Hi Serguei,
Thanks for your reminder!
Yes, just checked we have discussed that before. I will close the bug.
BRs,
Lin
> On Sep 2, 2020, at 11:22 AM, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Lin,
>
> I agree with David.
> If I remember correctly, we already discussed this in the CSR for parallel
> flag and decided it should not be accepted without a value.
>
> Thanks,
> Serguei
>
>
>> On 9/1/20 16:51, David Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Lin,
>>
>>> On 1/09/2020 7:06 pm, linzang(臧琳) wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Please help review this small change about jmap -histo:parallel
>>>
>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8252629
>>>
>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lzang/8252629/webrev.00/
>>>
>>> The problem is that "jmap -histo:parallel" command prompt error
>>> message "Fail: invalid option: 'parallel'.". Because "parallel=<N>" option
>>> is supported by specification, and "parallel=0" is defined as the default
>>> behavior. it is better to make "jmap -histo:parallel" behave same as the
>>> "jmap -histo:parallel=0". Please see description in the bug for more
>>> details.
>>
>> I don't agree that this is desirable. Is there any precedent for accepting a
>> flag this way and have it mean "use the default"? To me this is a user error
>> indicating that they don't understand what the parallel flag means.
>>
>> David
>> -----
>>
>>> Moreover, does a CSR required for this issue? IMHO, it may not be
>>> necessary as specification already mention "parallel=0" is the default
>>> behavior. But it doesn't describe the exact behavior of "parallel without
>>> any specified value", may I ask your opinion about the CSR?
>>>
>>>
>>> BRs,
>>>
>>> Lin
>>>
>>>
>
>
