I was looking for the proper place to put the DRLVM properties description and...
http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/DrlvmCommandLineOptions (sorry I missed it from very beginning...) I'll prepare a patch for giving URL to this page from '-X' output, then HARMONY-3409 may be resloved, then I'll work on this Wiki Page updating (which will require a time)... Thanks Vladimir 2007/6/20, Gregory Shimansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Pavel Pervov wrote: > Why adding URL to -X? Help on -X should be printed with 'java -X'. BTW, > DRLVM does not print anything - launcher does not pass -X to DLRVM. Just as a reference to more VM internal related stuff since -X already prints VM specific options. I don't insist on putting an URL into -X help, just think it to be logical. > P.S. BTW, what I've proposed will solve this issue. > > On 6/20/07, Gregory Shimansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Pavel Pervov wrote: >> > Vladimir, >> > >> > 'java -X' usually prints out help on options, which start with -X. >> > >> > What you was asking about as I understood that has syntax of >> > -XX:<vm_option>[=<value>]. Sun's VM has help on these options on the >> Web >> > page and no means to print it out to console. >> > >> > So, I'm -1 here for printing help on -XX options. >> >> I agree that it is better to provide help on DRLVM internal properties >> on web site instead of printing it to console. We can also have a man >> page in the future which would include that text too. >> >> Adding an URL to help on -X is a good idea. >> >> > If community still decide to print such help - there is 4-th way to do >> so >> > (which will require changing.launcher). >> > 1) launcher recognizes several generic options and is able to determine >> > application class or jar name. >> > 2) if no -vmdir or -vmdll is specified on command line - launcher tries >> to >> > load that VM, otherwise defaults to <launcher >> location>/default/harmonyvm >> > and tryies to load this one. If it fails - it prints short help message >> as >> > it does right now, when launched with some unrecognizable property >> name. >> > 3) if library is loaded successfully - launcher constructs arguments >> array >> > (as it does right now) and calls to JNI_CreateJavaVM from loaded VM >> > library. >> > 4) if this call returns (-?, -h, -help and -X do not return from >> > JNI_CreateJavaVM) and if launcher finds class of jar name on the >> command >> > line - it proceeds with program startup. >> > >> > What do you think on such generic startup sequence? >> > >> > WBR, >> > Pavel. >> > >> > On 6/20/07, Vladimir Beliaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hello, All >> >> >> >> I want to add a *help *for drlvm specific system properties like '- >> >> Xvm.assert_dialog=false' (as asked in >> >> HARMONY-3409<http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3409> >> >> ). >> >> >> >> *Could you send your opinion on what way this can be done?* There are >> >> three >> >> safe ways to do this & non of them seems to be really good (please see >> >> technical details in >> >> HARMONY-3409<http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3409>). >> >> >> >> >> >> *way 1*: support 'java -Xhelp:prop foo' command line... Like if one >> runs >> >> 'java -X' then this help says "run '-Xhelp:prop foo' to see sytem >> >> properties"... In short: if one does not specify this 'foo' at the >> end, >> >> then >> >> a generic launcher consider command line as broken (no 'mainClass' is >> >> specified) & does not invoke JNI_CreateJavaVM (which print a help)... >> >> >> >> *way 2*: support 'java -Xhelp:prop' command line (i.e. w/o dummy >> >> 'foo')... >> >> To implement this the *generic* launcher is to be changed to recognize >> >> '-Xhelp:' as a 'help' option (like it recognizes ? -h -help -X now). >> >> Because >> >> of other VMs do not support such a '-Xhelp:' option we get >> >> *generic*launcher to be a bit drlvm-specific... >> >> >> >> *way 3*: be like other VMs and do not print a 'help for drlvm internal >> >> properties'. Instead, 'java -X' help output may provide a URL to >> >> harmony.apache.org html document explaining drlvm internal system >> >> properties... >> >> >> >> I would pick a *way 1* as it does not change *generic *launcher & we >> are >> >> free to do every thing we want with -X... I do not like *way 3* at all >> - >> >> it >> >> is not a big deal to create such a document, still it is one more >> >> document >> >> to be supported (I believe it may become out-of-date pretty in couple >> >> months)... >> >> >> >> So, what do you think? >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Thanks >> >> Vladimir Beliaev >> >> Intel Middleware Products Division >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Gregory >> >> > > -- Gregory
-- Vladimir Beliaev Intel Middleware Products Division
