On Apr 15 2013, at 15:42 , David Holmes wrote: > On 16/04/2013 2:25 AM, Mike Duigou wrote: >> What's the difference between removing an entry completely and retaining it >> with "ERROR"? > > Just the nature of the error message: > > > java -green > Error: green VM not supported > > java -blue > Unrecognized option: -blue > Error: Could not create the Java Virtual Machine. > Error: A fatal exception has occurred. Program will exit. > > I wasn't touching any of the legacy stuff - though if this needs to go to CCC > I would suggest removing all the legacy entries.
OK. > >> Additionally I don't like that aliases have differing definitions and some >> confusing ones like "-server ALIASED_TO -client". Is this necessary or just >> historically convenient? > > I don't like aliases period! Historically (and this is very recent history) > it was necessary to deal with the test suites being applied to a JDK with, > eg, only client VM. Every test that specified -server would fail if the alias > didn't exist (and as I stated we're moving away from that ie the tests don't > set -client or -server but the complete test suite run does, and it knows > what VM is under test. > > Personally I'd probably choose WARN for any VM not present. > > The problem is that the "right" thing depends on who is building what, and > how they plan to use it. All I can do is define a not-unreasonable default > policy. I also have a time constraint as I need to get this in before the > 23rd to meet an internal deadline. Understood. Mike
