David, Roger, Alan,
thank you for clarifying all this, and sorry for my confusion.
I found describing jdk.lang.Process.launcMechanism especially
problematic since to understand it one must understand the details of
fork/vfork plus know the details of the underlying implementation of
the libc.
Us
On 05/12/2018 11:02, David Holmes wrote:
:
That said this particular property doesn't seem to actually be
documented directly. No mention of it in the Process API that I can
see. It seems a semi-secret means of influencing the implementation.
So I can understand there can be some confusion he
On 5/12/2018 8:54 pm, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 05/12/2018 10:44, David Holmes wrote:
so IMHO for this issue the "specification" should simply be:
Update the allowed values of the jdk.lang.Process.launchMechanism
property on Linux to accept the value "posix_spawn", which will use
the posix_spa
On 05/12/2018 10:44, David Holmes wrote:
so IMHO for this issue the "specification" should simply be:
Update the allowed values of the jdk.lang.Process.launchMechanism
property on Linux to accept the value "posix_spawn", which will use
the posix_spawn() API. The default value of "vfork" rema
Hi Thomas,
Pardon the top-posting but ...
The launchMechanism property was introduced by the following issue:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-5049299
at the time there was no CSR process and it went through our internal
CCC process. The "specification" was as follows:
---
Specifica
Hi Roger,
thanks for all your help, I appreciate it.
I thought a while and got some fundamental doubts about the whole
process, see inline.
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 9:21 PM Roger Riggs wrote:
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On 11/30/2018 02:06 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> I updated the CSR accor
Hi Thomas,
On 11/30/2018 02:06 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
Hi Roger,
I updated the CSR according to your feedback. I'm a bit at a loss
about the specification though. How should I specify the behavior of
the API without describing the implementation?
What you wrote is fine. It does need to mention
Hi Roger,
I updated the CSR according to your feedback. I'm a bit at a loss
about the specification though. How should I specify the behavior of
the API without describing the implementation?
Also, since this patch only extends an existing implementation to
Linux, I would have thought there are t
Hi Thomas,
Looks pretty good.
Usually 'we' avoid the first person writing in the jira.
It makes them more readable in the long term, when there is no context
for 'we'.
- Describing it as 'experimental' gives the wrong impression
and has some magnified implications as that term is being used f
