Hi Roger,
Okay we are back to where we were a couple of emails ago. :) Removing
everything after the p.destroy() seems fine to me.
Thanks,
David
On 29/10/2016 7:16 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi,
On 10/28/2016 4:59 PM, David Holmes wrote:
But this is the second waitFor call after the process
Hi,
On 10/28/2016 4:59 PM, David Holmes wrote:
But this is the second waitFor call after the process is destroyed.
Sorry I don't really see the point.
The tests were added to determine if waitFor(timeout) was
handling the
timeout parameter correctly.
The 2nd test here was to check the datapa
On 29/10/2016 5:39 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi,
On 10/28/2016 3:14 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 29/10/2016 3:48 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi David,
On 10/27/2016 9:00 PM, David Holmes wrote:
But this is the second waitFor call after the process is destroyed.
Sorry I don't really see the point.
The
Hi,
On 10/28/2016 3:14 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 29/10/2016 3:48 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi David,
On 10/27/2016 9:00 PM, David Holmes wrote:
But this is the second waitFor call after the process is destroyed.
Sorry I don't really see the point.
The tests were added to determine if waitFor(t
On 29/10/2016 3:48 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi David,
On 10/27/2016 9:00 PM, David Holmes wrote:
But this is the second waitFor call after the process is destroyed.
Sorry I don't really see the point.
The tests were added to determine if waitFor(timeout) was handling the
timeout parameter correc
Hi David,
On 10/27/2016 9:00 PM, David Holmes wrote:
But this is the second waitFor call after the process is destroyed.
Sorry I don't really see the point.
The tests were added to determine if waitFor(timeout) was handling the
timeout parameter correctly.
The 2nd test here was to check the dat
Hi Roger,
On 28/10/2016 10:46 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi David,
On 10/27/16 7:22 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 28/10/2016 6:58 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi David,
On 10/27/2016 4:51 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Won't that now cause the test to hang until timed-out by the harness?
yes, but an in-app
Hi David,
On 10/27/16 7:22 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 28/10/2016 6:58 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi David,
On 10/27/2016 4:51 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Won't that now cause the test to hang until timed-out by the harness?
yes, but an in-app timeout is not much different than the harness
timeout
On 28/10/2016 6:58 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi David,
On 10/27/2016 4:51 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 28/10/2016 3:12 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi David,
On 10/27/2016 12:57 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Roger,
On 28/10/2016 1:44 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Please review a test fix for a timeout on a bus
Hi David,
On 10/27/2016 4:51 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 28/10/2016 3:12 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi David,
On 10/27/2016 12:57 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Roger,
On 28/10/2016 1:44 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Please review a test fix for a timeout on a busy system in
Process.waitFor a destroyed pro
On 28/10/2016 3:12 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi David,
On 10/27/2016 12:57 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Roger,
On 28/10/2016 1:44 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Please review a test fix for a timeout on a busy system in
Process.waitFor a destroyed process.
Won't that now cause the test to hang until tim
Hi David,
On 10/27/2016 12:57 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Roger,
On 28/10/2016 1:44 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Please review a test fix for a timeout on a busy system in
Process.waitFor a destroyed process.
Won't that now cause the test to hang until timed-out by the harness?
yes, but an in-app
Hi Roger,
On 28/10/2016 1:44 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Please review a test fix for a timeout on a busy system in
Process.waitFor a destroyed process.
Won't that now cause the test to hang until timed-out by the harness?
David
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-basic-destroy-
13 matches
Mail list logo
