On 25/03/2014 09:50, Peter Levart wrote:
:
It would just require the API specification to strengthen it's
guarantees on some methods: for example destroyForcibly() would
guarantee forcible termination. It might require an additional method
like destroyNicely() or terminateNicely() which would guarantee a kind
of termination where victim process could clean-up.
This is something that has been looked a few times. When we added
destroyForcibly then we had to allow for the possibility that it might
not be immediate so this is the reason for the current wording in the
javadoc. It's not too bad when used with the timed waitFor. I had hoped
we would also add a destroyGracefully but we didn't come up with a good
solution on Windows at the time.
:
The worst thing is to have an entirely separate API that does not
interoperate with old API. I think the old API is not so bad. It just
lacks some features and it's implementation could be revamped a bit.
I agree but I know that Roger has been trying out a few API approaches
with a view to coming up with a nice solution.
-Alan.
