Thanks for the comments. I have updated the review with both.
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sla/8039173/webrev.05/
I do not actually have any Reviewers for this change. Anyone willing to take it
on is much appreciated.
Thanks,
/Staffan
On 29 apr 2014, at 15:22, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 16/04/2014 10:21, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>> On 14 apr 2014, at 17:17, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> :
>>> For someone looking at the Virtualmachine API then I don't think the
>>> javadoc is clear enough to understand when one might get the specific
>>> AttachOperationFailedException vs. the more general IOException. I think it
>>> means that there was communication with the target VM but that the
>>> operation failed for some reason but I don't think this will be obvious to
>>> the reader.
>> I have tried to clarify the wording in the javadoc. Suggestions for
>> improvements are welcome.
> Sorry for the delay, I was on away for a few days and just catching up with
> this again.
>
> The updated descriptions looks much better. For IOException then it might be
> better to have a bit of wriggle room to allow for other I/O errors that might
> not be communication related. So maybe something like "If an I/O error
> occurs, a communication error for example, that cannot be identified as an
> error to indicate that the operation failed in the target VM".
>
>> :
>>> For the new exception then it would be good to add @since and also a
>>> copyright header.
>> Fixed.
>>
> Thanks, a formatting nit at L42, I assume that the "{" will fit at the end of
> line 41.
>
> I don't have cycles at the moment to go through the implementation changes
> but I think you have other reviewers for that.
>
> -Alan.
>
>
