Hi Lin,
Thank you for double-checking it.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 9/1/20 20:26, linzang(臧琳) wrote:
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
