't ask me why, but for some reason this mail just landed in my
client
now. (this happens a lot on this mailing list for some reason)
getPid() is still on the todo list at the moment. Once I clear my
plate a
little I'll follow up on it.
-Rob
I just received too, and dozens of other mails so there must have
been a
blockage somewhere.
I think the issue with 4244896 is just that you didn't change the
synopsis
to reflect what the changes were actually about. It would be good to
link
it to the bug suggesting a getPid equivalent. You probably know this
but a
getPid and perhaps a getCurrentPid requires great care. We cannot
assume
that it can be represented by an int or long, it needs to allow for
environment that might not have the notion of process as we know it,
also
needs consideration of environment where they may be several VMs
running in
the same process. So lots of wriggle room in the spec, otherwise it
will
not be implementable everywhere.
-Alan
